G.R. No. L-23976 March 30, 1970
EXALTACION ZAFRA-SARTE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JULIAN LUA, FRANCISCO UNABIA and FELISA UNABIA, respondents.

FACTS

On November 3, 1961, petitioner Exaltacion Zafra-Sarte filed a petition in the Court of Juvenile & Domestic Relations of Manila for her appointment as the legal guardian over the person and property of her aunt, Remigia Zafra, whom she alleged to be an incompetent person afflicted with mental disorder. The petition was opposed by Julian Lua, who claimed to be Remigia’s common-law husband for over 30 years, and Francisco Unabia, who claimed to be Remigia’s half-brother. After trial, the court found Remigia mentally deranged and appointed Exaltacion as legal guardian in an order dated April 8, 1964. The oppositors filed a motion for reconsideration on April 22, 1964. While this motion was pending and before the period for appeal expired, the court directed the issuance of letters of guardianship to Exaltacion after she posted the required bond and took her oath. The motion for reconsideration was denied on April 29, 1964. The oppositors then filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. On May 15, 1964, the court granted Exaltacion’s urgent motion and ordered the oppositors to surrender the person of the incompetent to her, despite the oppositors having already filed their appeal. The oppositors filed a motion for reconsideration of this surrender order, which was denied on June 11, 1964. The oppositors then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled and set aside the trial court’s order of May 15, 1964, effectively restraining the guardian from assuming her functions during the pendency of the appeal. Exaltacion Zafra-Sarte petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in annulling the order of the Court of Juvenile & Domestic Relations that allowed the appointed guardian, Exaltacion Zafra-Sarte, to assume her functions and take custody of the ward during the pendency of an appeal against her appointment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that an order declaring a person incompetent and appointing a guardian is good and enforceable until reversed or set aside on appeal. This doctrine, established in Mercader v. Wislizenus, authorizes the guardian to act under the court’s direction to protect the person and property of the incompetent during the appeal’s pendency. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on California decisions which held otherwise, as those decisions were based on specific statutory provisions not present in Philippine law. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order giving immediate effect to the guardianship appointment, as it was necessary to protect the ward’s welfare. The costs were imposed on the private respondents.