Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > October 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1403 October 27, 1905 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JUANA MORENO

005 Phil 172:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1403. October 27, 1905. ]

JOSE E. ALEMANY AND ANDREA ATAYDE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JUANA MORENO, Defendant-Appellee.

Ledesma, Sumulong & Quintos, for Appellants.

Antonio V. Herrero, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. GUARDIANS; REMOVAL. — A guardian can not be legally removed from office except for the causes enumerated in section 574 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


On the 2d day of April, 1903, the appellants in this case brought an action against the defendant, Juana Moreno, the mother, guardian, and administratrix of the minor children Leandro Gruet and Maria de la Paz Gruet, asking that she be removed from office on the ground that she was physically incapable of discharging the duties of her trust and that Andrea Atayde and Jose Alemany, as their nearest relatives, be appointed in her place as guardian and administrator, respectively, of said children and their estate.

By an order entered on the 6th day of April of the same year, the court removed the said Juana Moreno from her said office, and appointed Andrea Atayde guardian of the said minors and Jose Alemany administrator of their property, said appointments to take effect upon the filing of a sufficient bond in the amount of 25,000 pesos, Mexican. The reason given by the court in the said order for the removal of Juana Moreno was that on account of her ill health she was incapable of continuing to discharge the duties of her said office as guardian of the said minors and administratrix of their property.

The bond required by the court having been filed on the 7th of April, the necessary appointments were issued to the said Andrea Atayde and Jose Alemany, as directed in the order of the court dated the day before.

On the 7th of April Juana Moreno died, and it was therefore impossible for the sheriff to serve upon her on that date the order requiring her to appear in this action.

On motion by attorney Herrero, on behalf of the estate of the said Juana Moreno, an order was made and entered on the same date, to wit, the 7th of April setting aside the order of the court entered the day before, whereby plaintiffs in this action were appointed guardian and administrator, respectively, of the said children and their estate, and ordering them to appear on the 14th of the said month and show cause why their appointments therefore issued should not be vacated.

After hearing the parties, the judge rendered a decision on the 16th of April vacating the appointments made in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered the bond filed by Jose Alemany canceled, and thereupon appointed Carlos Rastrollo and Miguel Velasco guardian and administrator, respectively, pending the probate of the will of Juana Moreno. From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this court.

The legal effect of the order appealed from has already been determined by a decision of this court rendered on the 31st of October, 1903, in the case of Jose E. Alemany Et. Al. vs John C. Sweeney, 1 which was an action for mandamus to compel the said judge to allow an appeal in this case. It was therein decided that the said order "vacating the said appointment (in favor of the appellants) should be considered as a judicial order removing them from office," and it must be so considered because the appointments had already taken effect, the bond required by the court had been filed, and the appointments had been actually issued in due form. The guardianship of the minors had been, as a matter of fact and law, conferred upon the appellants, and the setting aside of such appointments (it matters not for what reason) was practically equivalent to a removal from their respective offices. The terms of the order appealed from can not alter the fact that the appellants in this case were actually removed from office. Such was undoubtedly the immediate effect of the order, and it should be considered an order removing them from office.

Section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Removal and resignation of guardian. — When a guardian, appointed either by the testator or a court or judge, becomes insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, or failed for thirty days to render an account or make a return, the judge or court may, upon such notice to the guardian as the judge or court may require, remove him, and compel him to surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library

Such are the causes for which a guardian may be legally removed. None of those enumerated in the above section existed for the removal of these appellants. The order appealed from is not based upon any of the grounds of removal contained in said section, and it does not appear from the bill of exceptions before us that either of the appellants came within the provisions of the said section. Therefore, their removal was absolutely unwarranted, and the vacating of their respective appointments, in so far as it tended to cause their removal as a necessary and immediate effect, is unjust and illegal, and can not be sustained under the law.

Neither the death of Juana Moreno nor the will left by her could have justified the court in vacating the appointments made in favor of the appellants, as the said court seems to have believed, judging from certain statements contained in the order appealed from. In regard to this point the following was said by this court in its judgment of the 31st of October, 1903, above cited:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If it (the death of the guardian Juana Moreno) preceded that appointment (of the appellants) the question of her removal disappeared, the guardianship became vacant, and the court had a right to fill it. If it followed the appointment, she had a right to appeal from the order removing her. But this right terminated with her death."cralaw virtua1aw library

The order appealed from is reversed, and the appointments made in favor of Andrea Atayde and Jose E. Alemany, as guardian and administrator, respectively, of the said minors Leandro Gruet and Mario de la Paz Gruet, and their estate, are hereby held to be valid and in full force and effect, in accordance with the order entered by the trial court on the 6th of April, 1903; and it is ordered and adjudged that they be given possession of the said offices upon filing a bond in the sum of P25,000, as required in said order, without costs. After the expiration of ten days from the date hereof let judgment be entered accordingly and the case remanded to the trial court for execution thereof. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Willard, J., did not sit in this case.

Endnotes:



1. 2 Phil. Rep., 654.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2123 October 3, 1905 - VICENTA NERY LIM-CHINGCO v. CRISANTA TERARIRAY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2124 October 7, 1905 - SIMEON DU-YUNGCO v. MACARIO BARRERA

    005 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 2137 October 9, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALUYUT

    005 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1273 October 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO VARGAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 1700 October 12, 1905 - MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA v. JOSE GARRIDO

    005 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1962 October 12, 1905 - JOSE PINEDA, ET AL. v. GABINO GASATAYA

    005 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2054 October 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS BUNAGAN

    005 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 2091 October 18, 1905 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. SEBASTIAN VICTOR MOLINA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 2238 October 19, 1905 - LEONCIA LIUANAG v. YU-SON-QUIAN

    005 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 2284 October 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PARAISO

    005 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 2631 November 18, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 2631 October 21, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 1847 October 23, 1905 - VIDAL CAUSIN v. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM

    005 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 2536 October 23, 1905 - SILVINA LEGASPI v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 1442 October 24, 1905 - JOSE REGALADO v. MARIA GONZAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 1750 October 26, 1905 - GUILLERMO BAXTER, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO ZUAZUA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1923 October 26, 1905 - IGNACIO DE ICAZA, ET AL. v. MATEO O. PEREZ

    005 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 2346 October 26, 1905 - ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1403 October 27, 1905 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JUANA MORENO

    005 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2599 October 27, 1905 - CARMEN P. LINART v. MARIA JUANA I. UGARTE

    005 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 2651 October 27, 1905 - MACARIO CASTRO v. CARMEN CASTRO

    005 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 1595 October 28, 1905 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    005 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 2353 October 28, 1905 - ZOILO GARCIA VASQUEZ v. P.B. FLORENCE

    005 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 2945 October 28, 1905 - B.H. MACKE, ET AL. v. JOSE CAMPS

    005 Phil 185