G.R. No. L-4320
FRANCISCA PALET Y DE YEBRA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ALDECOA & CO. in liquidation, defendant-appellant.
February 18, 1910

FACTS:
Francisca Palet y de Yebra and her deceased husband, Agustin Palet y Roca, had four minor children. Agustin Palet y Roca was a member of Aldecoa & Co. Upon his death in 1900, a liquidation of his interests in Aldecoa & Co. was conducted, revealing a sum of P115,502.56 due to his estate. Aldecoa & Co. agreed to pay this sum to Agustin Palet y Roca’s heirs in seven annual installments, with 5% interest, starting December 31, 1900.

Aldecoa & Co. made the first payment and successive payments up to the installment due on December 31, 1906, usually to Fernandez Hermanos, representing Francisca Palet y Yebra and her minor children. However, when Joaquin Mustaroz, representing Francisca Palet y Yebra, demanded the December 31, 1906 installment, Aldecoa & Co. discovered that Francisca had remarried Jose Oliver y Bauza. Citing provisions of the Civil Code, Aldecoa & Co. refused to pay, arguing that Francisca, by remarrying, had lost her authority to represent her minor children’s estate and collect their share. The defendant did not deny its obligation to the heirs but questioned the authority of the collector.

ISSUE:
Did Francisca Palet y de Yebra, after contracting a second marriage, retain the legal authority to represent her minor children and collect funds pertaining to their inheritance from Aldecoa & Co.?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment.

The Court held that under Article 168 of the Civil Code, a mother who contracts a second marriage loses her parental authority over her children, unless the deceased husband expressly provided otherwise in his will. Since no such provision was shown, Francisca Palet lost the right of guardianship over her children, and consequently, the authority to administer their estate or collect any money due to them.

Even considering Section 553 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which identifies the mother as a natural guardian, it specifies that she is not guardian of the minor’s estate “unless so ordered by the court.” In the absence of a judicial appointment as guardian of the estate, Francisca Palet could not represent her children’s estate personally and judicially, nor could she validly confer such authority upon an agent after her remarriage.

Therefore, Francisca Palet y de Yebra had no authority to collect the installment on behalf of her minor children. The judgment was reversed, without prejudice to Francisca Palet’s right to collect any portion due to her personally, and to the proper legal representative of the minor children to commence another action for their share.