ArticuLaw Primo
LSPU-LAW STAR CLASS
G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956
THE PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as Guardian of the Property of the minor, MARIANO L. BERNARDO, Petitioner,
SOCORRO ROLDAN, FIDEL C. RAMOS and EMILIO CRUZ, Respondents.
Facts of the Case
As guardian of the property of the minor Mariano L. Bernardo, the Philippine Trust Company filed in the Manila court of first instance a complaint to annul two contracts regarding 17 parcels of land: (a) sale thereof by Socorro Roldan, as guardian of said minor, to Fidel C. Ramos; (b) sale thereof by Fidel C. Ramos to Socorro Roldan personally. The complaint likewise sought to annul a conveyance of four out of the said seventeen parcels by Socorro Roldan to Emilio Cruz.
The action rests on the proposition that the first two sales were in reality a sale by the guardian to herself . As to the third conveyance, it is also ineffective, because Socorro Roldan had acquired no valid title to convey to Cruz.
The material facts of the case are not complicated. These 17 parcels located in Guiguinto, Bulacan, were part of the properties inherited by Mariano L. Bernardo from his father, Marcelo Bernardo, deceased. In view of his minority, guardianship proceedings were instituted, wherein Socorro Roldan was appointed his guardian. She was the surviving spouse of Marcelo Bernardo, and the stepmother of said Mariano L. Bernardo.
The Philippine Trust Company replaced Socorro Roldan as guardian, on August 10, 1948. And this litigation, started two months later, seeks to undo what the previous guardian had done. The step-mother in effect, sold to herself, the properties of her ward, contends the Plaintiff, and the sale should be annulled because it violates Article 1459 of the Civil Code prohibiting the guardian from purchasing “either in person or through the mediation of another” the property of her ward.
Court of first instance ruled:
Rodriguez vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. 13 held the article was not controlling, because there was no proof that Fidel C. Ramos was a mere intermediary or that the latter had previously agreed with Socorro Roldan to buy the parcels for her benefit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, adding that the minor knew the particulars of, and approved the transaction, and that “only clear and positive evidence of fraud or bad faith, and not mere insinuations and inferences will overcome the presumptions that a sale was concluded in all good faith for value”.
Issues of the case
Whether or not the sale of Soccorro Roldan is valid?
Whether or not the sale is made through an intermediary Dr. Fidel Ramos in favor of guardian Soccorro Roldan?
Supreme Court Ruling
At first glance the resolutions of both courts accomplished substantial justice: the minor recovers his properties. But if the conveyances are annulled as prayed for, the minor will obtain a better deal: he receives all the fruits of the lands from the year 1947 (Article 1303 Civil Code) and will return P14,700, not P15,000.
To our minds the first two transactions herein described couldn’t be in a better juridical situation than if this guardian had purchased the seventeen parcels on the day following the sale to Dr. Ramos. Now, if she was willing to pay P15,000 why did she sell the parcels for less? In one day (or actually one week) the price could not have risen so suddenly. Obviously when, seeking approval of the sale she represented the price to be the best obtainable in the market, she was not entirely truthful. This is one phase to consider.
Again, supposing she knew the parcels were actually worth P17,000; she agreed to sell them to Dr. Ramos at P14,700; knowing the realty’s value she offered him the next day P15,000 or P15,500, and got it. Will there be any doubt that she was recreant to her guardianship, and that her acquisition should be nullified? Even without proof that she had connived with Dr. Ramos. Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have any inducement to neglect his ward’s interest and in line with the court’s suspicion whenever the guardian acquires the ward’s property we have no hesitation to declare that in this case, in the eyes of the law, Socorro Roldan took by purchase her ward’s parcels thru Dr. Ramos, and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.
Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints these three sales should not be the first two for violation of article 1459 of the Civil Code; the third because Socorro Roldan could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment carries with is (Article 1303 Civil Code) the obligation of Socorro Roldan to return the 17 parcels together with their fruits and the duty of the minor, through his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.
Judgment is therefore rendered: