Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > November 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20403 November 28, 1964 - TOMAS S. CARPIO v. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20403. November 28, 1964.]

TOMAS S. CARPIO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HON. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, ET AL., Respondents.

Vicente Raul Almacen, for Petitioners.

Jose A. Garcia for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. GUARDIANSHIP; DENIAL TO HEAR PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN NOT IMPROPER WHERE VISIT BY JUDGE OF WARD SHOWS CHARGES NOT TRUE. — The refusal of the trial judge to give due course to a petition for removal of a guardian is not considered to be an abuse of discretion where the claim in said petition that there was animosity between the ward and the guardian or that the latter did not have proper understanding of the ward’s needs, health or well-being was found by said judge from her visit of said ward not to be true, especially where said petition was not verified while the said guardian’s answer denying said charges was subscribed and sworn to.

2. ID.; REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN; DISCRETION OF COURT; JUDGE’S VISIT TO WARD MAKES HEARING UNNECESSARY. — Though it would have been more in keeping with the requirements of due process in the case at bar if the petitioners had been given an opportunity to present their evidence as they requested in their petition for removal of the guardian, yet this is obviated by the visit paid by the respondent judge to the ward which made said hearing unnecessary because the judge in the exercise of her discretion in such matters, was convinced thereby of the groundlessness of said petition.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Tomas S. Carpio, Et. Al. filed on May 18, 1962 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court a petition praying that, after hearing, an order be issued for the removal of Ephraim Gochangco as guardian of the person of the ward Justina Santos and appoint in his place Concepcion A. Carpio, Ismaela A. Carpio and Francisca A. Carpio with authority to act as her guardians either singly or jointly.

As grounds for removal, petitioners alleged (1) the animosity which the ward bears towards her guardian; (2) the guardian’s disregard of the ward’s needs; (3) the guardian’s disregard of the ward’s health and well-being; and (4) the guardian’s intention to gain control of the management and administration of the ward’s estate which, if proven, would render the guardian ‘unsuitable to continue further in his present trust", for which reasons he should be removed, and that at any time since his acceptance of his appointment as guardian in 1959 he did not render an accounting of his expenses for the account of the ward in compliance with the requirement of our law on guardianship. The petition was not verified, but a copy thereof was served on the guardian and other interested parties.

Upon receipt of the Carpios’ petition, guardian Gochangco, thru his counsel, filed a manifestation denying vehemently each and every charge levelled against him by petitioners that would reflect against his actuation as guardian of the ward Justina Santos. He claims that there is an attempt to poison the mind of the ward against him merely to bolster their desire to remove him and that, while he has not rendered any accounting of his expenses directly to the court, he has, however, done so to the guardian of the estate, the Security Bank and Trust Company, from whom the guardian receives the funds necessary for the living expenses of the ward. This manifestation was verified by the guardian before the Deputy Clerk of Court.

On July 12, 1962, the court a quo issued an order declining to give due course to the petition giving as its reasons the following: "For one thing, it has been held that ‘dislike of the ward for the guardian’ is not good ground for removal . . . The statements that the guardian disregards or does not understand the ward’s needs; that the guardian disregards or has no interest in the ward’s health or well- being; and the guardian has an intention to gain control of the management and administration of the ward’s estate, in the opinion of the Court, cannot justify a hearing for the reception of the evidence at this time." Whereupon, the Carpios’ filed before this Court the present petition for certiorari.

In declining to give due course to the petition for removal of respondent guardian, the court a quo made the following comment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is to be conceded that the Court has power to remove the guardian any time he becomes unsuitable for his trust. However, the Court cannot entertain indiscriminately all petitioner for removal based on that ground, otherwise hearings for reception of evidence on that score may be interminable. The Court should have discretion in determining when a trial for the removal of a guardian is warranted by a corresponding petition or by facts brought to its attention.

"In the exercise of its discretion as above stated, the Court resolves to deny due course to the petition for removal of the guardian filed by the said Tomas s. Carpio, Et. Al. For one thing, it has been held that dislike of the ward for the guardian is not a good ground for removal (30 C.J.S. 66). The statements that the guardian disregards or does not understand the ward’s needs; that the guardian disregards or has no interest in the ward’s health or well-being; and the guardian has an attention to gain control of the management and administration of the ward’s estate, in the opinion of the Court, can not justify a hearing for the reception of the evidence at the time."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question now before us is whether the court a quo has abused its discretion in declining to give due course to the petition for removal on the ground that the reasons alleged therein are not meritorious or do not warrant the effort and time of the court.

It should be noted that the petition for removal is not verified, nor is it accompanied by any supporting affidavit, though at the last page thereof there is a notice addressed to the clerk of court stating that counsel will submit on May 29, 1962, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon as counsel may be heard, the foregoing petition for reconsideration and resolution.

