G.R. No. L-11739; August 25, 1916
CESAR MERCADER, petitioner, vs. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, Judge of the Twentieth Judicial District, respondent.

FACTS:
Proceedings were commenced in the Court of First Instance to declare Vicenta Escio a lunatic and incompetent to manage her affairs. The court declared her incompetent and appointed Pantaleon E. del Rosario as guardian of her property. An appeal from this order was duly taken to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the guardian applied to the Court of First Instance under Section 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that Cesar Mercader had taken possession of and was secreting property and collecting funds belonging to the incompetent, and had refused to deliver them to the guardian despite demand. After notice and hearing, the court issued an order directing Mercader to appear and show cause why he should not deliver the property to the guardian. Mercader filed the present petition for certiorari, contending that the Court of First Instance lost all jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeal, and thus acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order to show cause.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order to show cause against Mercader during the pendency of the appeal from the order declaring incompetency and appointing a guardian.

RULING:
No. The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction to issue the ancillary order to show cause for the protection of the incompetent’s property during the pendency of the appeal. The order declaring incompetency and appointing a guardian was valid and effective until reversed or set aside. It was not only within the court’s right but also its duty to ensure the protection of the incompetent’s property and prevent its waste or conversion during the appeal. Proceedings for incompetency and guardianship are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance by express law, and they are authorized to decide all questions arising therein during their progress. The perfection of an appeal does not withdraw the entire proceeding from the court’s jurisdiction; it only restricts the court’s power over the specific judgment or order appealed from. The court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the authority to issue the ancillary order. A writ of certiorari lies only when a court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, which was not the case here.