What is that physical qualification that a guardian must possess?

-not a mere defect but it is a defect that would render the person incapable of properly giving care and
custody to the ward. As long as the person is able to manage the estate of the ward.

Suppose naka-wheel chair yung applicant.(Gusto magpamasahe nung ward)

-Those matters can be delegated. Pag magpapamasahe, ihanap kita ng masahista. Yan kumuha ka dun sa
spa kung member ka dun. Gusto mo tatlo tatlo pa.

-The fact that the guardian must be hands on does not necessarily mean that he will perform everything.
That is not the law would require of him. So long as he can manage the personal care and custody of the
person and the management of his property. And that he must be mentally capacitated.

The guardian is also entitled to reasonable compensation. In cases of guardianship over the
incompetent, where there is no funds, he can really advance it. He himself has petitioned for
guardianship and can be appointed as guardian knowing fully that this incompetent has no financial
capacity, has no property or assets for his sustenance then he has to shoulder that burden. But if there
are assets or properties then the guardian can charge all his expenses over the estate of the
incompetent or the ward.

*Rules of Court talks about judicial guardianship not legal guardianship. In default legal guardianship,
brothers, sisters, grandfathers, grandmothers- these are the default legal guardians. Which means that
when the parents are disqualified or unable to provide guardianship, these default legal guardians can
exercise parental authority in default of parents that is why they are called default guardians.

*Age of guardians- he must at least of legal age. Kung pareho silang minor tapos gagawin mong guardian
minor din dalawa na silang incompetent. He must be at least of legal age. 18 years.

*Yung 16 years age gap, sa adoption nag aapply yan not in guardianship.

-The court will have to determine the qualification first hand of this guardian. It has to be established.
Now there is this one particular situation where the court will require the so called Best Evidence Rule.
Under this rule on guardianship, in a situation where the proposed ward to be under guardianship is 14
years old or over, he must be exhibited to the court. It is the best evidence. We go to the rules on
evidence. There cannot be any other evidence other than this. So he must be exhibited to the court.
That is a special rule on evidence exclusive on guardianship. He may be required, he must be examined
by the court. This time, for purposes of determining his competency or incompetency. So if the court will
establish whether he is competent or incompetent to determine the age, he must be brought
personally to the court otherwise if he is not that age, he need not be presented to court. Now in cases
of guardianship over miniroty, what evidence is necessary?

-The certificate of live birth. The certificate of live birth is a public document. According to Supreme
Court, that document is a public document. In People vs. Cayabyab, it says that the document is part of
public record and therefore it is a public document. Being a public document, you can present that in
court and it will be exempt from authentication. It is presumed. Its genuiness and due execution is
legally presumed. (Di na NSO tawag dun sa government agency. Philippine Statistics Authority na or PSA.
Hindi yan Philippine Sports Association ok.)

*Now remember however that in cases of annulment of marriages or declaration of nullity of marriages,
this evidence must be duly authenticated while marriage certificate are considered as public document,
the SC recently ruled that nonetheless this evidence must be duly authenticated. Pero di kasama yung
certificate of live birth. Marriages yung pinag usapan so it could not be stare decisis.

What are the powers the guardians having been appointed could exercise?

-The custody of the minor and management of his estate, to pay the debts of the ward, to collect debts
in favor of the ward and to represent the ward in an action in court, prepare an inventory within 3
months from appointment- Inventory of the property he knows ad that comes into his possession or
that he knows that comes into the possession of others. Also render an account within one year and
settle the guardianship and deliver the properties of the ward upon the termination of the guardianship.

We said that this guardian has among the powers conferred upon him, is paying the debts of the ward.
What kind of debts is this guardian allowed to be paid?

-The certain debts of the ward. Those that are absolute. Determined or liquidated debts. Not those
undetermined, unliquidated, contingent or not due. He can settle these debts.

How about the claims against the ward? Suppose it is a mature debt. So the creditor is now claiming.

-It must come from the income of the ward. Kung walang income, from the properties or income from
his properties. The ward has not earned any income. Unless his incompetence is not resulting from
mental incapacity. So you have to qualify if the ward is employed or gainfully employed. From his
income if he has business but remember that this business is a property so that it is included out of his
property or income from his property.

