2. Luis PARCO and Virginia BAUTISTA v.
Court of Appeals et al take cognizance of the case and asking the transfer of the record
G.R. No. L-33152 January 30, 1982, Mendoza, J:
Topic: Guardianship
Doctrine: See First Paragraph of #2 in Held.
Facts:
1. The case started from Special Proceedings No. 2641 a guardianship
proceedings for the incompetent Soledad Rodriguez which originally
pertained to Branch 1, CFI of Quezon, then presided by the late Hon. Judge
Vicente Arguelles, later on succeded by Hon. Judge Ameurfina Melencio-
Herrera. In 1966, respondent Judge of Branch IV-Calauag of the CFI of
Quezon, Hon. Union C. Kayanan, took cognizance the proceeding when the
Secretary of Justice authorized respondent Judge to help unclog the docket
of Branch I.
2. Respondent Judge authorized the sale to Luis Parco and Virginia Bautista
(petitioners) of 2 lots upon motion of Fransisco Rodriguez, Jr.
(respondent/guardian of Soledad Rodriguez) for support, maintenance, and
medical treatment. Later, another sale was approved by respondent judge
involving another lot.
3. A year later, private respondent fled an urgent petition in the invoking Sec 6
Rule 96 praying that an order be immediately issued requiring petitioners to
appear before the court so that they can be examined as regards the 3 lots
in question which are allegedly in danger of being lost, squandered,
concealed and embezzled.
a. Respondent contends that the sale of the first 2 lots was under a
loan agreement, recover the same within 3 months.
b. Prior to the expiration of the 3 month period, respondent tried to
recover the lots but due to the negotiation regarding the 3 rd sale,
the recovery did not prosper. The petitioners later induced
respondent to transfer the 3 title of the lots to them in exchange for
an agreed price of Php 48, 000. Respondent agreed to this.
c. Respondent later discovered that petitioners already sold and
ceded the 3 lots to another person and despite his repeated
request, they have maliciously and unjustly failed and refused to
deliver the money.
d. On the other hand, petitioners contended mainly, that the 3 lots
have been conveyed to them by deeds of absolute sale which were
duly approved by the guardianship court.
4. For failure of petitioners and their counsel to appear, respondent Judge
issued an order, authorizing private respondent to present evidence before
the Clerk of Court.
a. An MR was filed by petitioners stating that there was First Order
(July 29, 1968) by the CFI Branch I saying that the said branch will
from Branch IV to Branch I.
b. The MR was granted and thus, respondent judge ordered the
records to be transmitted.
5. Later, respondent filed before Branch IV an amended petition praying that
the 3 lots subject matter of the original urgent petition be ordered
reconveyed to the ward. Eventually, the Respondent judge issued an order
granting conveyance to private respondent.
6. Petitioners then opposed the ruling stating that Respondent judge (who was
the judge in Branch IV) has no authority to take cognizance of the case as
the records of the case were already transmitted to Branch I.
7. The case eventually reached the Court of Appeals wherein it was declared
that Branch IV still has jurisdiction over the case and that he conveyance
was proper.
Issue:
1. WON respondent judge of the CFI Branch IV has the authority to take
further action in the special proceedings after the judge of the CFI Branch I
asserted its jurisdiction ordering the return of the case (NO.)
2. WON Branch IV as a guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the delivery
or reconveyance of the 3 parcels of land to the ward (NO = MAIN ISSUE)
Held:
1. In the language of this Court, the various branches of the CFI of a province
or city, having as they have the same or equal authority and exercising as
they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction should not, cannot, and are
not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their
orders or judgments..
While it is recognized that when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction
over the case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion
of the other branches. Considering the unusual circumstances in this case,
the case shall be treated differently. Here, it must be noted that the Judge of
Branch I asserted and resumed its prior jurisdiction by orders requiring
private respondent to render an inventory and accounting of the property of
the ward. On the other hand, respondent Judge of Branch IV, in confirmation
of such resumption of jurisdiction, ordered the return of the records but
instead of regularly relinquishing jurisdiction over the case, respondent
Judge continued to take further action on the case disregarding the orders. It
amounted to an undue interference with the processes and proceedings of
Branch I. It must be emphasized that Branch IV lost its jurisdiction over the
Special Proceedings when respondent Judge ordered the return of the
records to Branch I.
2. In Cui vs. Piccio it was stated that, 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 a 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 the embezzled, concealed or

conveyed property of the ward, where the right or title of said ward is clear
and undisputable. The determination of said title or right whether in favor 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.

It may be observed that private respondent contended that the sale of the
first two lots was actually a loan agreement with right of recovery while that
of the third lot was subject to condition, hence, a fictitious or simulated sale.
On the other hand, according to petitioners, the sales were all absolute and
protected by the Torrens System since new transfer certificate of titles were
issued in their name. Apparently, there is a cloud of doubt as to who has a
better right or title to the disputed properties. This 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 a guardianship proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 20,

1971 is hereby reversed and set aside, and the decision rendered by
respondent Judge of Branch IV-Calauag, Court of First Instance of Quezon
dated April 15, 1969 and the orders issued thereafter are declared null and
void, and the case is hereby remanded to Branch I-Lucena City, Court of
First Instance of Quezon for further proceedings.