G.R. No. 48895; July 16, 1943
In re Guardianship of Luis Ribaya. ADELA CARBONELL VDA. DE RIBAYA, petitioner-appellant, vs. AGUSTINA R. VDA. DE RIBAYA, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Adela Carbonell Vda. de Ribaya (later Mrs. Ricardo Mirasol), the mother and judicial guardian of the minor Luis Ribaya, appealed from orders of the Court of First Instance of Albay. The orders: (1) approved her guardian accounts with a balance of P1,574.30 in favor of the minor and ordered its deposit in the Philippine National Bank; and (2) removed her as guardian of the minor’s property, appointing in her stead Agustina Vda. de Ribaya, the minor’s paternal grandmother. Vicente Ribaya (the minor’s father and Adela’s husband) died intestate on September 29, 1935, leaving as his only legal heirs his minor son Luis and his widow Adela. No intestate proceeding was instituted. On July 25, 1936, Adela was appointed guardian of her son’s person and property. She submitted her first and second annual accounts, which were opposed by Agustina on grounds of unaccounted income, excessive expenses, and the fact that Adela had contracted a second marriage, which allegedly terminated her usufruct over certain coconut lands. The court approved the accounts with the stated balance and ordered its deposit. It also initially declared Adela’s usufruct extinguished due to her remarriage but later set that aside, stating the issue should be resolved in an intestate proceeding. The court removed Adela as guardian of the property, citing grounds including wasteful administration and refusal to obey the deposit order. The appeal was allowed only as to the removal order, the earlier orders having been declared final.

ISSUE

The primary issue for review was the propriety of the trial court’s order removing Adela Carbonell as the guardian of the property of her minor son, Luis Ribaya, and appointing Agustina Vda. de Ribaya in her stead.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of removal and substitution of the guardian. The Court deduced from the record that the deceased Vicente Ribaya left considerable properties and debts, and that without instituting intestate proceedings, his widow Adela appeared to have assigned to herself the usufruct of sixty hectares of coconut land, leaving the rest of the assets and liabilities to her minor son. The Court declared such extrajudicial settlement void and of no legal effect, as the widow could not validly enter into an agreement with herself in her capacity as natural guardian of her minor son for the apportionment of the inheritance. Furthermore, the widow’s usufructuary share could not be determined until the estate’s debts were liquidated. The Court held it imperative for Adela to institute intestate proceedings for the settlement and adjudication of the estate. The record evinced a conflict of interests between Adela and the minor as heirs of the deceased, which alone justified her removal as guardian of the property, independent of the specific grounds cited by the trial court. The Court also noted that the accounts presented pertained more properly to the settlement of the intestate estate rather than the guardianship proceeding. The order was affirmed with the direction that Adela institute intestate proceedings for the settlement of Vicente Ribaya’s estate.