GUERRERO vs.

TERAN
GR No. L-4898 March 19, 1909

FACTS:
Plaintiff Salvador Guerrero, guardian of the minors Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen Sanchez
Muñoz, commenced an action against defendant Teran to recover the sum of P4,129.56 and costs. The
amount was claimed upon the theory that defendant Teran 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. The
lower court found that Teran, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz, 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. 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--NO

HELD:
No. Former appointed administrator Teran is NOT liable for the loss that occurred from 1902 to
1906. Leopoldo Teran was responsible to the plaintiff for the fruits and profits resulting from their interests
in the estate of the said Antonio Sanchez Muñoz only from 1901-1902. 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 legal guardian under
the law and the administratix of the property of their estate. Moreover, it was not shown from the records
that the amount claimed by the plaintiff were due as a result of the management of the estate during the
time of administration (1901-1902) by Teran, except the sum of P188.39, admitted to be due by the
defendant Teran.