On said date and hour, counsel for petitioners appeared in court, as well as counsel for respondent, but on that occasion the then presiding judge of the court a quo suggested to the lawyers to agree on any other Saturday for hearing of the petition since said judge had no time to hear then the petition. So a new date was agreed upon, but in view of the appointment of the then presiding judge to another position, the petition was not heard on the date set, for which reason the hearing was reset for July 7, 1962, at which time counsel of both petitioners and guardian were present. On that occasion, the new judge stated in open court that if she finds the petition meritorious she would grant the petitioners an opportunity to present evidence, but would like to study the case first. And on that same occasion the judge inquired if the ward could be visited and the guardian’s counsel replied that she could in the morning or in the afternoon at any time that would be convenient to the court. Then the court made a remark that it would notify the parties of its visit in due time.

Three days after the hearing of July 7, 1962, the clerk of court informed guardian’s counsel of the desire of the judge to visit the ward and suggested that a day be arranged for that purpose. This was done, and on the appointed hour, respondent judge went to the ward’s residence on Florentino Torres Street at Santa Cruz, Manila, where she found the ward, the guardian, the latter’s counsel, and the entire household staff, including the nurse on duty. And while at the ward’s residence respondent judge conversed at length with the ward and inquired about her needs and the manner by which she was being taken care of. She likewise inspected the living conditions of the ward and made inquiries relative to the care being given to her. The visit lasted almost two hours.

After a visit, respondent judge issued the order now under consideration wherein she stated that, for the reasons therein alleged, she did not find it necessary to give due course to the petition. Apparently, this is due to what she found in her visit to the ward when she had occasion to assess for herself the truthfulness of the charge levelled against the guardian that there existed animosity between them, or that the guardian did not have the proper understanding of her needs, health and well-being. She found no basis to sustain the charge levelled against him.

Upon the foregoing facts, which do not appear disputed, we find that the court did not commit any abuse of discretion in declining to give due course to the petition for removal. Indeed, the main claim was that there was intense and unabating animosity between the ward and the guardian or that the latter did not have proper understanding of the ward’s needs, health or well-being, a situation which respondent judge found from her visit not to be true. Respondent judge must also have noted that the petition is not verified while the guardian’s answer is subscribed and sworn to wherein he vehemently denied the charges levelled against him. The want of verification of the petition must have also convinced respondent judge of the groundlessness of the petition. At any rate, we are not prepared to hold that respondent judge acted improperly in not giving due course to the petition for, as a rule, the matter of removal of a guardian is addressed to the discretion of the court (25 Am. Jur., 39; Padilla Vda. de Bengzon v. Philippine National Bank, L-17066, December 28, 1961), though it would have been more in keeping with due process if petitioner’s had been given an opportunity to present their evidence as they requested in their petition. This is required by our rules. But this is obviated by the visit paid by respondent judge to the ward which made the hearing unnecessary.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17064 November 9, 1964 - FIDEL GERALDEZ v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19642 November 9, 1964 - IN RE: NILDA TSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17020 November 17, 1964 - PABLO ALMARINEZ v. CRESENCIANA MANABAT POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17118 November 17, 1964 - IN RE: UY ENG HIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16677 November 27, 1964 - LAMBERTO YNOTORIO, ET AL. v. CANUTA LIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17445 November 27, 1964 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17642 November 27, 1964 - CANDIDA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18922 November 27, 1964 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18208 November 27, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-19133 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. L-20138 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR SEGARINO Y BORGA

  • G.R. No. L-21951 November 27, 1964 - IN RE: UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-9866-7 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN TIONGSON Y DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14250 November 28, 1964 - MARIA LOURDES PRIANES v. FERMIN HENSON

  • G.R. No. L-15945 November 28, 1964 - PORFIRIO VILLAMOR v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. Nos. L-16076-77 November 28, 1964 - ESTEBAN VILLANUEVA v. MISAMIS LUMBER Co., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17249 November 28, 1964 - LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO v. FILOMENA PARCOTILO

  • G.R. No. L-17401 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO RAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-17469 November 28, 1964 - JUAN SORIANO v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

  • G.R. No. L-17850 November 28, 1964 - JOSE MALIMIT v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-18116 November 28, 1964 - CLODUALDO MENESES v. ESTANISLAO LUAT

  • G.R. Nos L-18444-45 November 28, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18487 November 28, 1964 - GENERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18621 November 28, 1964 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS

  • G.R. No. L-18891 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MELCHOR TIONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19299 November 28, 1964 - FELIZA JOVEN DE JESUS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-19473 November 28, 1964 - REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE LACSAMANA v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-19518 November 28, 1964 - TRINIDAD A. DEAÑO v. DIOGENEZ GODINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19519 November 28, 1964 - IN RE: ANANIAS ABUSTAN v. RUPERTO FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-19564 November 28, 1964 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-19733 November 28, 1964 - ARSENIO L. CANLAS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-20031 November 28, 1964 - MAGDALENA RULLAN v. BERNARDO O. VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20043 November 28, 1964 - LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v. ANGEL CUADERNO

  • G.R. No. L-20228 November 28, 1964 - ROMANA CAMPITA v. AQUILINO L. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20345 November 28, 1964 - RICARDO HAUTEA v. RAMON S. MAGALLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20403 November 28, 1964 - TOMAS S. CARPIO v. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-20484 November 28, 1964 - VIDAL PAULINO v. ADELAIDA ROSENDO

  • G.R. No. L-20860 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-21189 November 28, 1964 - JOSE AVENDAÑO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, ET AL.