G.R. No. L-29134 July 31, 1970
LORENZO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FLORENDO AQUINO, AURORA, BELEN and ERNESTO, all surnamed DE GUZMAN, defendants.

FACTS

On September 12, 1941, petitioner Lorenzo de Guzman was appointed judicial guardian of his three minor children, Aurora, Belen, and Ernesto de Guzman. He filed a bond, submitted partial accounts in 1943 (which were approved), and was authorized to mortgage the minors’ lands for loans in 1947. On February 1955, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija issued an order considering the guardianship case “closed and terminated for lack of prosecution.” On July 26, 1967, the wards (the children) applied to have the 1955 order reconsidered and set aside, claiming they had not been given notice thereof. They prayed for the delivery of three parcels of riceland and an accounting of crops. Judge Serain Cuevas initially denied the petition, but upon reconsideration, respondent Judge Florendo Aquino granted it on October 9, 1967, reinstated the case, and ordered the guardian to render an accounting. Petitioner’s opposition and motion for reconsideration were overruled. Petitioner then filed for certiorari with injunction before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in reviving the terminated guardianship proceedings and ordering the guardian to render an accounting.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition without merit and denied the writs. The Court held that the 1955 order of closure never became final and executory as to the wards because they were not given notice thereof. The notation on the order showed notice was furnished only to the guardian and to Estanislao Gotangco (who petitioned for the guardianship but did not represent the wards). Notice to Gotangco was not notice to the wards. Consequently, the matter remained pending, and the order could be reconsidered. The case falls under the rule in Junquera vs. Vaño, 72 Phil. 293, that a court cannot motu proprio order the closure of a minor’s guardianship without a hearing or evidence, and unless the ward asks for it. The guardianship constituted an express trust, and the statute of limitations could not run except from a repudiation brought home to the wards, which was not proved. The fact that the guardian is the father of the wards demands clear proof of repudiation. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in Judge Aquino setting aside Judge Cuevas’s initial denial, as the denial was not final and Judge Cuevas had been transferred.