Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22504. October 14, 1968.]

GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT, Ward. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, guardian-appellant, v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT, personal guardian-appellee.

Tomas Besa and Jose B. Galang for guardian-appellant.

Erlinda Garlit for in her own behalf, as personal guardian-appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; GUARDIANSHIP; INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WARD; APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. — Under Sec. 16 of R.A. 390, the guardian has unrestrained authority to invest the trust funds in direct, unconditional interest- bearing obligations of the Philippines or United States Governments and in obligations the interest and principal of which are unconditionally guaranteed by either of them. The limitation in the law refers to other securities or property, and consists of the requirement that the investment be authorized under the laws of the Philippines and made only upon prior order of the Court. With respect to investment in the form of purchase of real estate, Section 21 (a) limits the cases in which the same may be authorized by the Court to those where the real estate is needed as a home for the ward, or to protect his interest, or (if he is not a minor) as a home for his dependent family.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACQUISITION OF REAL ESTATE; INTEREST THEREIN BY THE WARD REQUIRED. — The agricultural land which the trial court ordered the guardian to purchase in the present case is admittedly not intended for his home or that of his dependent family. His wife has suggested it as a source of income. Its justification must therefore be sought in the need to protect an interest he may have in the property itself. In other words, the ward must have an already existing interest in the real estate, to protect which the court may authorize the purchase. The nature and extent of such interest is not defined in the law, but it must exist prior to the purchase.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTANT CASE. — In the present case, there is no suggestion that the ward has any interest to protect in the agricultural land which the lower court ordered the guardian to purchase with the funds of its ward.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CHOICE PROPOSED BY GUARDIAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. — As to the choice of the particular investment proposed by the guardian, there is no question but that the 7% Socio-Economic Bonds of the Republic meet the requirements of Section 16 of R.A. No. 390, and are more advantageous to the ward than the present savings deposit in which the trust funds are placed, at only 3 1/2% interest, compounded quarterly.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac dated November 15 and 21, 1963, respectively.

The Philippine National Bank was appointed guardian of the incompetent, Federico Garlit, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 390, otherwise known as the "Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act", in Special Proceeding No. 1037 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. On May 10, 1963 the guardian filed a petition in said proceeding for authority to invest the sum of P15,000.00 from the ward’s trust funds in the purchase of 7% Socio-Economic Bonds issued by the Government. The ward’s wife opposed the petition and instead suggested, among other things, that the funds be invested in the purchase of productive agricultural lands, alleging that such an investment would be more profitable than that proposed by the guardian. The guardian as well as the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Veterans Administration, objected to the wife’s suggestion on the ground that it was not sanctioned by law.

On October 4, 1963 the lower Court issued an order of which the last paragraph reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The investment should be on whichever is most advantageous or beneficial to the estate of the ward. The oppositor, Mrs. Erlinda G. Garlit, has not brought to the attention of the guardian nor of the Court, any agricultural land for sale to which such profitable investment may be made. She is, therefore, hereby directed to bring to the attention of the guardian or of the Court, any agricultural land to which such beneficial investment may be made, within one (1) month from receipt of this order. If she fails to procure such land within the period given, the guardian will be authorized as he is hereby authorized, subject to such contingency, to invest P13,000.00 of the funds of the ward in the purchase of seven (7%) per cent Socio- Economic Bonds of the Government, as prayed for in the petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

The guardian moved for reconsideration. In her opposition to the motion the ward’s wife manifested to the court that she had found parcels of agricultural land for sale and that the owner had already executed an option to sell in favor of the ward, good for a period of one month from the date of its execution.

On November 15, 1963 the lower Court denied the motion for reconsideration and on the following November 21 issued another order directing the guardian "to invest the funds of the ward in the purchase of the land to which an option is given by its owner Luis Tan in favor of the ward Federico Garlit if it finds the same to be a first class agricultural land capable of producing 300 cavanes of palay per year."

