G.R. No. L-5468 February 11, 1953
In re: Guardianship of ANTONIO TABOR, incompetent. ELPIDIO TABOR, petitioner, vs. HON. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Antonio Tabor and Justa Saranas, spouses, owned a residential lot in Tayug, Pangasinan, as conjugal property, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 66. They had one child, Elpidio Tabor. Justa died in December 1948. On August 26, 1949, Antonio, while still competent, executed a promise to sell the western half (with an option to purchase the whole lot) to Flaviano Magpali and Dalmacio Miranda for P7,000, receiving P100 as earnest money. Antonio later became mentally incapacitated. His sister, Benita Tabor, applied for and was appointed guardian of his person and estate by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan on April 12, 1951. Meanwhile, on May 24, 1950, Elpidio Tabor executed a pacto de retro sale of the entire lot to the same Magpali and Miranda for P5,000, with a one-year repurchase period and an option for the buyers to make the sale absolute by adding P2,000. Elpidio claimed to act for himself and his ill father, asserting ownership of one-half. On May 1, 1951, guardian Benita Tabor jointly with the buyers petitioned the court for authority to sell the lot for P7,000, stating Elpidio had received P5,450 and she had received P1,450 from the buyers. The court granted the petition. Elpidio filed motions to disapprove Benita’s appointment and the sale authorization, which were denied. He then filed this certiorari proceeding seeking to annul the order authorizing the sale, arguing the court had no jurisdiction to authorize the sale of his one-half share.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the guardian to sell the entire lot, including the one-half share belonging to the petitioner Elpidio Tabor.

RULING

The petition is denied. Technically, the court could only authorize the sale of the incompetent’s portion. However, under the circumstances, the trial court did not act illegally or with abuse of discretion. Elpidio had previously sold the entire lot, including his father’s share, without authority, for P5,000 and did not repurchase it. The buyers exercised their option to make the sale absolute by adding P2,000, which was partially paid to Elpidio (P450) and the guardian (P1,450). Thus, Elpidio received P5,450 for the sale, while his father’s estate received only P1,550 (P1,450 + P100). The court’s order merely sanctioned and legalized what had already been done. Technicalities must yield to substantial justice. The claim of inadequate price is unfounded, as the price of P7,000 (about P14 per square meter) was deemed adequate, and Elpidio himself had agreed to a P5,000 pacto de retro sale or P7,000 for an absolute sale.