EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8477. May 31, 1956.]

THE PHILIPPINE TRUT C!MPAN", a# G$a%&'a( o) *+, P%o-,%*y o) *+, .'(o%,
MARIAN! L. BERNAR/!, Petitioner, 0#. !C!RR! R!L/AN, 1RANCIC!
HERM!!, 1I/EL C. RAM! a(& EMILI! CRU2, Respondents.

/ E C I I ! N
BENG2!N, J.:
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.!irtuallawli"rary #a$ sale thereof "y %ocorro &oldan, as
guardian of said minor, to 'idel C. &amos( and #"$ sale thereof "y 'idel C. &amos to
%ocorro &oldan personally. The complaint li)ewise sought to annul a con!eyance of
four out of the said se!enteen parcels "y %ocorro &oldan to *milio Cru+.
The action rests on the proposition that the first two sales were in reality a sale "y the
guardian to herself , therefore, null and !oid under Article 1-./ of the Ci!il Code. As
to the third con!eyance, it is also ineffecti!e, "ecause %ocorro &oldan had ac0uired no
!alid title to con!ey to Cru+.
The material facts of the case are not complicated. These 17 parcels located in
1uiguinto, Bulacan, were part of the properties inherited "y Mariano L. Bernardo from
his father, Marcelo Bernardo, deceased. 2n !iew of his minority, guardianship
proceedings were instituted, wherein %ocorro &oldan was appointed his guardian. %he
was the sur!i!ing spouse of Marcelo Bernardo, and the stepmother of said Mariano L.
Bernardo.
3n 4uly 57, 1/-7, %ocorro &oldan filed in said guardianship proceedings #%pecial
Proceeding 5-6., Manila$, a motion as)ing for authority to sell as guardian the 17
parcels for the sum of P1-,777 to 8r. 'idel C. &amos, the purpose of the sale "eing
allegedly to in!est the money in a residential house, which the minor desired to ha!e on
Tindalo %treet, Manila. The motion was granted.
3n August ., 1/-7 %ocorro &oldan, as guardian, e9ecuted the proper deed of sale in
fa!or of her "rother:in:law 8r. 'idel C. &amos #*9hi"it A:1$, and on August 15, 1/-7
she as)ed for, and o"tained, ;udicial confirmation of the sale. 3n August 1<, 1/-7, 8r.
'idel C. &amos e9ecuted in fa!or of %ocorro &oldan, personally, a deed of con!eyance
co!ering the same se!enteen parcels, for the sum of P1.,777 #*9hi"it A:5$. And on
3cto"er 51, 1/-7 %ocorro &oldan sold four parcels out of the se!enteen to *milio Cru+
for P<,777, reser!ing to herself the right to repurchase #*9hi"it A:<$.
The Philippine Trust Company replaced %ocorro &oldan as guardian, on August 17,
1/-6. And this litigation, started two months later, see)s to undo what the pre!ious
guardian had done. The step:mother in effect, sold to herself, the properties of her
ward, contends the Plaintiff, and the sale should "e annulled "ecause it !iolates Article
1-./ of the Ci!il Code prohi"iting the guardian from purchasing =either in person or
through the mediation of another> the property of her ward.
The court of first instance, following our decision in &odrigue+ !s. Mactal, ?7 Phil. 1<
held the article was not controlling, "ecause there was no proof that 'idel C. &amos
was a mere intermediary or that the latter had pre!iously agreed with %ocorro &oldan
to "uy the parcels for her "enefit.
@owe!er, ta)ing the former guardian at her word : she swore she had repurchased the
lands from 8r. 'idel C. &amos to preser!e it and to gi!e her protege opportunity to
redeem , the court rendered ;udgment upholding the contracts "ut allowing the minor
to repurchase all the parcels "y paying P1.,777, within one year.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ;udgment, adding that the minor )new the particulars
of, and appro!ed the transaction, and that =only clear and positi!e e!idence of fraud or
"ad faith, and not mere insinuations and inferences will o!ercome the presumptions
that a sale was concluded in all good faith for !alue>.
At first glance the resolutions of "oth courts accomplished su"stantial ;ustice the minor
reco!ers his properties. But if the con!eyances are annulled as prayed for, the minor
will o"tain a "etter deal he recei!es all the fruits of the lands from the year 1/-7 #Article
1<7< Ci!il Code$ and will return P1-,777, not P1.,777.
To our minds the first two transactions herein descri"ed couldnAt "e in a "etter ;uridical
situation than if this guardian had purchased the se!enteen parcels on the day
following the sale to 8r. &amos. Bow, if she was willing to pay P1.,777 why did she sell
the parcels for lessC 2n one day #or actually one wee)$ the price could not ha!e risen so
suddenly. 3"!iously when, see)ing appro!al of the sale she represented the price to "e
the "est o"taina"le in the mar)et, she was not entirely truthful. This is one phase to
consider.
