Upload
hyacinth-marie-tamisin-salig
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
1/32
Jack Doe and Jill Doe vs. Imperial Bucket Corporation
This is a case filed by the Plaintiffs, Jack Doe and Jill Doe, both minors, against
Defendant, Imperial Bucket Corporation. They allege that (1) they suffered grievous and
permanent injuries when a steel bucket manufactured by the defendant proved to be of unsafe
design and manufacture, and without proper safeguards, so as to allow it to be operated in an
unsafe manner by these minors; and (2) the Defendant is guilty of such gross product liability as
to be responsible for these injuries and therefore should compensate Jack and Jill for a sum
greater than five million pesos (P 5,000,000).
The facts of the case are as follows:
Plaintiffs were both completely untrained in the proper operation of the bucket,
referred to as the pail, manufactured by Defendant, Imperial Bucket Corporation. The
said pail was made of steel and weighed 1.6 pounds when empty. It was designed to be
carried by a rounded metal handle, or bail. Depending on the material used to fill the
pail, the weight of such pail could vary between 1.9 pounds (cotton) and 61.0 (pig iron).
Unless one received proper instruction in the use of this pail, it could easily be
overloaded, causing it to become unstable. It does not include directions for safe use,
warnings of any kind about the potential danger of the pail, and even safety devices to
protect individuals from suffering injuries when using this pail. Due to this, minors
operating the pail could not possibly be aware of the inherent dangers in the defective
design of this pail and would thus be subject to injury.
The plaintiffs testified that as they were skipping up the hill, they hold on to the
pail, which swung precariously between them. Upon reaching the top of said hill, they
filled up the pail with water, which the weight of the latter will be affixed through
laboratory testing. Both minors had no idea that the defective design of this pail permitted
it to be filled with water to an unsafe level. As Plaintiffs began carrying the now
hazardous steel pail down the side of the hill, the water began shifting inside the pail,
causing the weight to be unevenly distributed. This motion caused a partial reduction in
the contents of the pail, adding to the unbalanced state of the pail. Since Jack and Jill
were not experienced in controlling the weight of a pail with water down a hill, both
minors individually and simultaneously did lose their balance owing entirely to the
instability of the pail.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
2/32
According to the police reports, Jack apparently lost control of the pail and fell
down the hill. Jill, a young female weighing approximately 48 pounds, could not possibly
have been expected to retain control of the pail without assistance and immediately came
tumbling after.
By reason of the foregoing and of the Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs were severely
bruised, injured, and wounded. They suffered, still suffer, and will continue to suffer for some
time, physical and mental pain and great bodily injuries. Specifically, Jack broke his crown in
three different places in addition to fracturing his ribs and right arm. Jill sustained bruises and
contusions to her legs, ankles, and wrist. Some of these injuries may be of a permanent nature so
as to affect the lives of these minors.
The Imperial Bucket Corporation, being aware for an indeterminate time that the bucket
they callously manufactured and offered to market had serious design flaws and under certain
conditions could cause severe injury, nevertheless did continue to manufacture and market such a
bucket to the public. They failed to take the necessary steps to inform the public of the potential
for injury inherent in the use of their product. That they did so, and continue to do so, indicates a
disregard for the public welfare, for which punitive damages might be deemed appropriate.
The law applicable for this case is the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Book IV
which pertains to Obligations and Contracts. The damages caused by Defendant Imperial Bucket
Corporation are based on quasi-delict. According to Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.1
Moreover, Article 2187 same law states that, Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by
any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them
and the consumers.2
This provision is new. No similar provision is found in the Spanish Civil Code. The
framer of present Civil Code based this provision on the rule obtaining in most states of the
United States to the effect that a consumer may recover damages against a manufacturer for the
1 Article 2176 of the Civil Code2 Article 2187 of the Civil Code
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
3/32
negligent preparation or manufacture of food irrespective of any contractual relations between
the parties. For example, in the United States it has been held that a manufacturer was liable for
negligently bottling beer with broken glass in the bottle. Another manufacturer was held liable
for negligent preparation of mincemeat put up in a package. And still in another case a
manufacturer was held liable for the careless and negligent canning of spoiled meat.3
The liability imposed by Art. 2187 of the Civil Code is limited only to manufacturers of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods for death or injuries caused by any noxious o
harmful substances used. In the United States the principle generally accepted is that a seller or
other supplier of chattels for a consideration may be liable for harm to the person or property of
third person who may be expected to be in the vicinity of the chattels probable use if he has
failed to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe for the use for which it is supplied. 4
Thus, in the leading case of MacPherson vs. Buick Motor Co., 217, N.Y. 382, 111 N.Y. 1050, it
appeared that plaintiff was hurt when an automobile which he had bought from a retail dealer
collapsed as a result of a defective wheel. Defendant was the manufacturer of the automobile
though not of the wheel. It was established that had the defendant employed due care in
inspecting the parts before assembling the vehicle, the defect would have been discovered.
Plaintiff recovered damages. Justice Cardozo speaking for the court said:
We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas vs. Winchester is not limited to poisons,
explosives, and things of like nature to things which in their normal operation are implements of
destruction. If the nature of the thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in
peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the
consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing
will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective
of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully.5
3 Jarencio, H.U. Torts and Damages in Philippine Law, Chapter II: Quasi-Delicts4 Jarencio, H.U. Torts and Damages in Philippine Law, Chapter II: Quasi-Delicts5 MacPherson vs. Buick Motor Co., 217, N.Y. 382, 111 N.Y. 1050
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
4/32
The following cases, although decided in the United States, will illustrate the application
of Article 2187 of the Civil Code.
Boyd vs. Coca Cola Bottling Works
132 Tenn. 23, 177 S.W. 80
Facts: Plaintiffs husband bought for her a sealed bottle of Coca Cola from a
retail dealer in Nashville. He carried the bottle home and poured a potion of its
contents into a glass. His wife drank the liquid poured out, and immediately
became intensely nauseated and suffered seriously from its effect. The husband,
upon examining the bottle, found therein a cigar stub about two inches long which
had apparently been in the liquid for some time. Complaint was made about the
incident to an agent of Coca Cola Bottling Works who said the company had
employed some Negroes who were careless about washing bottles into which
Coca Cola was poured. There was proof to the effect that the defendant was
accustomed to buying empty bottles around town and to refill them. A physician
testified as to the poisonous effects of a fluid impregnated with nicotine from a
cigar stub.
Held: Upon a person who undertakes the performance of an act, which if not
done with care and skill will imperil the lives of others, the law imposes the duty
of exercising the requisite care and skill. In such matters such a person is liable to
others suffering from his negligence.
This liability does not depend on contract or privity, but arises from a breach of
the legal duty, to which we have just referred. A tort is committed, a legal right
invaded by practice which prejudices anothers health.
So when the manufacturer of this beverage undertook to place it on the market in
sealed bottles, intending it to be purchased and taken into the human stomach,
under such circumstances that neither the dealer nor the consumer had
opportunity for knowledge of its contents, he likewise assumed the duty of
exercising care to see that there was nothing unwholesome or injurious contained
in said bottle. For a negligent breach of this duty, the manufacturer became liable
to the person damaged thereby.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
5/32
Practically all the modern cases are to the effect that the ultimate consumer of
foods, medicines, or beverages may bring his action against the manufacturer for
injuries caused by the negligent preparation of such articles. This is certainly true
where the articles are sold in sealed packages and are not subject to inspection.
Some of the cases place the liability on the general grounds heretofore stated.
Others place it on pure food statutes. Other say there is an implied warranty when
goods are dispensed in original packages, which is available to all damaged by
their use, and another case says that the liability rests upon the demand social
justice
Defendant was held liable.
Ward Baking Co. vs. Trizzino
161 N.E. 557
Facts: Trizzino purchased a cake made by Ward Baking Co. from a grocer. He
suffered injuries from a needle embedded in a cake and sued the maker thereof for
damages.
Held: Considerations of public policy demand that the utmost care and caution
be exacted from the manufacture of articles of food, who not only manufactures
the same but causes the same to be delivered to grocery men, bakeries, and so
forth for the purpose of general distribution and sale to members of the general
public. The consumer has a right to rely upon the implied representation of the
baking company that these articles bearing its name are not only free from
injurious substance, but are fit for consumption as food.
That court also pointed out that in one case it was held that the evidence that a
manufacturer of soap placed the same upon the market with knowledge that poisonous and
injurious substances were necessary in its preparation, and if too much of the poisonous
ingredients was used, and not neutralized in manufacturing, injury was liable to result from its
use and did in fact result sufficiently showed negligence in its manufacture which rendered it
liable to one who purchase it from a retail dealer, for injuries which resulted from its use; that the
liability does not rest upon any contract or privity between the manufacturer and the person
injured, but upon the duty imposed by law upon the manufacturer not to put upon the market a
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
6/32
commodity that was unsuitable for use by the public, and which the public could not use without
injury.
Another applicable law which can be used by Jack and Jill against Imperial Bucket
Corporation is the Consumer Act of the Philippines, specifically Article 77 which states that:
Art. 77. Minimum Labeling Requirements for Consumer Products.
XXX
The following may be required by the concerned department in accordance with the rules
and regulations they will promulgate under authority of this Act:
(a) whether it is flammable or inflammable;
(b) directions for use, if necessary;
(c) warning of toxicity;
(d) wattage, voltage or amperes; or
(e) process of manufacture used if necessary.
Any word, statement or other information required by or under authority of the
preceding paragraph shall appear on the label or labeling with such conspicuousness as
compared with other words, statements, designs or devices therein, and in such terms as
to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary
conditions of purchase or use.
The above requirements shall form an integral part of the label without danger of being
erased or detached under ordinary handling of the product.
On the other hand, the Imperial Bucket Corporation may use Article 2180 of the Civil
Code as defense against Jack and Jill. The first, second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of
the Civil Code provide:
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2175 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their company."
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
7/32
The above-quoted provisions of the present Civil Code are similar to the provisions of
the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code.
The liability imposed by these provisions is based on the principle that since children and
wards do not have the capacity to govern themselves, their parents and guardians have the duty
of exercising special vigilance over them so that damage to third persons due to the ignorance ,
lack of foresight or discernment of such children and wards may be avoided. If the parents and
guardians fail to comply with that duty imposed upon them by law, they will be held liable for
the damage caused by their negligence. The liability of parents and guardians for the damage
which may be caused to third persons by their children or wards is based on their own negligence
in failing to properly care or supervise them so as to prevent their causing such damage. This is
the necessary consequence of the provision of the last paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
which states that "The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage".
If the minor or insane person causing the damage has no parent or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him in which case a
guardian ad litem is appointed.
The following cases illustrate the meaning and the application of the law:
Cuadra vs. Monfort
35 SCRA 160
Facts: Plaintiff's daughter Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and defendant's daughter
Maria Teresa Monfort, 13, were classmates and friends in Grade Six. On July 9,
1962 their teacher assigned them to wee4d the grass in the school premises. While
thus engaged defendant's daughter fount a plastic headband and jokingly she said
aloud that she wound an earthworm. To frighten plaintiff's daughter she tossed the
object at her and hit her right eye. Plaintiff's daughter rubbed her eye and treated
it with some powder. The eye became swollen and although she underwent
medical treatment and surgical operation she lost the eye. Plaintiff instituted this
action for damages against the father of Monfort.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
8/32
Held: "The legal issued posed in this appeal is the liability of a parent for an act
of his minor child which cause damage to another under the specific facts related
above and the applicable provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles 2176
and 2180 thereof, which read:
'Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault of
negligence if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."
'Art 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
x x x x x
'The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage.