The only issue in this appeal by the guardian is whether or not the investment of the trust funds of the ward in agricultural lands is sanctioned by Republic Act No. 390. The pertinent provisions of this law are Sections 16 and 21(a), which provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 16. Investments. — Every guardian shall invest the funds of his ward’s estate in such securities or property as authorized under the laws of the Philippines but only upon prior order of the Court; except that the funds may be invested without prior court authorization, in direct, unconditional, interest-bearing obligations of the Governments of the Republic of the Philippines or of the United States and in obligations the interest and principal of which are unconditionally guaranteed by either of the said Governments. A signed duplicate or certified copy of the petition for authority to invest shall be furnished the Chief Attorney of the Veterans Administration, and notice of hearing thereon shall be given said official as provided in the case of hearing on a guardian’s account."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SEC. 21. Purchase of home for ward. — (a) The Court may authorize the purchase of real estate in the Philippines in which the guardian has no interest, but only as a home for the ward, or to protect his interest, or (if he is not a minor) as a home for his dependent family. Such purchase of real estate shall not be made except upon the entry of an order of the Court after hearing upon a verified petition. A copy of the petition shall be furnished the Chief Attorney of the Veterans Administration and notice of hearing thereon shall be given said office as provided in the case of hearing on a guardian’s account."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under Section 16 the guardian has unrestrained authority to invest the trust funds in direct, unconditional interest-bearing obligations of the Philippine or United States Governments and in obligations the interest and principal of which are unconditionally guaranteed by either of them. The limitation in the law refers to other securities or property, and consists of the requirement that the investment be authorized under the laws of the Philippines and made only upon prior order of the Court. With respect to investment in the form of purchase of real estate, Section 21 (a) limits the cases in which the same may be authorized by the Court to those where the real estate is needed as a home for the ward, or to protect his interest, or (if he is not a minor) as a home for his dependent family.

The agricultural land which the trial court ordered the guardian to purchase in the present case is admittedly not intended for his home or that of his dependent family. His wife has suggested it as a source of income. Its justification must therefore be sought in the need to protect an interest he may have in the property itself. In other words, the ward must have an already existing interest in the real estate, to protect which the court may authorize the purchase. The nature and extent of such interest is not defined in the law, but that it must exist prior to the purchase is implicit in the provision of Section 21 (b), as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(b) Before authorizing such investment the Court shall require written evidence of value of title and of the advisability of acquiring such real estate. Title shall be taken in the ward’s name. This section does not limit the right of the guardian on behalf of his ward to bid and to become the purchaser of real estate at a sale thereof pursuant to decree of foreclosure of lien held by or for the ward, or at a trustee’s sale, to protect the ward’s right in the property so foreclosed or sold; nor does it limit the right of the guardian, if such be necessary to protect the ward’s interest and upon prior order of the Court in which the guardianship is pending, to agree with co-tenants of the ward for a partition in kind or to purchase from co-tenants the entire undivided interest held by them, or to bid and purchase the same at a sale under a partition decree, or to compromise adverse claims of title to the ward’s realty."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the present case there is no suggestion that the ward has any interest to protect in the agricultural land which the lower court ordered the guardian to purchase with the funds of its ward. Apart from the strictly legal aspect, there is of course the valid observation of the Philippine National Bank, as guardian, that it is hardly in a position to actively manage and operate the said land once purchased; that such responsibility would in all probability be in the hands of other persons; and that in such a situation the guardian’s accountability could not be easily fixed and determined.

As to the choice of the particular investment proposed by the guardian, there is no question but that the 7% Socio-Economic Bonds of the Republic meet the requirements of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 390, and are more advantageous to the ward than the present savings deposit in which the trust funds are placed, at only 3 1/2% interest, compounded quarterly.

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are hereby set aside and the guardian-appellant is authorized to invest the amount of P15,000.00 of the trust funds of the ward in the purchase of Socio-Economic Bonds as prayed for in its basic petition of May 10, 1963. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on official leave.




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






October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON