SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112014. December 5, 2000

TEODORO L. JARDELEZA, Petitioner, v. GILDA L. JARDELEZA, ERNESTO L. JARDELEZA, JR., MELECIO GIL L. JARDELEZA, and GLENDA L. JARDELEZA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PARDO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

The case is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the order[1 dismissing Special Proceedings No. 4689 of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City for appointment of judicial guardian over the person and estate of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. on the ground that such guardianship is superfluous and will only serve to duplicate the powers of the wife, Mrs. Gilda L. Jardeleza, under the explicit provisions of Article 124, second paragraph, of the Family Code. chanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. and Gilda L. Jardeleza were married long before 03 August 1988, when the Family Code took effect. The union produced five children, namely: petitioner, Ernesto, Jr., Melecio, Glenda and Rolando, all surnamed L. Jardeleza. chanrobles virtual law library

On 25 March 1991, Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. then 73 years old, suffered a stroke and lapsed into comatose condition. To date, his condition has not materially improved. chanrobles virtual law library

On 06 June 1991, petitioner commenced with the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City Special Proceedings No. 45689, a petition for appointment of judicial guardian over the person and property of Dr. Jardeleza, Sr. and prayed for the issuance of letters of guardianship to his mother, Gilda L. Jardeleza.[2 chanrobles virtual law library

On 19 June 1991, the trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing so that all persons concerned may appear and show cause if any why the petition should not be granted.³ chanrobles virtual law library

On 3 July 1991, petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for the issuance of letters of guardianship to him, rather than to his mother, on the ground that she considered the property acquired by Dr. Jardeleza as her own and did not want to be appointed guardian.[4 chanrobles virtual law library

On 09 August 1991, respondents filed with the trial court an opposition to the petition for guardianship and the motion for issuance of letters of guardianship to petitioner.⁵ chanrobles virtual law library

On 20 August 1993, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition for guardianship.[6 The trial court concluded, without explanation, that the petition is superfluous and would only serve to duplicate the powers of the wife under the explicit provisions of Article 124, second paragraph, of the Family Code. chanrobles virtual law library

On 17 September 1993, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that the Court of Appeals held in a case under Article 124 of the Family Code where the incapacitated spouse is incapable of being notified or unable to answer the petition, the procedural recourse is guardianship of the incapacitated spouse.[7 chanrobles virtual law library

On 24 September 1993, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration finding it unmeritorious.⁸ chanrobles virtual law library

Hence, this petition.⁹ chanrobles virtual law library

The petition raises a pure legal question, to wit: whether Article 124 of the Family Code renders superfluous the appointment of a judicial guardian over the person and estate of an incompetent married person. chanrobles virtual law library

Very recently, in a related case, we ruled that Article 124 of the Family Code was not applicable to the situation of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. and that the proper procedure was an application for appointment of judicial guardian under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.¹⁰ chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the Court grants the petition, reverses and sets aside the resolutions of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, in Special Proceedings No. 4689. chanrobles virtual law library

The Court remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. chanrobles virtual law library

No costs. chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtual law library

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

[1 In Spl. Proc. No. 4689, Order dated 20 August 1993, Judge Bartolome M. Fanual, presiding.

[2 Petition, Annex D, Rollo, pp. 26-28.

[3 Petition, Annex E, Rollo, pp. 29-30.

[4 Petition, Annex F, Rollo, pp. 31-35.

[5 Petition, Annex H, Rollo, pp. 38-46.

[6 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, p. 23.

[7 Petition, Annex Q, Rollo, pp. 96-100.

[8 Petition, Annex B, Rollo, p. 24.

[9 Petition filed on November 19, 1993, Rollo, pp. 9-22.

[10 Uy v. Jardeleza, G. R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000.