December 1929 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > December 1929 Decisions >
G.R. No. 31316 December 28, 1929 - LIM CHU LAN v. LIM CHU KUN
054 Phil 190:
054 Phil 190:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 31316. December 28, 1929.]
Guardianship of the minors Lim Chu Hiong Et. Al. LIM CHU LAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. LIM CHU KUN, guardian-appellant.
Camus & Delgado and Juan T. Santos, for Appellant.
Paredes & Buencamino and Jesus G. Barrera, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. GUARDIAN AND WARD; BROTHER SUPERSEDED BY HUSBAND OF MINOR WOMAN. — Where a minor girl, whose property has been under the guardianship of a brother, marries, the court in charge of the guardianship has jurisdiction to remove the brother and appoint the husband as guardian. In the instant case the court refused to disturb such an order, where the husband was found to be a suitable person to fill the office of guardian and it appeared that the brother, though in charge of a large estate, had paid nothing for the support of his ward from the date of the marriage until after the appealed order was made.
D E C I S I O N
STREET, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila removing the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, from the position of guardian of the minor, Lim Chu Lan and appointing in his stead one Chin Chong Gui, husband of Lim Chu Lan.
It appears that the minor, Lim Chu Lan, is now over 20 years of age and the wife of Chin Chong Gui, to whom she was married on December 26, 1927. The motion with which we are here concerned was filed by Lim Chu Lan on October 31, 1928, and it is therein stated that the estate of the minor is in the hands of the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, a brother of Lim Chu Lan, in the character of guardian. It is also shown that, from the reports of the guardian, approved by the court, the value of the estate of the petitioner ending with the year 1927 was in the amount of P333,496.04 and that from January, 1922, to December, 1927, the annual average income of the petitioner’s property has been more than P15,000. In the month of December, 1927, the petitioner contracted marriage with Chin Chong Gui; and it appears that, since that date, the guardian, Lim Chu Kun, has supplied no maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore asks that her guardian be required to supply maintenance in the amount of P500 per month and that he be substituted in the guardianship by the petitioner’s husband, Chin Chong Gui.
The facts stated in the petition are not controverted, but opposition is made by the guardian on the ground that no sufficient ground has been shown for removing him, and in particular that none of the reasons specified in section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to the removal of guardians has been shown to exist. From this it is argued that the substitution, or removal, of the guardian cannot be effected.
We have no hesitancy in declaring that the order appealed from was a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Court of First Instance in such matters, since it is clear that in the language of section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant had shown himself to be unsuitable for the position of guardian of the petitioner. The fact of marriage alone introduces a change in the conditions of guardianship over a minor woman, and although the marriage of a girl who is under guardianship does not ipso facto abolish the guardianship over the property, it does terminate the guardianship over the person (sec. 575, Code of Civ. Proc.) . Moreover, the existence of a guardianship over the estate of a married woman in other hands than those of the husband is in certain respects undesirable, since the husband is legally entitled to the management of conjugal property, and the earnings of the paraphernal property of the wife constitute community property. Therefore, if the husband is found to be a suitable person, he is the proper individual to fill the office. In the case before us it is not shown that the husband is unfit for the office to which he was appointed by the trial court.
We note that, after the appealed order was made, the appellant entered into an agreement with the representatives of Lim Chu Lan to pay her P500 a month for maintenance, but this was done grudgingly; and it is insisted here that the amount which the appellant is thus paying is too much. We are of the opinion that the sum of P500 per month is not improper for a person having the standing of the petitioner in the community, in view of the size of the capital of her estate and its earning capacity.
The order appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the Appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., dissent.
It appears that the minor, Lim Chu Lan, is now over 20 years of age and the wife of Chin Chong Gui, to whom she was married on December 26, 1927. The motion with which we are here concerned was filed by Lim Chu Lan on October 31, 1928, and it is therein stated that the estate of the minor is in the hands of the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, a brother of Lim Chu Lan, in the character of guardian. It is also shown that, from the reports of the guardian, approved by the court, the value of the estate of the petitioner ending with the year 1927 was in the amount of P333,496.04 and that from January, 1922, to December, 1927, the annual average income of the petitioner’s property has been more than P15,000. In the month of December, 1927, the petitioner contracted marriage with Chin Chong Gui; and it appears that, since that date, the guardian, Lim Chu Kun, has supplied no maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore asks that her guardian be required to supply maintenance in the amount of P500 per month and that he be substituted in the guardianship by the petitioner’s husband, Chin Chong Gui.
The facts stated in the petition are not controverted, but opposition is made by the guardian on the ground that no sufficient ground has been shown for removing him, and in particular that none of the reasons specified in section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to the removal of guardians has been shown to exist. From this it is argued that the substitution, or removal, of the guardian cannot be effected.
We have no hesitancy in declaring that the order appealed from was a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Court of First Instance in such matters, since it is clear that in the language of section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant had shown himself to be unsuitable for the position of guardian of the petitioner. The fact of marriage alone introduces a change in the conditions of guardianship over a minor woman, and although the marriage of a girl who is under guardianship does not ipso facto abolish the guardianship over the property, it does terminate the guardianship over the person (sec. 575, Code of Civ. Proc.) . Moreover, the existence of a guardianship over the estate of a married woman in other hands than those of the husband is in certain respects undesirable, since the husband is legally entitled to the management of conjugal property, and the earnings of the paraphernal property of the wife constitute community property. Therefore, if the husband is found to be a suitable person, he is the proper individual to fill the office. In the case before us it is not shown that the husband is unfit for the office to which he was appointed by the trial court.
We note that, after the appealed order was made, the appellant entered into an agreement with the representatives of Lim Chu Lan to pay her P500 a month for maintenance, but this was done grudgingly; and it is insisted here that the amount which the appellant is thus paying is too much. We are of the opinion that the sum of P500 per month is not improper for a person having the standing of the petitioner in the community, in view of the size of the capital of her estate and its earning capacity.
The order appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the Appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., dissent.