1
Again, supposing she )new the parcels were actually worth P17,777( she agreed to sell
them to 8r. &amos at P1-,777 )nowing the realtyAs !alue she offered him the ne9t day
P1.,777 or P1.,.77, and got it. Dill there "e any dou"t that she was recreant to her
guardianship, and that her ac0uisition should "e nullifiedC *!en without proof that she
had conni!ed with 8r. &amos. &emem"ering the general doctrine that guardianship is
a trust of the highest order, and the trustee cannot "e allowed to ha!e any inducement
to neglect his wardAs interest and in line with the courtAs suspicion whene!er the
guardian ac0uires the wardAs property 1 we ha!e no hesitation to declare that in this
case, in the eyes of the law, %ocorro &oldan too) "y purchase her wardAs parcels thru
8r. &amos, and that Article 1-./ of the Ci!il Code applies.
%he acted it may "e true without malice( there may ha!e "een no pre!ious agreement
"etween her and 8r. &amos to the effect that the latter would "uy the lands for her. But
the stu""orn fact remains that she ac0uired her protegeAs properties, through her
"rother:in:law. That she planned to get them for herself at the time of selling them to 8r.
&amos, may "e deduced from the !ery short time "etween the two sales #one wee)$.
The temptation which naturally "esets a guardian so circumstanced, necessitates the
annulment of the transaction, e!en if no actual collusion is pro!ed #so hard to pro!e$
"etween such guardian and the intermediate purchaser. This would uphold a sound
principle of e0uity and ;ustice. 5
De are aware of course that in &odrigue+ !s. Mactal, ?7 Phil. p. 1< wherein the
guardian Mactal sold in 4anuary 1/5? the property of her ward to %il!erio Chioco, and
in March 1/56 she "ought it from Chioco, this Court said. =2n order to "ring the sale in
this case within the part of Article 1-./, 0uoted a"o!e, it is essential that the proof
su"mitted esta"lish some agreement "etween %il!erio Chioco and Trinidad Mactal to
the effect that Chioco should "uy the property for the "enefit of Mactal. 2f there was no
such agreement, either e9press or implied, then the sale cannot "e set aside cralaw .
#Page 1?( 2talics supplied.$>
@owe!er, the underlined portion was not intended to esta"lish a general principle of law
applica"le to all su"se0uent litigations. 2t merely meant that the su"se0uent purchase
"y Mactal could not "e annulled in that particular case "ecause there was no proof of a
pre!ious agreement "etween Chioco and her. The court then considered such proof
necessary to esta"lish that the two sales were actually part of one scheme , guardian
getting the wardAs property through another person , "ecause two years had elapsed
"etween the sales. %uch period of time was sufficient to dispel the natural suspicion of
the guardianAs moti!es or actions. 2n the case at "ar, howe!er, only one wee) had
elapsed. And if we were technical, we could say, only one day had elapsed from the
;udicial appro!al of the sale #August 15$, to the purchase "y the guardian #Aug. 1<$.
Attempting to pro!e that the transaction was "eneficial to the minor, AppelleeAs attorney
alleges that the money #P1-,777$ in!ested in the house on Tindalo %treet produced for
him rentals of P5,-77 yearly( whereas the parcels of land yielded to his step:mother
only an a!erage of P1,.55 per year. < The argument would carry some weight if that
house had "een "uilt out of the purchase price of P1-,777 only. - 3ne thing is certain.
the calculation does not include the price of the lot on which the house was erected.
*stimating such lot at P1-,777 only, #ordinarily the city lot is more !alua"le than the
"uilding$ the result is that the price paid for the se!enteen parcels ga!e the minor an
income of only P1,577 a year, whereas the har!est from the se!enteen parcels netted
his step:mother a yearly profit of P1,.55.77. The minor was thus on the losing end.
@ence, from "oth the legal and e0uita"le standpoints these three sales should not "e
sustained. the first two for !iolation of article 1-./ of the Ci!il Code( and the third
"ecause %ocorro &oldan could pass no title to *milio Cru+. The annulment carries with
is #Article 1<7< Ci!il Code$ the o"ligation of %ocorro &oldan to return the 17 parcels
together with their fruits and the duty of the minor, through his guardian to repay
P1-,777 with legal interest.
4udgment is therefore rendered
a. Annulling the three contracts of sale in 0uestion( declaring the minor as the owner of
the se!enteen parcels of land, with the o"ligation to return to %ocorro &oldan the price
of P1-,777 with legal interest from August 15, 1/-7( 3rdering %ocorro &oldan and
*milio Cru+ to deli!er said parcels of land to the minor( d. &e0uiring %ocorro &oldan to
pay him "eginning with 1/-7 the fruits, which her attorney admits, amounted to P1,.55
a year( e. Authori+ing the minor to deli!er directly to *milio Cru+, out of the price of
P1-,777 a"o!e mentioned, the sum of P<,777( and f. charging Appellees with the
costs. ! !R/ERE/.
2