G.R. No. L-20403, November 28, 1964
TOMAS S. CARPIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Tomas S. Carpio, et al., filed an unverified petition on May 18, 1962, before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, seeking the removal of Ephraim Gochangco as the guardian of the person of the ward, Justina Santos. They prayed for his replacement with Concepcion A. Carpio, Ismaela A. Carpio, and Francisca A. Carpio. The grounds alleged were: (1) animosity of the ward towards the guardian; (2) the guardian’s disregard of the ward’s needs; (3) the guardian’s disregard of the ward’s health and well-being; and (4) the guardian’s alleged intention to gain control over the management and administration of the ward’s estate, rendering him unsuitable. They also claimed the guardian had failed to render an accounting of his expenses since his appointment in 1959, as required by law.
The guardian, Gochangco, through counsel, filed a verified manifestation vehemently denying all charges. He asserted that the petition was an attempt to poison the mind of the ward against him to facilitate his removal. While he admitted not rendering an accounting directly to the court, he explained that he had been submitting accounts to the guardian of the estate, the Security Bank and Trust Company, from which he received funds for the ward’s expenses.
The trial court, after a series of scheduled hearings and a personal visit by the respondent judge to the ward’s residence to inspect her living conditions and converse with her, issued an order on July 12, 1962, declining to give due course to the petition. The court held that the alleged grounds, particularly the ward’s dislike for the guardian, were insufficient to warrant a full hearing, exercising its discretion to avoid interminable trials based on such petitions.

ISSUE

Whether the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for removal of guardian without conducting a formal hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the removal of a guardian is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The ratio decidendi is that a court may properly exercise its discretion to deny a petition for removal without a full-blown hearing when, based on its own investigation and assessment, it finds the allegations to be unsubstantiated and insufficient to justify the guardian’s removal.
The Court noted several factors supporting the trial court’s exercise of discretion: (1) the petition was unverified, while the guardian’s answer was under oath; (2) the judge conducted a personal visit to the ward’s residence, where she conversed at length with the ward, inspected her living conditions, and found no basis for the alleged animosity or neglect; and (3) the alleged grounds, such as the ward’s dislike, are generally not considered sufficient for removal. Although the rules ideally require an opportunity to present evidence, the judge’s personal investigation served as a reasonable substitute to ascertain the truth, obviating the need for a formal hearing. Thus, the denial of the petition was a proper judicial act, not an arbitrary or capricious one.