Suppose the guardian rejects the claim, where should the claimant go?

Student1: In the guardianship court

Pagka sinabi nating guardianship court, whether it is a family court or the RTC kaya nga guardianship
court. That means that you have to bring your claim or action on that guardianship court. You file your
claim there in that guardianship court so your claim there will be adjudicated and the judgment be
rendered ordering the guardian to pay. Is that correct student2? Is she correct that the claim must be
filed in the guardianship court who has the power to decide to claim?

Student2: The general rule sir is that the guardianship court will not have jurisdiction over the
determination of separate claim because the guardianship court only has special jurisdiction. It will only
have jurisdiction over those claims regarding the subject matter either on the person of the ward or
property.
Let us assume that the situation involves a general guardianship over the person of the ward and over
his property. There is this creditor whose claim is rejected by the guardian, can the creditor file this
claim in the guardianship court?

Student2: No. The guardianship court will only have jurisdiction if such property is already clearly
belonging to the ward. It will not have jurisdiction if the ownership of the property is doubtful. If there
involves a third person in such case, it must be filed in a separate ordinary proceeding.

The guardianship court has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim thats the rule. So you disagree with
her?

Student2: It can be decided by the guardianship court if the property is clearly belonging to the ward or
the title has already been determined.

Alright, so let us make the matter more interesting. Here is this creditor whose claim involves a property
of the ward. The property has been mortgaged to him. Can that matter be brought now to the
guardianship court? Mortgage lien during his lucid period, the ward mortgaged his house and lot to this
creditor. Now the creditor is trying to enforce the obligation.

Student2: Yes. If it will be proven that the ward has legal capacity when he conducted such.

Can that guardianship court entertain that claim because it involves now a mortgage lien over a specific
property owned by the ward. Earlier you said if the claim involves the property of the ward then the
court will have jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Student2: The guardianship court can entertain as long as that claim is valid and there is compliance
with notice to those persons interested because it will be a claim against the property of the ward.

So the guardianship court can even order the foreclosure the of that mortgage?

Student2: With regard to foreclosure sir, it will be a different matter that must be determined in a
separate proceeding.

Well foreclosure of real estate mortgage is governed by rule 68. It is a special civil action. So that court
cannot entertain. But if it files a claim which is a secured claim by a mortgage over his house and lot,
that guardianship court will have jurisdiction?

Student2: Yes because the mortgage creditor has options.

If it is not an enforcement of a mortgage by way of foreclosure, that guardianship court is vested with
jurisdiction?

Student2: Yes because the mortgagee-creditor can choose whether to foreclose or make it just a claim
or to recover the property.

The mortgagee-creditor can exercise either to foreclose the property or if he will abandon the
foreclosure, he cannot anymore recover the property. He has two opetions: 1 is to file an ordinary
action or 2 is to foreclose the mortgage (special civil action). Either of these actions can be opened by
the mortgage creditor. Now this time he presented a claim in the guardianship court as we understood
it by doing so, he abandons his mortgage. Can this guardianship court proceed with jurisdiction or
power to adjudicate that claim?

Student2: No because it should first be determined if the mortgage creditor has the right or personality.

Well the court will determine the validity of the claim. Please go back to the rules on pleadings. First, the
rule on pleadings tells us that the allegations in a pleading determines jurisdiction of the court. The
averments in a pleading would be sufficient if it sets out with particularity a cause of action subject to
certain exceptions and that pleading is sufficient if considering the contents thereof without considering
the extraneous matters or evidence aliunde the court can render judgment in accordance with the
reliefs prayed for. The test of sufficiency is that the court shall only determine what are alleged in the
pleadings and if on the basis of the allegation, it can render a valid judgment in accordance with the
reliefs prayed for that pleading is sufficient in form and substance.

*There is rule 68 or RA 3135. That are the laws governing foreclosure or extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage.

So in what situation are you telling us earlier that this guardianship court would have the jurisdiction to
proceed a claim if it involves a particular property of the ward.

