G.R. No. 191993 ; December 5, 2012
EDUARDO T. ABAD, Petitioner, vs. LEONARDO BIASON and GABRIEL A. MAGNO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Abad filed a petition for guardianship over his elderly aunt, Maura B. Abad, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. He alleged that due to her advanced age, Maura was incapable of managing her person and properties. The RTC gave due course to the petition. After an ex-parte hearing where no opposition was entered, respondent Leonardo Biason, also a nephew of Maura, filed a motion for leave to file an opposition. Biason argued that Abad, a resident of Quezon City, was unsuitable as guardian for Maura, who resided in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Biason prayed for his own appointment, citing a prior power of attorney from Maura.
The RTC denied Abad’s petition and appointed Biason as guardian, disqualifying Abad primarily due to his non-residence in Mangaldan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the trial court did not commit grievous error in appointing Biason, a relative with no disqualifying vices, and that Maura’s alleged preference for Abad could not be heavily relied upon given her mental state. Abad elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should proceed to resolve the merits of the petition challenging the appointment of Leonardo Biason as the guardian of Maura B. Abad.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The core legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of mootness and the nature of the guardianship relationship. During the pendency of the petition, a supervening event—the death of the appointed guardian, Leonardo Biason—occurred. The Court emphasized that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either party. This dissolution of the juridical tie rendered the resolution of the petition impractical and futile.
Any ruling on the propriety of Biason’s appointment or the alleged procedural errors in his appointment would no longer provide any substantial relief to the petitioner or affect the rights of the parties. The subject of the controversy—Biason’s guardianship—had ceased to exist. Furthermore, the Court noted that both Maura, who had filed a motion to intervene, and Abad himself, in his comment, shared the view that the petition had lost its purpose and consented to its dismissal. Consequently, the Court declined to delve into the merits and dismissed the petition.