GENERAL GUARDIAN AND GUARDIANSHIP OF INCOMPETENTS

RULE 92
VENUE

SECTION 1. Where to Institute Proceedings. Guardianship of the person or estate of a minor

or incompetent may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court of the province, or in the justice of
the peace court of the municipality, or in the municipality, or in the municipal court of the
chartered city where the minor or incompetent person resides, and if he resides in the foreign
country, in the Regional Trial Court of the province wherein his property or part thereof is
situated; provided, however, that where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent
exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace or municipal court, the proceedings shall be
instituted in the Regional Trial Court.

[In the City of Manila the proceedings shall be instituted in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.]

DISCUSSION

Under this provision, the venue of guardianship proceedings is primarily the place of
residence1 of the minor or incompetent person if within the Philippines. Where the minor or
incompetent resides outside of the Philippines, the petition for guardianship may be filed in the
Regional Trial Court of the place where the property of such minor or incompetent may be
situated. This concession stems from the nature of the powers of an appointed guardian; they
may be exercised only in the state under whose laws they were conferred. Nonetheless in such
case, the authority of the guardian may extend only to the property of the minor or incompetent
within such a state.
1 Residence is normally understood to mean the domicile of the minor or incompetent.
SECTION 2. Meaning of the word incompetent. Under this rule, the word incompetent
includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers,
prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even
though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age,
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of
themselves and manage their property, thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.

DISCUSSION

One of those considered incompetent by law is one who is under civil interdiction. Civil
interdiction deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of his rights of parental
authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, or
the right to manage his property and of any right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos. At the same time, such persons are deemed incompetent for whom
guardians may be appointed.2

Another is a prodigal. A prodigal is a person who though of full age, is incapable of managing his
affairs and the obligations which attend them, in consequence of his bad conduct and for whom a
curator is therefore appointed. It is synonymous with spendthrift or a person who by excessive
drinking, gaming, idleness or debauchery of any kind shall so spend, waste or lessen his estate as
to expose himself or his family to want or suffering of himself or his family.3

In order to render a person legally unfit to administer his affairs, his acts of prodigality must
show a morbid mind and a disposition to spend or waste the estate so as to expose his family to
want or to deprive his forced heirs of their inheritance. However, the court before it can issue a
decree of prodigality must have before it competent evidence demonstrating the necessary facts
and the evidence must be clear and definite.

2 Article 34, Family Code

3 Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, 811

 An insane is likewise considered as incompetent. He is a person afflicted with insanity,
which in the intendment of the law, is a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect
of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition or the mental,
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition or disordered function of the
sensory or of the intellectual faculties or by impaired or disordered volition.

Every adult is presumed sane. However, where the question of insanity is put in issue in
guardianship proceedings, and a guardian is named for the person alleged to be incapacitated, a
presumption of the mental infirmity of the ward is created.4

SECTION 3. Transfer of Venue. The court taking cognizance of a guardianship proceeding,

may transfer the same to the court of another province or municipality wherein the ward has
acquired real property, if he has transferred thereto his bona fide residence, and the latter court
shall have full jurisdiction to continue the proceedings, without requiring payment of additional
court fees.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of authorizing a transfer or change of venue is to afford convenience to the

ward. The grant of such a change of venue lies therefore within the exclusive discretion of the
court. However, the rule on the transfer of venue is not without limitations. The court where
guardianship proceedings are pending may impose as a condition to the transfer of venue to
another court, that a settlement be made in the court in which letters of guardianship was granted.
A court may refuse a transfer if the settlement is insufficient to show the condition of the estate,
the properties of the ward, and the guardians just charges.5

4 Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772.

5 Dupree v. Alabama, 18 Ala 34.

 When a case is filed in one branch of the Regional Trial Court, jurisdiction over the case
does not attach to the branch or judge alone to the exclusion of other branches. However where
one branch of the same court had already resumed its jurisdiction by issuing two orders, the other
branch should relinquish its jurisdiction over the guardianship proceedings. It should inhibit
itself from taking further action over the case. Should one branch be permitted to equally assert,
assume or retain jurisdiction over a case or controversy over which another coordinate or co-
equal branch has already its jurisdiction, undue interference by one branch over another would
have been sanctioned.6

APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS

RULE 93

SECTION 1. Who may petition for appointment of guardian for resident. Any relative, friend
or other person on behalf of a resident minor or incompetent who has no parent or lawful
guardian, or the minor himself if fourteen years of age or over, may petition the court having
jurisdiction for the appointment of a general guardian for the person or estate or both, of such
minor or incompetent. An officer of the United States in the Philippines may also file a petition
in favor of a ward thereof, and the Director of Health in favor of an insane person who should be
hospitalized, or in favor of an isolated leper.

DISCUSSION

The Family Code provides for some provisions on appointment of guardians. Article 222 of said
Code states: The courts may appoint a guardian of the childs property, or a guardian ad litem,
when the best interests of the child so require. Article 223 of the same Code expressly mentions
that: the parents, or in their absence or incapacity, the individual, entity or institution exercising
6 Bautista v. CA, G.R. No. L-33152, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 262.
parental authority may petition the proper court of the place where the child resides, for an order
providing for disciplinary measures over the child. The child shall be entitled to the assistance of
counsel, either of his choice or appointed by the court, and a summary hearing shall be
conducted wherein the petitioner and the child shall be heard. However, if in the same
proceeding, the court finds the petitioner at fault, irrespective of the merits of the petition, or
when the circumstances so warrant, the court may also order the deprivation or suspension of
parental authority or adopt such other measures as it may deem just and proper.7

Before the Family Code became effective on August 3, 1988, our law on Parental Authority is
still Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Welfare Code) and all provision of the New Civil
Code not inconsistent with P.D. 603 on the subject. The Family Code, however, expressly
repealed Title XI of the New Civil Code on Parental Authority and Articles 17, 18 and 19 of P.D.
603 also on Parental Authority.

SECTION 2. Contents of Petition. A petition for the appointment of a general guardian must
show, so far as known to the petitioners:

(a) the jurisdictional facts;

(b) the minority or incompetency rendering the appointment necessary or convenient;
(c) the names, ages and residences of the relatives of the minor or incompetent and of the
persons having him in their care;
(d) the probable value and character of his estate;
(e) the name of the person for whom letters of guardianship are prayed.

The petition shall be verified, but no defect in the petition or verification shall render void the
issuance of letters of guardianship.

DISCUSSION

7 Family Code of the Philippines.

 Section 2 of Rule 93 expressly provides for the contents of a petition for the appointment
of a general guardian, one of which is jurisdictional facts. The actual existence of a ward is a
jurisdictional fact required for the validity of an order appointing a guardian. No person may
serve as a guardian for another who is of full age and sui juris; a court has neither the power nor
duty to exercise a guardianship over an individual who is a free and independent agent and is in
the full possession of all the faculties and such an individual cannot make himself a ward of the
court. In a petition for appointment of a guardian of the property of the minor or incompetent, it
is a jurisdictional fact and should be alleged therein, that the property needing the care and
attention of a guardian.

While allegations as to the names, ages and residences of the minors relatives is
jurisdictional, the same may not be necessary where the petition was filed by the minors
relatives themselves, to wit, the minors great-grandmother, grand-aunt and grand-uncles, with
the written consent of her widowed father.8 Should there be mistake in the name of the minor, its
correction may be made by way of a motion.

Where no particular form of verification of a petition for the appointment of a guardian is

prescribed, but the statute simply requires the petition to be verified, it is sufficient, if it is dated,
signed, sworn to and duly certified in a manner similar to the practice formerly prevailing in the
case of sworn bills and answers.

The Family Code and the rule expressly provide that no defect in the petition or
verification shall render void the issuance of letters of guardianship.

SECTION 3.

8 Uy Ponce v. Ponce, G.R. No. L-8488, November 21, 1955.