Student2: In case of embezzlement

In fact, it is one of the powers of guardian. It is the power which he must exercise and a duty that he
must perform because we said earlier that guardianship is always and foremost for the best interest of
the ward or his estate. They should protect the interest of that estate. Just like an administrator or
executor. Any form of embezzlement of this property belonging to the estate of the ward is within that
duty. But that is not the question we are trying to resolve here. A claim brought by third person.

Student2: With regard to the claim it is also within the power of the guardian to settle the debts

We are not talking about the guardian, we are talking about the guardianship court.

Student2: If the guardian denies the claims then the guardianship court will have jurisdiction.

So you now agree with student1 that where a claim is presented by a third person, denied by the
guardian then that third person can file that claim in the guardianship court?

Student2: The guardianship court will have authority to see to it that the guardian exercise his power

We are not talking about the power. Precisely he is protecting the interest of the ward. He deny it. This
claim is highly questionable so I reject it. So this creditor now goes to the guardianship court, he files a
claim. According to student1, thats ok. The guardianship court has the power which you disagree earlier
on the premise that the guardianship court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim but now you are
saying that it has jurisdiction. In that situation is the court empowered to adjudicate the claim?
Student2: Final answer is no.

*The rule is that this guardianship court has no pwer. It has no jurisdiction. That means all claims,
syempre pagka claims disputed claims nga yan. Pagka hindi disputed wala tayong claims. Where the
guardian disputes it, rejects it, it is a disputed claim. You cannot bring that in a guardianship court.
Once and for all, settle your mind that a guardianship court has no jurisdiction to entertain that claim.
Lalo kung foreclosure. Whether it is foreclosure or by abandoning the mortgage right by proceeding to
an ordinary claim or ordinary action, the same. That court, the guardianship court is not by law vested
with that jurisdiction. All this must be in a separate action. Lalo kung foreclosure.

You see foreclosure lang ang sinasabi natin under rule 68 but there are separate matters which the court
shall determine in a foreclosure. First, the determination of claim. The determination whether there was
a violation of the terms and conditions of mortgage. Whether he is entitled to foreclose that mortgage.
The court will vest in their jurisdiction whether the obligation is due and there was a default. Thats the
first thing that court will do. Second is to order the foreclosure, resolve without determining the validity
and violation of the principal contract. Remember mortgage contract is mere accessory contract. The
court must necessary pass upon the validity of principal. Without that validity of that principal contract,
the accessory contract does not exist because its life is dependent upon the principal contract. Pag
walang principal eh di walang accessory.

So this court will have no jurisdiction. Once and for all, the rule is very very simple. If we are talking
about a claim, a disputed claim, it must be proceeding in a separate action, that court will have no
jurisdiction to entertain that. You go to another court.

Is this guardian required to post bond before the issuance of the letter of guardianship? Yes. Is there a
situation that this guardian may be exempted in posting a bond of guardianship?

-There is none. Always there must be a bond.

Suppose it is only a guardianship over the person of the ward. Can the court exempt a guardian from
posting a bond?

-No. The rule does not qualify. Under the provision, before a guardian appointed upon the execution of
this trust or letters of guardianship, he shall give a bond. The rule does not allow exemption from a bond
unlike executors where the testator as provided in his will that this executor is exempt from posting a
bond.

Can the court increase this bond? What could be the valid grounds that court may impose additional or
increase a bond? Does the rule provides factors, guidelines as to the increase of the bond so the court
may increase the amount required in cases where the amount of the property increases? Can a guardian
sell the property owned by the ward? There must be just like in a settlement of estate authority coming
from the court?(Not answered)

-If it includes and involves all kinds of encumbrances and dispositions, any lien or encumbrance, much
more disposition would require authority from guardianship court.
Guardian Y secured the authority of the court to sell one of the properties of the ward in December
2014. Due to non interest of supposed buyers, guardian Y was able only to dispose of the property
authorized by the guardianship court to be sold by January 2016. Is the conveyance made by the
guardian valid?

-Disposition outside the 1 year period is not valid, voidable,rescissible.

What are the grounds in the civil code that renders a contract void? Remember that there is a difference
between void and inexistent contracts. Study the grounds.