Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

On the 18th day of March, 1908, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to recover the sum of P4,129.56 and costs. This amount was claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant upon the theory that the defendant had been the administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Muñoz from the 1st day of September, 1901, until the 22d day of October, 1906.                   

​

After hearing the evidences adduced during the trial  of the said case, the lower court found that Teran, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanche zMunoz, owed to Guerrero the sum of P3,447.46 with interest at 6% until the same should be fully paid.

​

Teran appealed the decision and alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that he managed and administered the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz as judicial administrator and executor.. Moreover, he denied being responsible to Guerrero for the loans made to different persons for different accounts and for credits against the persons mentioned in the complaint.

​

Upon examination of records, it was discovered that: Teran was in fact appointed administrator of the subject estate in 1901 and entered into a bond in the sum of 10,000 dollars, gold, for the faithful performance of his duties as such representative of the estate of Muñoz.

​

However, in 1902, the Court of First Instance of Albay appointed Maria Munoz Gomez (Munoz-Gomez) as guardian of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez-Munoz and that Munoz-Gomez gave the required bond for the faithful performance of her duties as guardian.

​

While there are indications in the record that Teran continued to act as administrator of the estate after appointment of Munoz-Gomez, the fact exists that the latter was the actual representative of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez Munoz in the administration of their interests in the estate of the said Antonio Sanchez Munoz.

​

Therefore, Munoz-Gomez, as guardian and administratix of the estate of the said minors, must be held responsible of the property belonging to the said minors during the period she was their actual guardian.

​

However,  in 1906, the CFI of Albay removed Munoz-Gomez as guardian since she was not a resident of the Philippine Islands at the time of her appointment.

​

The court then removed her as guardian and appointed Feliz Samson as provisional guardian with the required bond of P2,000.00.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the minors’ estate, is liable for all the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to October 1906 when Munoz-Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator.

 

HELD:

The Court ruled that Teran is NOT LIABLE. If any loss occurred to herein Petitioner from March 1902 to October 1906, the period wherein Munoz-Gomez was appointed administrator, he has a right of action only against Munoz-Gomez as the appointed administrator,  as the appointed legal guardian under the law and the administratix of the property of the estate.

​

The bond of the guardian is continuing one against the obligors and their estates until all of its conditions are fulfilled. The mere fact that defendant was removed as guardian did not relieve her or her bondsmen from liability during the time she was duly acting as such guardian.