GUERRERO vs TERAN

FACTS

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 September, 1901, October 1906. In an answer to the said complaint, the defendant
admitted certain allegations and denied others. He admitted owing the plaintiff but only to the extent of the period when
he was appointed as administrator of the estate from September 1901 until March 1902. Doña Maria Muñoz y Gomez,
a non-resident of the Philippines, being the administrator from March 1902 until October 1906. The trial court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant appealed to the CA.

ISSUE

WON Teran administered the estate from 1901-1906 disregarding the appointment of a non-resident of the Philippines
from 1902-1906

HELD

No. There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians.
However, notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon this question, the courts, charged with
the responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in
complying with this duty by appointing administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as
administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here. Hence, the defendant
should only be responsible for the amount from 1901-1902.

VANCIL vs BELMES

FACTS

The RTC appointed Bonifacia Vancil, an American citizen, as legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate
of Valerie and Vincent, the children of her deceased son Reeder. Helen Belmes, the natural mother of the minor
children, instituted a motion for removal of Guardianship and Appointment of Vancil, asserting that she is the natural
mother in custody of and exercising parental authority over the subject minors. Trial court rejected Belmes'petition. The
CA reversed the RTC order. Since Valerie had reached the age of majority at the time the case reached the SC, the
Court resolves to determine who between the mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his guardian.

ISSUE

WON Helen Belmes is the one entitled for the guardianship over Vincent

HELD

YES. The SC held that respondent, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of petitioner
to be his guardian and has natural and legal right to his custody. This ruling finds support in Article 211 of the Family
Code. Vancil, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental authority only in case of death, absence
or unsuitability of Belmes. Considering that Belmes is still alive and has exercised continuously parental authority over
Vincent, Vancil has to prove Belmes' unsuitability. Assuming that Belmes is unfit as a guardian of Vincent, still Vancil
cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. She admitted in her petition that an expatriate like her will find difficulty of
discharging the duties of a guardian. As the Court held in Guerrero vs Teran, the courts should not appoint persons as
guardians who are not within the jurisdiction of the courts as they will find it difficult to protect the wards.
GARCIA VDA DE CHUA vs CA

FACTS

During his lifetime, Roberto Lim Chua lived out of wedlock with private respondent Florita A. Vallejo from 1970 up to
1981. Out of this union, the couple begot two illegitimate children. He died intestate in Davao City. Private respondent
then filed with the RTC of Cotabato City a Petition for Declaration of Heirship, Guardianship and Issuance of Letters of
Administration over the 2 illegitimate children. The trial court then issued an Order appointing Florita Vallejo as guardian
over the persons and properties of the two minor children. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion that the letters of
administration issued to Vallejo be recalled because the petition is just one of guardianship and not the issuance of
letters of administration. Motion was denied. Petitioner appealed to the CA which the latter ruled that the original petition
is unmistakably for a twin purpose: (1) guardianship; and (2) issuance of letters of administration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

WON the original petition was for a twin purpose to wit, for guardianship and issuance of letters of administration

HELD

YES. The title alone of the original petition clearly shows that the petition is one which includes the issuance of letters
of administration, PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIPS, GUARDIANSHIP OVER THE PERSON AND
PROPERTIES OF MINORS ROBERTO ALONZO AND RUDYARD ALONZO, all surnamed CHUA and ISSUANCE OF
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. It also contains the jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the issuance of letters
of administration pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court. All told the original petition alleged substantially
all the facts required to be stated in the petition for letters of administration.