Anda di halaman 1dari 4

SALVACION LOPEZ vs. JOSE TEODORO, SR EULALIO LOPEZ, JR., and JESUS JALBUENA G.R. No. L-3071.

May 29, 1950 FACTS: Eulalio Lopez Sr., an incapacitated under the judicial guardianship of Eulalio Lopez Jr. was the exclusive and absolute owner of a 100-hectare land in Silay, Negros Occidental. Acting upon the motions filed in the proceedings for guardianship, the court ordered the guardian to pay the movants the loans properly authorized by the court for the support and maintenance of the incapacitated. In pursuance of this authority, the guardian sold the only property of the incapacitated to Jesus Jalbuena. However, in authorizing the said sale, the court did not follow the requirement of Sec. 2 of Rule 96 that the court shall direct the next of kin of the ward, and all persons interested in the estate, to appear at a reasonable time and place to show cause why the prayer for the sale should not be granted. Although Lopez Jr. was the judicial guardian, the incapacitated was and is under the actual care and custody of his sister, Salvacion Lopez. Believing the sale is prejudicial to her brothers interest, Salvacion filed a petition for certiorari/mandamus praying that the sale be revoked after the motion for recon was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the property should be declared null and void. RULING: The guardianship court where the proceeding was pending had the jurisdiction to order the questioned sale. It was also undisputed that the outstanding indebtedness of the guardianship was property and legally incurred for the support and maintenance of the incapacitated. Petitioner has no legal interest in the complaint. The incapacitated has children, all of age, one of whom is the judicial guardian, while the petitioner is only the wards sister. Not being the wards forced heir, she was not prejudiced by the sale she seeks to impugn. Petitioner is wrong in asserting that she is next of kin. Next of Kin within the meaning of Rule 96 are relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributes. VICENTE G. SINCO, PILAR G. SINCO vs. AGAPITO LONGA and AGUEDA LONGA. G.R. No. 27962. February 14, 1928 FACTS: Hacienda Rosario was originally owned by Don Rafael Sinco y Librado, the plaintiffs great grandfather, from whom it is passed to his son Escolastic Sinco who died during the Spanish regime. The latter left a

widow, Saturnina Lopez and 3 children, Sergio, Maria Paz and Coloma all surnamed Sinco. Of these, Sergio and Maria Paz are still living, but Coloma died leaving 3 children who are the plaintiffs in this case, namely Vicente, Pilar and Desemparados. The estate of Escolastico appears to have been encumbered with debts and in order to liquidate this indebtedness, the widow and three children leased the property. The lease was continually extended until Saturnina died in 1904. After the death of the mother, Sergio was hard pressed for money to sustain numerous family and sold his undivided 1/3 share in the hacienda. The buyer, Longa insisted in acquiring the whole property and subsequently the 1/3 share of Maria Paz was included in the sale. In order to accomplish the said end, Emilio Tevez, the guardian of the then minor plaintiffs petitioned for the approval of the sale alleging that the estate was heavily encumbered and that the minors had no cash assets to meet their subsistence and education. Subsequently, the court issued its order authorizing the guardian to make the sale as requested. After the minors attained majority age, they instituted this petition seeking to annul the said sale pertaining to their 1/3 undivided interest in the hacienda alleging that the subject sale was attended with fraud. Emilio Tevez, the guardian, was anxious for the sale to obtain money for his own uses. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale should be annulled. RULING: In passing upon controversies involving charges of fraud alleged to have been committed many years before the litigation was begun, the proof of such fraud, to be accepted by the court, should be full and convincing. Experience teaches the danger of lightly accepting charges of fraud made many years after the transaction which is the subject of question was accomplished, when death may have sealed the lips of the principal actors and changes affected by time may have given a totally different color to the questioned transaction. In this case, the participants to the alleged fraud such as the guardian Emilio Tevez, were already dead. As to the irregularity in the guardianship proceedings, the jurisdiction of the court to authorize the sale of the property of minors rests upon the averments of the petition and adequate publication or appearance of the parties interested. The fact that the statements of the petition may be untrue with respect to the existence of encumbrances on the property and necessity of the sale, does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, which rests upon the averments and not upon the truth of those averments. J. ANTONIO ARANETA vs. ANTONIO PEREZ G.R. No. L-18872 July 15, 1966

FACTS: A trust was established pursuant to the will of the late Angela S. Tuason. J. Antonio Araneta was appointed trustee and he qualified when he took his oath of office. The beneficiaries of the trust are Benigno, Angela and Antonio, all surnamed Perez y Tuason, the last two being represented by appellant Antonio Perez, who is their father and judicial guardian. In the order appealed from the lower court approved, upon petition of the trustee, a deed of donation executed by him in favor of the City of Manila covering a lot pertaining to the trusteeship. Such approval was given over the opposition of appellant Antonio Perez. On the lot in question the trustee had been paying an annual realty tax. Appellant does not deny the beneficial aspects of the donation. But he maintains that it is invalid on the ground that under Article 736 of the Civil Code "guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to them". ISSUE: Whether guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to them. RULING: In this case, the guardian may donate the properties entrusted to him. Although Article 736, New Civil Code provides that, "guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to them", the same cannot be applied considering that the aforecited provision only took effect on August 30, 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) and does not apply retroactively to the testamentary trust established upon the death of Angela S. Tuason on March 20, 1948. There being nothing in the old Civil Code which prohibits a trustee from donating properties under trusteeship, and considering that the powers given to herein appellee as trustee are of a plenary character, subject only to the limitation that they should be permissible under the law; considering further that when the testatrix conferred such powers she must have had in mind the law that was in force at the time; and considering finally that after all a trust is created for the benefit of the cestuis que trust and that in this particular case the acts of the trustee are subject to the supervision of the Court. CRISANTO RAFAELITO G. GUALBERTO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOYCELYN D. PABLO-GUALBERTO G.R. No. 156254 June 28, 2005 FACTS: Crisanto Rafaelito G. Gualberto filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Joycelyn D. Pablo Gualberto, with an ancillary prayer for custody pendente lite of their almost 4-year-old son, minor Rafaello. The father argues that she is "unfit" to take care of their son; hence, for "compelling reasons," he must beawarded custody of the child. Crisanto cites immorality due to alleged lesbian relations as the

compelling reason to deprive Joycelyn of custody. It has indeed been held that under certain circumstances, the mothers immoral conduct may constitute a compelling reason to deprive her of custody. ISSUE : Whether or not Crisanto has the right for custody of his minor child. RULING: No. As a general rule, a mother is to be preferred in awarding custody of children under the age of seven. The so-called "tender-age presumption" under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mothers unfitness. The mother has been declared unsuitable to have custody of her children in one or more of the following instances: neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity or affliction with a communicable disease. But sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.In this case, not even the fact that a mother is a prostitute or has been unfaithful toher husband would render her unfit to have custody of her minor child. To deprivethe wife of custody, the husband must clearly establish that her moral lapses havehad an adverse effect on the welfare of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from exercising proper parental care. It is therefore not enough for Crisantoto show merely that Joycelyn was a lesbian. He must also demonstrate that shecarried on her purported relationship with a person of the same sex in the presenceof their son or under circumstances not conducive to the childs proper moraldevelopment. Such a fact has not been shown here. There is no evidence that theson was exposed to the mothers alleged sexual proclivities or that his proper moraland psychological development suffered as a result.