G.R. No. L-5131, July 31, 1952
FACTS:
1. March 8, 1946 - Don Mariano Cui, widower, sold his three lots to three of his children (Rosario, Mercedes and Antonio), pro indiviso. However, Rosario failed to pay so the sale to her was cancelled and the 1/3 of the property was returned to the vendor. As a result, Don Mariano, Mercedes and Antonio became co-owners of the property. Sometime after the sale, Mercedes and Antonio applied for a loan, secured by a mortgage on the three lots, to construct a commercial building. The building was eventually constructed.
2. March 25, 1948 - two other children of Don Mariano Cui brought an action for the annulment of the deed of sale of the three lots on the ground that they belonged to the conjugal partnership of Don Mariano and his deceased wife. On March 22, 1951, Judge Saguin rendered a decision declaring that the three lots in question were not conjugal properties and so the sale was upheld.
3. March 19, 1949 - Rosario filed a petition to declare her father incompetent and to have a guardian appointed for his property. The petition was granted on May 1949 and Victorino Reynes was appointed as guardian of the property.
4. June 15, 1949 - Victorino Reynes filed a motion seeking authority to collect the rentals from the three lots in question. Judge Piccio denied the motion. Victorino filed another motion asking for the delivery of the rentals of the commercial building.
5. September 5, 1991 - Judge Piccio granted the second motion of Victorino Reynes. Antonio and Mercedes filed a MR but was denied in an order dated October 1, 1951. Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON Judge Piccio had jurisdiction to issue the September 5, 1991 order.
HELD: No. Respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the order, requiring the petitioners to deliver the rentals collected by them to the guardian and authorizing the latter to collect the rentals in the future, for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court in guardianship proceeding, ordinarily, is to cite persons suspected of having embezzled, concealed or conveyed property belonging to the ward for the purpose of obtaining information which may be used in an action later to be instituted by the guardian to protect the right of the ward; and that only in extreme cases, where property clearly belongs to the ward and his title thereto has already been judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the guardian.
The petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction is made permanent.
FACTS:
1. March 8, 1946 - Don Mariano Cui, widower, sold his three lots to three of his children (Rosario, Mercedes and Antonio), pro indiviso. However, Rosario failed to pay so the sale to her was cancelled and the 1/3 of the property was returned to the vendor. As a result, Don Mariano, Mercedes and Antonio became co-owners of the property. Sometime after the sale, Mercedes and Antonio applied for a loan, secured by a mortgage on the three lots, to construct a commercial building. The building was eventually constructed.
2. March 25, 1948 - two other children of Don Mariano Cui brought an action for the annulment of the deed of sale of the three lots on the ground that they belonged to the conjugal partnership of Don Mariano and his deceased wife. On March 22, 1951, Judge Saguin rendered a decision declaring that the three lots in question were not conjugal properties and so the sale was upheld.
3. March 19, 1949 - Rosario filed a petition to declare her father incompetent and to have a guardian appointed for his property. The petition was granted on May 1949 and Victorino Reynes was appointed as guardian of the property.
4. June 15, 1949 - Victorino Reynes filed a motion seeking authority to collect the rentals from the three lots in question. Judge Piccio denied the motion. Victorino filed another motion asking for the delivery of the rentals of the commercial building.
5. September 5, 1991 - Judge Piccio granted the second motion of Victorino Reynes. Antonio and Mercedes filed a MR but was denied in an order dated October 1, 1951. Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON Judge Piccio had jurisdiction to issue the September 5, 1991 order.
HELD: No. Respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the order, requiring the petitioners to deliver the rentals collected by them to the guardian and authorizing the latter to collect the rentals in the future, for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court in guardianship proceeding, ordinarily, is to cite persons suspected of having embezzled, concealed or conveyed property belonging to the ward for the purpose of obtaining information which may be used in an action later to be instituted by the guardian to protect the right of the ward; and that only in extreme cases, where property clearly belongs to the ward and his title thereto has already been judicially decided, may the court direct its delivery to the guardian.
The petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction is made permanent.
No comments:
Post a Comment