ArticuLaw Primo

G.R. No. L-5131, July 31, 1952

ANTONIO MA. CUI, and MERCEDES CUI DE RAMAS vs. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

 

 

Facts: 

 

   Don Mariano Cui, widower, as owner of three lots with total land area of 2,658 square meters, sold on March 8, 1946, said three parcel of lands to the three of his children named Rosario C. de Encarnacion, Mercedes C. de Ramas and Antonio Ma. Cui, pro indiviso for the sum of P64,000. That since Rosario C. de Encarnacion for lack of funds was unable to pay her corresponding share of the purchase price, the sale to her was concealed and the one-third of the property corresponding to her was returned to the vendor. These three lots are commercial. The improvements thereon were destroyed during the last Pacific War so that at the time of the sale in 1946, there were no buildings or any other improvements on them. Because of the sale of these lots pro indiviso and because of the cancellation of the sale to one of the three original vendees, Don Mariano and his children Mercedes and Antonio became co-owners of the whole mass in equal portions. In the deed of sale vendor Don Mariano retained for himself the usufruct of the property and enjoy the fruits and rents of the same, as long as he live. Subsequently, a building was erected on a portion of this mass facing Calderon street and was occupied by a Chinese businessman for which he paid Don Mariano P600 a month as rental. The date when the building was constructed and by whom do not appear in the record.

 

   Sometime after the sale to Mercedes and Antonio the two applied to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) for a loan of P130,00 with which to construct a 12-door commercial building presumably on a portion of the entire parcel corresponding to their share. In order to facilitate the granting of the loan an inasmuch as only two of the three co-owners applied for the loan, Don Mariano on January 7, 1947, executed an authority to mortgage  authorizing his two children co-owners to mortgage his share.

 

  The loan was eventually granted and was secured by a mortgage on the three lots in question. Don Mariano being included as one of the three mortgagors and signing the corresponding promissory note with his two co-owners. He did not however, join in the construction of the 12-door commercial building as may be gathered from the "Conveniode Asignacion the three co-owners to assign to Don Mariano that one-third of the whole mass facing Calderon street and on which was erected the building already referred to as being occupied by a Chinese Businessman and for which he was paying Don Mariano P600 a month rental. The area of this one-third of the total are of these three lots.

 

  The 12-door commercial building was eventually constructed and the builder-owners thereof receive the rents thereof amounting to P4,800 a month and paying therefrom the installments due for payment on the loan to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.

 

  On March 25, 1948, two other children of Don Mariano named Jesus and Jorge brought an action (civil case No. 59-R) in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cebu for the purpose of annulling the deed of sale of the three lots in question on the ground that they belonged to the conjugal partnership of Don Mariano and his deceased wife Antonia Perales. Thereafter, plaintiffs Jesus and Jorge applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the lots and of the rentals of the building. This petition was denied on November 8, 1948.

 

  On March 19, 1949, Rosario C. de Encarnacion, that daughter of Don Mariano who was one of the original vendees filed a petition to declare her father incompetent and to have a guardian appointed for his property, in Special Proceeding.  In May 1949 the petition was granted and Don Mariano was declared incompetent and Victorino Reynes was appointed in civil case No. 599-R seeking to annul the deed of sale of the three lots in favor of Mercedes and Antonio was amended so as to include as plaintiffs not only the guardian Victorino Reyes but also all the other children of Don Mariano.

 

   On June 15, 1949, guardian Victorino Reyes filed a motion in the gurdianship proceedings seeking authority to collect the rentals from the three lots in question and asking the Court to order Antonio and Mercedes to deliver to him as guardian all the rentals they had previously collected from the 12-door commercial building, together with all the papers belonging to his ward. This motion was denied by Judge Piccio in his order of July 12, 1949. The guardian did not appeal from this order.

 

   On May 22, 1951, Judge Saguin rendered a decision in civil case No. 599-R and found that the three lots in question were not conjugal property but belonged exclusively to Don Mariano and so upheld the sale of two-thirds of said lots to Antonio and Mercedes. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals where the case was pending.

 

   On August 1, 1951, after the rendition of judgment in civil case No. 599-R upholding the sale, guardian Victorino Reynes again presented and filed a motion in the guardianship proceedings No. 481-R asking for the delivery of the rentals of the 12-door commercial building to him and for authority to collect future rentals thereon. On September 5, 1951, respondent Judge Piccio, the same Judge who had denied a similar motion about two years before, that is, on July 12, 1949, granted the motion in his order of the same date directing Antonio and Mercedes to deliver to the guardian the rentals of the building they had so far collected, at the same time authorizing the guardian to collect future rentals. The motion to reconsider the order filed by Antonio and Mercedes was denied in an order dated October 1, 1951. The present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was filed in this court for the purpose of annulling said order of September 5, 1951 and the order of October 1, 1951 denying the motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the trial court in the guardianship proceedings lacked jurisdiction to issue the order.

 

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not the respondent Judge Piccio had jurisdiction to issue the order of September 5, 1951 directing the petitioners herein to deliver to the guardian Victorino Reynes the rentals collected by them from the building and authorizing said guardian to collect future rentals.

 

 

Held:

 

   In the present case, is the right of the ward, Don Mariano, to the rentals of the 12-door building, clear and indisputable? The answer is definitely in the negative. Without any attempt or desire to determine the rights or lack of right of the ward to said rentals and prejudge the civil action No. R-1720 brought by the guardian in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cebu to recover said rentals, on the basis only of the documents involved or presented in this certiorari proceedings and without any additional evidence, these are reasons to believe that the scales of title instead of favoring the ward, incline more in favor of and point to the owners of the building.

 

   In conclusion, we hold that the respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to issue his order of September 5, 1951, in the guardianship proceedings requiring the petitioners to deliver the rentals collected by them to the guardian and authorizing the latter to collect rentals in the future, for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court guardianship proceedings, ordinarily, is to cite persons suspected of having embezzled, concealed or conveyed property belonging to the ward for the purpose of obtaining information which may be used in an action later to be instituted by the guardian to protect the right of the ward; and that only in extreme cases, where property clearly belongs to the ward or where his title thereto has already been judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the guardian.

 

   In view of the foregoing, the petition is granted and the order of respondent Judge of September 5, 1951, and his order of October 1, 1951, are hereby set aside. The writ of preliminary injunction is hereby made permanent. The respondent-guardian, Victorino Reynes, will pay the costs."