"The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or
negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness or
intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one person for
whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable under Article
2176 is the fault or negligence accompanying the act or omission, there being no
willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or omissions that of
one person for whom another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable
under Article 2180, I the different cases enumerated therein, such as that of the
father or the mother under circumstances above quoted. The basis of this
vicarious almost primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault of negligence,
which is presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or omission.
The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. This is the
clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article
2180, which states "that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
9/32
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage."
Since the fact thus required to be proven is a matter of defense, the burden of proof
necessarily rests on the defendant. But what is the exact degree of diligence contemplated, and
how does a parent prove it in connection with a particular act or omission of a minor child,
especially when it takes place in his absence or outside his immediate company? Obviously there
can be no meticulously calibrated measure applicable; and when the law simply refers to "all the
diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage." It implies a consideration of the
attendance circumstances in every individual case, to determine whether or not by the exercise of
such diligence the damage could have been prevented.
"In the present case there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that
he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to
foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at
school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right to
expect her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the
act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not unusual
among children at play and which no parent, however, careful, would have any
special reason to anticipate much less guard against. Nor did it reveal any
mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the child's character which would
reflect unfavorable on her upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed
to her parent.
"The victims, no doubt, deserves no little consideration and sympathy for the
tragedy that befell her. But if the defendant is at all obligated to compensate her
suffering, the obligation has no legal sanction enforceable in court, but only the
moral compulsion of good conscience."
Plaintiff could not recover.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
10/32
Exconde vs. Capuno
101 Phil. 843
Facts: Dante Capuno was a student of the Balintawak Elementary School. He
attended a parade in honor of Rizal upon instruction of the city school supervisor.
From the school Dante with other students boarded a jeep and when the same
started to run he took hold of a wheel and drove while the driver sat on his left
side. The jeep turned turtle and two passengers died. This action was brought
against Dante and his father Delfin Capuno for damages.
Held: "Plaintiff contends that defendant Delfin Capuno is liable for the damages
in question jointly and severally with his son Dante because at the time the latter
committed the negligent act which resulted in the death of the victim, he was a
minor and was then living with his father and inasmuch as these facts are not
disputed, the civil liability of the father is evident. And so, plaintiff contends, the
lower court erred in relieving the father from liability.
We find merit in this claim. It is true that under the law above quoted "teachers or
directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody.' Buy this provision applies to an
institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution.
Dante Capuno was then a student of the Balintawak Elementary School, and as
part of his extra-curricular activity, he attended the parade in honor of Dr. Jose
Rizal upon instruction of the city school's supervisor. And it was in connection
with the parade that Dante boarded a jeep with some companions and while
driving it, the accident occurred. In the circumstances it is clear that neither the
head of the school, nor the city school's supervisor, could be held liable for the
negligent act of Dante because he was not then a student of an institution of arts
and trades as provided for by law.
"The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and in case of his death
or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor child
who live with them, is obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents "duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their company, educate them and instructing
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
11/32
them in proportion to their "means"; while, on the other hand, gives them the
"right to correct and punish them in moderation" (Article 154 and 155, Spanish
Civil Code). The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is
if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage (Article 1903, last paragraph, Civil Code). These defendants
failed to prove."
Defendants Dante Capuno and his father Delfin Capuno held jointly and severally liable
to plaintiff.
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals
108 Phil. 414
Facts: Plaintiff Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and defendants Augusto Mercado, 9
years old, were students in the Lourdes Catholic School. They quarreled over an
empty nutshell used by children as a piggy bank. Augusto Mercado wounded
Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. on the right cheek with a piece of razor blade.
Quisumbing, Jr. and his father brought an action for damages against Augusto
Mercado and his father. Defendant Mercado contended that since the incident
occurred while his son was in school it should be the teacher or the head of the
school and not Mercado the father who should be held responsible.
Held: "This precise question was brought before this Court in Exconde vs.
Capuno and Capuno, G.R. No. L-10134, promulgated June 30, 1957, but we
held, through Mr. Justice Bautista:
We find merit in this claim. It is true that under the law above-quoted teachers or
directors of art and trades are liable for damage caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody,' but this provision only applies to
an institution or arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution.
The last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, upon which petitioner rests
his claim that the school where his son was studying should be made liable, is as
follows:
'Art. 2108.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
12/32
'Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody."
"It would seem that the clause 'so long as they remain in their custody',
contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such
that the control, direction and influence on the pupil supersede those of the
parents. In these circumstances, the control or influence over the conduct and
action of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so
would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear
in the case at bar; the pupils appear to go to school during school hours and get
back to their homes with their parents after school is over. The situation
contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does
paragraph 2 of said article, which makes the father or mother responsible for the
damages caused by their minor children. The claim of the petitioner that
responsibility should pass to the school must therefore, be held to be without
merit."
Defendant Mercado, the father was held liable.
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez
56 Phil. 177
Facts: A passenger truck and an automobile of private ownership collided while
attempting to pass each other on the Talon Bridge on the Manila South Road in
Las Pias, Rizal. As a result of the collision a passenger in the truck, Narciso
Gutierrez suffered a fracture in his right leg. The truck was owned by the
defendant Saturnino Cortex. The automobile was operated by Bonifacio
Gutierrez, a lad 18 years of age, and was owned by Bonifacio's father and mother,
Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez, also defendants in this case. At the time of the
collision, the father was not in the car, but the mother together with several other
members of the Gutierrez family, seven in all, were in the car. The court found
that both drivers of the truck and the car were negligent.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
13/32
Held:"In amplification of so much of the above pronouncement as concerns the
Gutierrez family, it may be explained that the youth Bonifacio was an
incompetent chauffeur, that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that,
on approaching the bridge and the truck, he lost his head and so contributed by his
negligence to the accident. The guaranty given by the father at the time the son
was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for
the acts of his son. Based on these facts, pursuant to the provisions of Article
1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the minor or the mother, would
be liable for the damages caused by the minor."
Defendants Manuel Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, the truck driver, and Saturnino Cortez,
were held jointly and severally liable for P5,000 to plaintiff.
