SPECPRO 3D- 2012

Rule 96
1. PARCO V. CA
FACTS: The Judge of CFI Quezon, Branch IV, Calauag authorized and approved, upon
motion of Francisco Rodriguez Jr, guardian of Soledad Rodriguez, the sale to spouses
Luis Parco and Virginia Bautista 3 parcels of land to answer for the medical
expenses of the ward Rodriguez.
Almost a year and five months later, the guardian of Rodriguez filed a petition
in the CFI invoking Sec. 6 Rule 96, praying that an order be issued requiring the
couple Parco and Bautista to appear before the court so that they can be examined
as regards to the 3 lots which are allegedly in danger of being lost, squandered,
concealed, and embezzled and upon failure to do so or to comply with any order
that may be issued in relation therewith. The guardian alleges that the transaction
was in fact a loan to be paid in 3 months but upon the expiration of the period
thereof, the couple refused to sell back such property of the ward.
CFI judge, exercising limited and special jurisdiction as a guardianship court
under Sec 6 Rule 96 ruled in favor of the of the guardian and ordered the
reconveyance and delivery of the property to the ward.
ISSUE:W/N the CFI judge, exercising limited and special jurisdiction as a
guardianship court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of ownership and order
the reconveyance and delivery of the property to the ward?
RULING: No. Generally, the guardianship court exercising special and limited
jurisdiction cannot actually order the delivery of the property of the ward found to
be embezzled, concealed or conveyed. In categorical language of this Court, only in
extreme cases, where property clearly belongs to the ward or where his title thereto
has been already judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the
guardian. In effect, there can only be delivery or return of embezzled, concealed or
conveyed property of the ward, where the right or title of said ward is clear and
undisputable. However, where title to any property said to be embezzled, concealed
or conveyed is in dispute, as in this case, the determination of said title or right
whether in favour of the person said to have embezzled, concealed or conveyed the
property must be determined in a separate ordinary action and not in guardianship
proceedings.
Apparently, there is a cloud of doubt as to who has a better right or title to
the disputed properties. This, the Court believes, requires the determination of title
or ownership of the three parcels of land in dispute which is beyond the jurisdiction
of the guardianship court and should be threshed out in a separate ordinary action
not in a guardianship proceeding.
2. CUI V PICCIO
Facts: Don Mariano Cui sold three of his lots to three of his children in equal shares.
However, one was not able to pay, so Mariano shared ownership with his two other
children, Antonio and Mercedes. The two children borrowed money from
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, subject to mortgage of the land. Mariano
allowed the mortgage, with the condition that all the rentals will go to him. He did
not participate with the payment of the loan. Nearly a year later, his other children
1
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA

SPECPRO 3D- 2012

filed a guardianship proceeding, which the court granted. The other children tried to
nullify the sale to Antonio and Mercedes, which was still pending. When they asked
the court to deliver the rental payments to them, Judge Piccio granted it.
Issue: Whether Piccio acted in grave abuse of discretion in allowing such delivery of
rental payments to the ward
Ruling: Yes. Under Sec 6 of Rule 97, the ward may ask the guardian court to deliver
an actual or prospective interest which was owned by the ward, and was
embezzled, concealed, or conveyed by another. In the case at hand, Sec 6 of Rule
97 does not apply, since the rental payments Is still a subject of controversy, as to
who really owns such payments. This must be litigated in a ordinary civil action, to
which a guardian court does not have jurisdiction.

2
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA