02 LAVIDES v.
CITY COURT OF LUCENA (1982) FACTS:
Rule 92 Guardianship
De Castro J. | FLAMENO
RECIT READY
Facts: Petitioner instituted guardianship proceedings for
the benefit of his 7 minor children in the administration of
the estate of his wife. The estate was valued at P35,000,
with each child receiving P5,000. This was initially granted
by the respondent court, but after the lapse of 7 years, the
case was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
based on the total value of the estate.
Issue: Whether the basis for jurisdiction in guardianship
proceedings is the total value of the estate or the
individual share of each minor—individual share
Held:
The respondent court erred in dismissing the case on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. The court must use the value
of each individual share as basis in acquiring jurisdiction. It
was also inequitable considering that 7 years have passed
since the respondent court granted the petition for
guardianship.
Doctrine:
The individual share of each minor or incompetent in a
guardianship proceeding is determinative of which court
has jurisdiction over the case.
1. Upon the death of his wife, petitioner Lavides instituted
before the respondent court a guardianship proceeding
with respect to the person and property of their 7 minor
children. The estate was valued at P35,000. Each minor
child was to receive P5,000.
2. Petitioner was appointed as guardian by the respondent
court. Petitioner was then authorized to settle the estate
extra judicially and to sell a portion thereof consisting of
stocks. The petitioner sold the said stocks.
3. Petitioner filed a motion for confirmation and approval of
a Deed of Exchange Agreement. While this motion was
pending, the respondent court (with a new judge)
reviewed the case, and finding that the value of the
undivided estate was worth at least P35,000, dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction, revoked the appointment
of petitioner as guardian and annulled all proceedings
taken prior to the issuance of the said order.
4. Petitioner now argues that the respondent court erred in
using the TOTAL value of the undivided estate as basis for
determining jurisdiction despite the clear wording of Rule
92, Sec. 1
ISSUE:
1. WON the respondent court erred in dismissing the case for
lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that TOTAL value of the
estate exceeded the jurisdiction of the city court
a. NO, because under the Rules of Court, the proper
basis in acquiring jurisdiction in guardian
proceedings involving multiple wards is the
individual share of each ward in the estate.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Order of respondent City
Court of December 5, 1978 dismissing the petition and the
Order of December 27, 1978 denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration thereof are hereby set aside and the case is
remanded to it for further proceedings. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
RULING:
1. Sec. 1, Rule 92—Guardianship of the person or estate of a
minor or incompetent may be instituted in the CFI of the
province, or in the justice of the peace court of the
municipality, or in the municipal court of the chartered city
where the minor or incompetent person resides x x x
provided, however, that where the value of the property of
such minor or incompetent exceeds the jurisdiction of the
justice of peace or municipal court, the proceedings shall
be instituted in the CFI.
2. The above provisions clearly grants concurrent jurisdiction
between the municipal and city courts AND CFI in the
appointment of guardians either with respect to the
person or property of the minor or incompetent
a. EXCEPT where the value of the property of such
minor or incompetent EXCEEDS the jurisdiction of
the municipal or city courts, the guardianship
proceedings shall be instituted in the CFI
3. The value of the property of the minor or incompetent
sought to be placed in guardianship determines which
court has jurisdiction. The property referred to is the
INDIVIDUAL estate of the minor when there are multiple
minors sought to be placed under guardianship
a. What determines which court has jurisdiction is
the value of the individual property of each minor
or incompetent
4. In the present case…
a. Each minor would receive P5,000, hence it was well
within the jurisdiction of the city court
b. The case of Delgado cannot be invoked by
respondent
i. In the said case, the estate was valued at
P7,000 = each minor would receive
P2,333.33; said INDIVIDUAL SHARE was in
excess of the jurisdiction amount for
inferior courts
c. Under the present rule, concurrent jurisdiction is
granted, except that where the value of the
property of such minor or incompetent exceeds
the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the proceedings
shall, be instituted in the CFI
d. EXTRA NOTE: 7 years passed when the respondent
court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction,
revoked the appointment of petitioner, and
annulled the proceedings taken
i. This in inequitable; will pave a pattern of
judicial instability.