Salen & Salbanera vs. Balce
107 Phil.748
Facts: Gumersindo Balce, a minor below 15 years and son of defendant Jose
Balce, killed Carlos Salen, a minor son of plaintiffs. Gumersindo Balce was
convicted of homicide. Plaintiffs brought an action for damages against defendant
Jose Balce, father of the minor Gumersindo Balce. The trial court dismissed the
case stating that the civil liability must be determined under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code and not under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. Plaintiff
appealed.
Held: "It is true that under Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code, a father is made
civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an
insane, under 9 years of age, or over but under 15 years of age, who acts without
discernment, unless it appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part. This
is because a son who commits the act under any of those conditions is by law
exempt from criminal liability (Article 12, subdivision 1, 2 & 3, Revised Penal
Code). The idea is not to leave the act entirely unpublished but to attach certain
civil liability to the person who has the delinquent minor under his legal authority
or control. But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from
criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
14/32
of his parent should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the
general law which is our Civil Code.
"The particular law that governs this case is Art. 2180, the pertinent portion of
which provides: 'The father and, in case of his death, or incapacity the mother, are
responsible for damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.'
To hold that this provision does not apply to the instant case because it only
covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise
from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that while for an act where
mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for
the damage caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is
caused with criminal intent. Verily, the void which apparently exists in the
Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular provision of our Civil Code as
may be gleaned from some recent decisions of this Court which cover equal or
identical cases."
Decision of the trial court reversed.
Fuellas vs. Cadano
3 SCRA 361
Facts: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-appellant Agapito
Fuellas, were both 13 years old and classmates. While they were in school they
had a quarrel. Their teacher separated them and told them to go home. After going
down the schoolhouse Rico Fuellas held Pepito Cadano by the neck and pushed
him to the ground. Pepito fell on his right-side with his right arm under his body,
whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. Pepito's right arm was broken. Elpidio
Cadano, father of Peipito, filed two separate actions: (a) One filed on October 1,
1954 for damages against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico, and (b) the
other on November 11, 1954 against Rico Fuellas for serious physical injuries.
The cases were tried jointly. On May 18, 1956 Rico Fuellas was convicted of the
offense charged in the criminal case. No pronouncement was made in the criminal
case on his civil liability the court stating that the same shall be determined in the
civil case. On May 25, 1956 the same court rendered a judgment in the civil case
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
15/32
holding Agapito Fuellas liable in damages in the total amount of P9,600 under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by
reducing the moral damages. Agapito Fuellas appealed to the Supreme Court
contended that since the act of his minor son was deliberate and international Art.
2180 of the Civil Code was not applicable. Fuellas also contended that the only
way by which a father can be made responsible for the criminal act of his son
committed with deliberate intent and with discernment, is an action based on the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability of parents.
Held: The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor
children imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations
arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses.
The subsidiary liability of parents arising from the criminal acts of their minor children
who act with discernment is determined under the provisions of Art 2180, New Civil Code and
under Art 101 of the Revised Penal Code, because to hold that the former only covers obligations
which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would
result in the absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or
mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability would
attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Judgment affirmed.
Elcano vs. Hill
77 SCRA 100
Facts: Reginald Hill son of defendant Marvin Hill was charged criminally for the
killing of Agapito Elcano son of plaintiffs the Elcano spouses. At the time of the
killing Reginald Hill was a minor, married and was living with his father Marvin
Hill and receiving subsistence from him. Reginald Hill was acquitted on the
ground that his act was not criminal because of lack of intent to kill coupled with
mistake. Subsequently the Elcano spouses filed a civil action for damages against
Reginald Hill and his father Marvin Hill arising from the killing of their son. The
case was dismissed by the lower court on defendants' motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the questions raised was whether
the father of the minor who was already married but living with, and receiving
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
16/32
subsistence from said father was liable in damages for the crime committed by the
minor.
Held: "Coming now to the second issue about the effect of Reginald's
emancipation by marriage on the possible civil liability of Atty. Marvin Hill, his
father, it is also considered opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Atty. hill
is already free from responsibility cannot be upheld
"While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the
child (Article 327 Civil Code) , and under Article 397, emancipation takes place
"by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to
Article 399 emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute.
Thus emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate
parental authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer
his property as though he was of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or
encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian.
He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or
guardian.
"Now under Article 2180, 'the obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one
is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company." In the instant case, it is not controvert that Reginald, although married
was living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the
occurrence in question. Factually, therefore, Reginald was still subservient to and
dependent on his father, a situation which is not unusual.
"It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint
and solidary liability of parents with their offending child under Article 2180 is
that it is the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to
prevent them from causing damage to third persons. On the other hand the clear
implication of Article 399, in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage
may not, nevertheless, sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents, is that
such emancipation does not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
17/32
any act that can give rise to judicial litigation. And surely, killing someone else
invites judicial action. Otherwise stated, the marriage of a minor child, while still
a minor, does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child, while
still a minor, does not give cause to any litigation, in the same manner that the
parents are answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or
encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their minor married child
without their consent. Accordingly, in our considered view, Article 2170 applies
to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald.
However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of
equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become subsidiary to that of his son."
Order of the lower court reversed.
If I were to choose a party/position that I would support, I would prefer the Defendant,
Imperial Bucket Corporation. The parents should be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code. It is the responsibility of the parents to take care of their child and they should not let their
children use things that are not safe without their supervision. In the case at bar, the parents of
Jack and Jill let them use an unsafe bucket without adult supervision, hence, making them
(parents) liable for the damages suffered by their children.
The Imperial Bucket Corporation should not be held liable for the damages of minors,
Jack and Jill Doe. The persons liable are the minors parents which should be supervising them
while using the pail to get water up the hill.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
18/32
Petition for Guardianship and Other Legal Relief in the Matter of Beauty, Sleeping
The case at bar is filed by petitioner, Mr. King, requesting that an order be issued by the
court prohibiting any or all extraordinary or heroic measures being taken now or at any time in
the future to resuscitate, awaken, or in any way revive or sustain by artificial means their relation
by blood, Sleeping Beauty; and that no experimental treatment be administered and no persons
unknown to the Court through its trustees be permitted access to said Beauty. In addition,
petitioner and his spouse are requesting that they be named legal guardians of the subject,
trustees of all assets, and, in the event of her death, executors of her estate.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Sleeping Beauty has been surviving for seventy-one years in a trance-like state
consistent in every way with the medical condition coma. This state was induced by an
unknown drug injected into her system with a needle. The unknown chemical substance,
injected either knowingly or unwittingly on or about the subjects sixteenth birthday, did
cause grievous damage to her central nervous system and brain stem. This hallucinogenic
substance did also cause similar harm to others engaged in the service of Beauty and
believed to have had marginal physical contact with the subject. The immediate result of
such drug introduction was a total and complete loss of consciousness, the inability to
communicate in any form whatsoever with any persons and the complete and total
cessation of all bodily functions save breathing. There is no proven antidote to this drug.
The source of this drug is unknown to the petitioner. Sleeping Beauty remains in such a
trance-like state as described to this date. She has not responded to any attempt to revive
her with traditional, proven, safe, and accepted means of resuscitation.
The petitioner claims knowledge that a person or persons not specifically known
to petitioner have made or will make heroic attempts to revive Sleeping Beauty using a
highly experimental treatment medically referred to as artificial respiration, commonly
known as mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. There is no evidence of any kind to support
the use of said treatment in this case. Additionally, as the drug known to have caused the
subjects condition has officially been labeled a dangerous drug, whose properties have
not sufficiently been tested, and which drug is proved to have caused the onset of similar
symptoms to persons having only casual contact with Beauty, there exists a clear and
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
19/32
present danger to the general populace that any type of physical contact with the subject
may result in controlled spread of such symptoms.
Petitioner thereby, to protect the general well-being, requests a court order be
issued immediately prohibiting such experimental treatment by any and all persons
whosoever. He also requests the Court decree that should the physical state of the subject
change in any way, shape, or form, no measures except those currently accepted by the
medical community as immediate aid to lessen pain and suffering be employed in her
behalf. It is the wish of the petitioners that no artificial or mechanical means of any kind
known now or at any time in the future be used in this case to extend the condition in
which Beauty currently resides.
At the commencement of this drug-induced trance, Sleeping Beauty was in possession of
a substantial amount of material goods, including but not limited to items of pure gold, jewelry,
acreage, and a castle (one). Such holdings were out into a trust to be administered by her blood
relatives at the commencement of this current state. Those people charged with supervising said
trust have perished through primarily natural causes, such as age and war. In the absence of
supervision, the value of such holdings has substantially increased, but without proper legal
authority to oversee such holdings, there exists significant risk of loss or depreciation of the
value of such holdings. The petitioner hereby declares to the Court that any and all members of
the immediate family of the subject, Beauty (including but not limited to father, mother, siblings
of any gender, cousins by blood first through sixth, aunts, and uncles), have perished and the
petitioner is the sole surviving blood relation. The petitioner voluntarily relinquishes all rights to
privacy for matters relating to this claim and will make available to this Court samples necessary
for the scientific establishment of this blood link through any and all known means.
As the sole surviving blood relation of Sleeping Beauty, the petitioner requests that the
Court appoint him legal guardian of Beauty with full power of attorney and such access to herein
described trust to enable full and proper management of these assets to the benefit of Beauty, her
heirs, and her estate in total.
In the event of the untimely death of Sleeping Beauty, the petitioner humbly requests that
the Court appoint the petitioner sole executor of the estate of the subject, with full powers to take
such actions as necessary to benefit the estate of Beauty.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
20/32
The Rules of Court on Special Proceedings, specifically Rules 92-97, is applicable in the
case at bar. The Petitioner must adhere to these rules and their subsections in order to be
appointed as the guardian of Sleeping Beauty and to be granted as the successor to her
properties.
RULE 92
VENUE
Sec. 1. Where to institute proceedings. - Guardianship of the person or estate of a minor
or incompetent may be instituted in the Court of First Instance 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, and if he resides in a foreign country,
in the Court of First Instance 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 Court of First Instance.
In the City of Manila, the proceedings shall be instituted in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.
Sec. 2. Meaning of 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, becoming
thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
Sec. 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.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
21/32
RULE 93
APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS
Sec. 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 Federal Administration 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.
Sec. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for the appointment of a general guardian must
show, so far as known to the petitioner:
(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.
Sec. 3. Court to set time for hearing; Notice thereof. - When a petition for the
appointment of a general guardian is filed, the court shall fix a time and place for hearing
the same, and shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons mentioned
in the petition residing in the province, including the minor if above 14 years of age or
the incompetent himself, and may direct other general or special notice thereof to be
given.
Sec. 4. Opposition to petition. - Any interested person may, by filing a written opposition,
contest the petition on the ground of majority of the alleged minor, competency of the
alleged incompetent, or the unsuitability of the person for whom letters are prayed, and
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
22/32
may pray that the petition be dismissed, or that letters of guardianship issue to himself, or
to any suitable person named in the opposition.
Sec. 5.Hearing and order for letters to issue. - At the hearing of the petition the alleged
incompetent must be present if able to attend, and it must be shown that the required
notice has been given. Thereupon the court shall hear the evidence of the parties in
support of their respective allegations, and, if the person in question is a minor, or
incompetent it shall appoint a suitable guardian of his person or estate, or both, with the
powers and duties hereinafter specified.
Sec. 6. When and how guardian for nonresident appointed; Notice. - When a person
liable to be put under guardianship resides without the Philippines but has estate therein,
any relative or friend of such person, or anyone interested in his estate, in expectancy or
otherwise, may petition a court having jurisdiction for the appointment of a guardian for
the estate, and if, after notice given to such person and in such manner as the court deems
proper, by publication or otherwise, and hearing, the court is satisfied that such
nonresident is a minor or incompetent rendering a guardian necessary or convenient, it
may appoint a guardian for such estate.
Sec. 7.Parents as guardians. - When the property of the child under parental authority is
worth two thousand pesos or less, the father or the mother, without the necessity of court
appointment, shall be his legal guardian. When the property of the child is worth more
than two thousand pesos, the father or the mother shall be considered guardian of the
child's property, with the duties and obligations of guardians under these rules, and shall
file the petition required by section 2 thereof. For good reasons the court may, however,
appoint another suitable person.
Sec. 8. Service of judgment. - Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be served
upon the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or incompetent person
resides or where his property or part thereof is situated.
RULE 94
BONDS OF GUARDIANS
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
23/32
Sec. 1.Bond to be given before issuance of letters; Amount; Conditions. - Before a
guardian appointed enters upon the execution of his trust, or letters of guardianship issue,
he shall give a bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned as follows:
(a) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a true and complete
inventory of all the estate, real and personal, of his ward which shall come to his
possession or knowledge or to the possession or knowledge of any other person for him;
(b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the estate
according to these rules for the best interests of the ward, and to provide for the proper
care, custody, and education of the ward;
(c) To render a true and just account of all the estate of the ward in his hands, and of all
proceeds or interest derived therefrom, and of the management and disposition of the
same, at the time designated by these rules and such other times as the court directs; and
at the expiration of his trust to settle his accounts with the court and deliver and pay over
all the estate, effects, and moneys remaining in his hands, or due from him on such
settlement, to the person lawfully entitled thereto;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.
Sec. 2. When new bond may be required and old sureties discharged. - Whenever it is
deemed necessary, the court may require a new bond to be given by the guardian, and
may discharge the sureties on the old bond from further liability, after due notice to
interested persons, when no injury can result therefrom to those interested in the estate.
Sec. 3.Bonds to be filed; Actions thereon. - Every bond given by a guardian shall be filed
in the office of the clerk of the court, and, in case of the breach of a condition thereof,
may be prosecuted in the same proceeding or in a separate action for the use and benefit
of the ward or of any other person legally interested in the estate.
RULE 95
SELLING AND ENCUMBERING PROPERTY OF WARD
Sec. 1.Petition of guardian for leave to sell or encumber estate. - When the income of an
estate under guardianship is insufficient to maintain the ward and his family, or to
maintain and educate the ward when a minor, or when it appears that it is for the benefit
of the ward that his real estate or some part thereof be sold, or mortgaged or otherwise
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
24/32
encumbered, and the proceeds thereof put out at interest, or invested in some productive
security, or in the improvement or security of other real estate of the ward, the guardian
may present a verified petition to the court by which he was appointed setting forth such
facts, and praying that an order issue authorizing the sale or encumbrance.
Sec. 2. Order to show cause thereupon. - If it seems probable that such sale or
encumbrance is necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, the court shall make an
order directing the next of kin of the ward, and all persons interested in the estate, to
appear at a reasonable time and place therein specified to show cause why the prayer of
the petition should not be granted.
Sec. 3.Hearing on return of order; Costs. - At the time and place designated in the order
to show cause, the court shall hear the proofs and allegations of the petitioner and next of
kin, and other persons interested, together with their witnesses, and grant or refuse the
prayer of the petition as the best interests of the ward require. The court shall make such
order as to costs of the hearing as may be just.
Sec. 4. Contents of order for sale or encumbrance, and how long effective; Bond. - If,
after full examination, it appears that it is necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward,
to sell or encumber the estate, or some portion of it, the court shall order such sale or
encumbrance and that the proceeds thereof be expended for the maintenance of the ward
and his family, or the education of the ward, if a minor, or for the putting of the same out
at interest, or the investment of the same as the circumstances may require. The order
shall specify the causes why the sale or encumbrance is necessary or beneficial, and may
direct that estate ordered sold be disposed of at either public or private sale, subject to
such conditions as to the time and manner of payment, and security where a part of the
payment is deferred, as in the discretion of the court are deemed most beneficial to the
ward. The original bond of the guardian shall stand as security for the proper
appropriation of the proceeds of the sale, but the judge may, if deemed expedient, require
an additional bond as a condition for the granting of the order of sale. No order of sale
granted in pursuance of this section shall continue in force more than one (1) year after
granting the same, without a sale being had.
Sec. 5. Court may order investment of proceeds and direct management of estate. - The
court may authorize and require the guardian to invest the proceeds of sales or
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
25/32
encumbrances, and any other of his ward's money in his hands, in real estate or
otherwise, as shall be for the best interest of all concerned, and may make such other
orders for the management, investment, and disposition of the estate and effects, as
circumstances may require.
RULE 96
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS
Sec. 1. To what guardianship shall extend. - A guardian appointed shall have the care and
custody of the person of his ward, and the management of his estate, or the management
of the estate only, as the case may be. The guardian of the estate of a nonresident shall
have the management of all the estate of the ward within the Philippines, and no court
other than that in which such guardian was appointed shall have jurisdiction over the
guardianship.
Sec. 2. Guardian to pay debts of ward. - Every guardian must pay the ward's just debts
out of his personal estate and the income of his real estate, if sufficient; if not, then out of
his real estate upon obtaining an order for the sale or encumbrance thereof.
Sec. 3. Guardian to settle accounts, collect debts, and appear in actions for ward. - A
guardian must settle all accounts of his ward, and demand, sue for, and receive all debts
due him, or may, with the approval of the court, compound for the same and give
discharges to the debtor, on receiving a fair and just dividend of the estate and effects;
and he shall appear for and represent his ward in all actions and special proceedings,
unless another person be appointed for that purpose.
Sec. 4.Estate to be managed frugally, and proceeds applied to maintenance of ward. - A
guardian must manage the estate of his ward frugally and without waste, and apply the
income and profits thereon, so far as may be necessary, to the comfortable and suitable
maintenance of the ward and his family, if there be any; and if such income and profits be
insufficient for that purpose, the guardian may sell or encumber the real estate, upon
being authorized by order so to do, and apply so much of the proceeds as may be
necessary to such maintenance.
Sec. 5. Guardian may be authorized to join in partition proceedings after hearing. - The
court may authorize the guardian to join in an assent to a partition of real or personal
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
26/32
estate held by the ward jointly or in common with others, but such authority shall only be
granted after hearing, upon such notice to relatives of the ward as the court may direct,
and a careful investigation as to the necessity and propriety of the proposed action.
Sec. 6.Proceedings when person suspected of embezzling or concealing property of
ward. - Upon complaint of the guardian or ward, or of any person having actual or
prospective interest in the estate of the ward as creditor, heir, or otherwise, that anyone is
suspected of having embezzled, concealed, or conveyed away any money, goods, or
interest, or a written instrument, belonging to the ward or his estate, the court may cite
the suspected person to appear for examination touching such money, goods, interest, or
instrument, and make such orders as will secure the estate against such embezzlement,
concealment or conveyance.
Sec. 7.Inventories and accounts of guardians, and appraisement of estates. - A guardian
must render to the court an inventory of the estate of his ward within three (3) months
after his appointment, and annually after such appointment an inventory and account, the
rendition of any of which may be compelled upon the application of an interested person.
Such inventories and accounts shall be sworn to by the guardian. All the estate of the
ward described in the first inventory shall be appraised. In the appraisement the court
may request the assistance of one or more of the inheritance tax appraisers. And
whenever any property of the ward not included in an inventory already rendered is
discovered, or succeeded to, or acquired by the ward, like proceedings shall be had for
securing an inventory and appraisement thereof within three (3) months after such
discovery, succession, or acquisition.
Sec. 8. When guardian's accounts presented for settlement. - Expenses and compensation
allowed. Upon the expiration of a year from the time of his appointment, and as often
thereafter as may be required, a guardian must present his account to the court for
settlement and allowance. In the settlement of the account, the guardian, other than a
parent, shall be allowed the amount of his reasonable expenses incurred in the execution
of his trust and also such compensation for his services as the court deems just, not
exceeding fifteen per centum of the net income of the ward.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
27/32
RULE 97
TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
Sec. 1.Petition that competency of ward be adjudged, and proceedings thereupon. - A
person who has been declared incompetent for any reason, or his guardian, relative, or
friend, may petition the court to have his present competency judicially determined. The
petition shall be verified by oath, and shall state that such person is then competent. Upon
receiving the petition, the court shall fix a time for hearing the questions raised thereby,
and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the guardian of the person, so declared
incompetent, and to the ward. On the trial, the guardian or relatives of the ward, and, in
the discretion of the court, any other person, may contest the right to the relief demanded,
and witnesses may be called and examined by the parties or by the court on its own
motion. If it be found that the person is no longer incompetent, his competency shall be
adjudged and the guardianship shall cease.
Sec. 2. When guardian removed or allowed to resign; New appointment. - When a
guardian becomes insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable
therefor, or has wasted or mismanaged the estate, of failed for thirty (30) days after it is
due to render an account or make a return, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the
guardian, remove him, and compel him to surrender the estate of the ward to the person
found to be lawfully entitled thereto. A guardian may resign when it appears proper to
allow the same; and upon his resignation or removal the court may appoint another in his
place.
Sec. 3. Other termination of guardianship. - The marriage or voluntary emancipation of a
minor ward terminates the guardianship of the person of the ward, and shall enable the
minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money
or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or
guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or
guardian. The guardian of any person may be discharged by the court when it appears,
upon the application of the ward or otherwise, that the guardianship is no longer
necessary.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
28/32
Sec. 4.Record to be kept by the justice of the peace or municipal judge. - When a justice
of the peace or municipal court takes cognizance of the proceedings in pursuance of the
provisions of these rules, the record of the proceedings shall be kept as in the court of
first instance.
Sec. 5. Service of judgment. - Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be served
upon the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or incompetent person
resides or where his property or part thereof is situated.
The following are cases on petition for guardianship:
Guardianship of James E. Stegner vs. Stegner
G.R. No. L-8532 October 11, 1957
Facts: W.A. Stegner left a will nominating and appointing the Philippine Trust
Company executor of the trustee and as guardian of his children. In 1936, the
Court appointed Juanita T. Stegner, mother of the minors, as guardian over the
persons of the minors and the Philippine Trust Company as guardian of
theirproperties. When the Philippine Trust Company filed a final consolidated
statement of account and petition for discharge containing a detailed statement of
cash receipts and disbursement made, Catherine and Mildred Stegner opposed this
petition alleging that it did not explain why the minors should be prejudiced by
the sum of P15,117.29 allegedly invalidated and that as the loans were in the
name of the Philippine Trust Company and not in the names of Catherine and
Mildred Stegner, these wards should not be prejudiced by the payments made by
the mortgagors during the enemy occupation amounting to P15,117.29 which was
declared invalidated.
Held: Consolidating the related questions raised by oppositors, the main issue in
the instant case is whether the Philippine Trust Company could be held liable for
the investments of the funds of the wards made without securing the previous
authorization of the Court and which resulted in the loss of P15,117.29.
Section 5, Rule 96 of the Rules of Court, provides that:
SEC. 5. COURT MAY ORDER INVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS AND DIRECT
MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE. The Court may authorize and require the
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
29/32
guardian to invest the proceeds of sales or encumbrances, and any other of his
ward's money in his hands, in real estate or otherwise, as shall be for the best
interest of all concerned, and may make such orders for the management
investment, and disposition of the estate and effects, as circumstances may
require.
Although the authority referred to in this Section may not have been secured prior
to the investment of the properties of funds of the ward, yet We believe that the
court's approval of the annual inventories and accounts submitted by the guardian,
with the conformity and/or acquiescence of the U. S. Veterans Administration and
the mother of the minors, wherein the questioned investment was mentioned and
accounted for, amounts to a ratification of the acts of the guardian and compliance
with the provisions of section 5, Rule 96 aforecited. The Court finds no merit in
the imputation of negligence on the guardian with respect to said assets after
taking into consideration the satisfactory explanations made by said guardian.
Wherefore, the order of the Court, a quo of July 29, 1954, appealed from is
hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Nario vs. Philamlife Insurance Company
20 SCRA 434
Facts: Mrs. Nario applied for and was issued a life Insurance policy (no. 503617)
by PHILAMLIFE under a 20-yr endowment plant, with a face value of 5T. Her
husband Delfin and their unemancipated son Ernesto were her revocable
beneficiaries. She then applied for a loan on the above policy with PHILAMLIFE
w/c she is entitled to as policy holder, after the policy has been in force for 3
years. The purpose of such loan was for the school expenses of Ernesto. The
application bore the written signature and consent of Delfin in 2 capacities: (1) as
one of the irrevocable beneficiaries of the policy; (2) as father-guardian of Ernesto
and also the legal administrator of the minors properties pursuant to Article 320
of the Civil Code. PHILAMLIFE denied the loan application contending that
written consent of the minor son must not only be given by his father as legal
guardian but it must also be authorized by the court in a competent
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
30/32
guardianship proceeding. Mrs. Nario then signified her decision to surrender her
policy and demand its cash value which then amounted to P 520. PHILAMLIFE
also denied the surrender of the policy on the same ground as that given in
disapproving the loan application. Mrs. Nario sued PHILAMLIFE praying that
the latter grant their loan application and/or accept the surrender of said policy in
exchange for its cash value. PHILAMLIFE contends that the loan application and
the surrender of the policy involved acts of disposition and alienation of the
property rights of the minor, said acts are not within the power of administrator
granted under Article 320 in relation to Article 326 Civil Code, hence court
authority is required.
Held: SC agreed with the trial court that the vested interest or right of the
beneficiaries in the policy should be measured on its full face value and not on its
cash surrender value, for in case of death of the insured, said beneficiaries are
paid on the basis of its face value and in case the insured should discontinue
paying premiums, the beneficiaries may continue paying it and are entitled to
automatic extended term or paid-up insurance options and that said vested right
under the policy cannot be divisible at any given time.
SC also agreed with TC that the said acts (loan app and surrender) constitute acts
of disposition or alienation of property rights and not merely management or
administration because they involve the incurring or termination of contractual
obligations.
Under the laws (CC and rules of Court) The father is constituted as the minors
legal administrator of the property, and when the property of the child is worth
more than P2T (as in the case at bar, the minors property was worth 2,500 his
share as beneficiary), the father a must file a petition for guardianship and post a
guardianship bond. In the case at bar, the father did not file any petition
for guardianship nor post a guardianship bond, and as such cannot possibly
exercise the powers vested on him as legal administrator of the minors property.
The consent give for and in behalf of the son without prior court authorization to
the loan application and the surrender was insufficient and ineffective and
PHILAMLIFE was justified in disapproving the said applications.
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
31/32
Assuming that the property of the ward was less than 2T, the effect would be the
same, since the parents would only be exempted from filing a bond and judicial
authorization, but their acts as legal administrators are only limited to acts of
management or administration and not to acts of encumbrance or disposition.
Mendezona vs. Ozamiz
G.R. No. 143370 February 6, 2002
Facts: Petitioners alleged that petitioner spouses Mario Mendezona and Teresita
Mendezona own a parcel of land which they bought from Carmen Ozamiz. They
initiated the suit to remove a cloud on their respective titles of ownership caused
by the inscription thereon of the notice of lis pendens which came about as a
result of an incident in a special proceeding for guardianship over the person and
properties of Carmen Ozamiz initiated by respondents Julio Ozamiz, Jose
Ozamiz, Paz Montalvan, Ma. Terresa Zarraga, Carlos Fortich, Jose Roz, Paulita
Rodriguez and Lourdes Lon. The respondents alleged that Carmen Ozamiz, then
86 years old, after an illness on July 1987, had become disoriented and could no
longer take care of herself nor manage her properties by reason of her failing
health, weak mind and absent-mindedness. Both parties agreed that Carmen
needed a guardian over her person and her properties. Thus, as guardians,
respondent Roberto Montalvan and Julio Ozamiz filed their Inventories and
Accounts of Carmens properties and other assets including the parcel of land
bought by the petitioners. Roberto and Julio caused the inscription on the titles of
petitioners a notice oflis pendens thus giving rise to the suit for quieting of titles
filed by petitioners. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners;
however, the appellate court reversed it.
Held: A person is presumed to be of sound mind at any particular time and the
condition is presumed to continue to exist, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Competency and freedom from undue influence, shown to have existed in the
other acts done or contracts executed, are presumed to continue until the contrary
is shown. The respondents sought to impugn only one document, namely, the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989, executed by Carmen Ozamiz.
However, there are nine (9) other important documents that were, signed by
8/4/2019 LegRes Final Paper
32/32
Carmen Ozamiz either before or after April 28, 1989 which were not assailed by
the respondents. Such is contrary to their assertion of complete incapacity of
Carmen Ozamiz to handle her affairs since 1987. We agree with the trial courts
assessment that "it is unfair for the [respondents] to claim soundness of mind of
Carmen Ozamiz when it benefits them and otherwise when it disadvantages
them." Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.
Petitioner, as a guardian of Sleeping Beauty, has the care and custody of the person of
Beauty and the management of her estate. Since he has the care and custody of Beauty, he has
the right to request an order prohibiting any or all extraordinary or heroic measures being taken
now or at any time in the future to resuscitate, awaken, or in any way revive or sustain by
artificial means their relation by blood, Sleeping Beauty. He can also manage her estate, as a
guardian, since Sleeping Beauty is incompetent to manage the said properties.