G.R. No. L-1403 : October 31, 1903
JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JOHN C. SWEENEY, respondent.

FACTS:
Prior to April 2, 1903, Doña Juana Moreno de Rastrollo was the guardian of the minors Leandro Gruet and Paz Gruet. On that date, petitioners Jose E. Alemany and Andrea Atayde filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the removal of Doña Juana and for their own appointment as guardiansAtayde for the persons and Alemany for the property of the minors. On April 7, the court granted the petition and appointed them accordingly, with Alemany posting a bond of 25,000 pesos. Doña Juana died on the same day. On April 17, the court annulled the appointments of the petitioners and appointed Don Carlos Rastrollo as guardian pending the probate of Doña Juana’s will.

On April 22, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal, accompanied by a bond, contesting their removal. The court did not act on this appeal. Instead, upon motion of an attorney (without service of copy to petitioners), the court later issued an order ratifying the annulment of the petitioners’ appointments and confirming Rastrollo’s appointment. Upon learning of this order in early June, the petitioners filed another appeal on June 10. The respondent judge denied both appeals. The petitioners then filed this original action for mandamus under Section 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel the judge to allow their appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the petitioners’ appeal from the order of April 17, which annulled their appointment as guardians.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the order of April 17, which annulled the petitioners’ appointments and replaced them with another guardian, constituted a final order of removal from office. Under Section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person legally interested in a final order affecting guardianship proceedings may appeal. The petitioners perfected their appeal by filing a notice of appeal and tendering the required bond within the 20-day period prescribed by Section 781. The respondent judge’s duty to approve the bond was ministerial once a sufficient bond was presented. His refusal to do so warranted mandamus under Section 515.

The demurrer was overruled. The respondent judge was given ten days to file an answer to the complaint.