G.R. No. L-2963-4 December 27, 1951
Case Parties:

GUARDIANSHIP OF RUFINO CRISOSTOMO and his minor children RUFINO CRISOSTOMO, JR., JUAN CRISOSTOMO, ROBERTO CRISOSTOMO, and GABRIEL CRISOSTOMO. HERMOGENES C. FERNANDO, as Guardian of the minors, petitioner-appellant, vs. GERMAN CRISOSTOMO and PACITA FERNANDO, oppositors-appellees.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES RUFINO CRISOSTOMO and PETRA FERNANDO. GERMAN CRISOSTOMO and PACITA FERNANDO, administrators-appellees, vs. HERMOGENES C. FERNANDO, as Guardian of the minors RUFINO CRISOSTOMO, JR., JUAN CRISOSTOMO, ROBERTO CRISOSTOMO, and GABRIEL CRISOSTOMO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

This is a consolidated appeal from orders of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in two related cases: the guardianship of the minor children of the deceased Rufino Crisostomo, Sr. (G.R. No. L-2963) and the intestate estate of the spouses Rufino Crisostomo and Petra Fernando (G.R. No. L-2694). Hermogenes C. Fernando was appointed guardian of Rufino Crisostomo, Sr. and his four minor children on August 14, 1945. After Rufino Sr. died, the guardianship continued over the minors. The spouses died intestate. In the guardianship proceedings, the guardian filed a motion for approval of an extra-judicial settlement of the spouses’ estate, which the court denied, declaring the deed null and void. The guardian also filed a petition for contempt against German Crisostomo (a co-administrator of the estate) and Victor Dimagiba for allegedly taking possession of properties inherited by the minors, which the court denied. In the intestate proceedings, German Crisostomo and Pacita Fernando, as next of kin, petitioned for and were appointed co-administrators of the estate. The guardian opposed this appointment and moved for dismissal of the intestate proceedings, arguing the properties were already in his possession as guardian. The court denied the motion to dismiss and appointed the co-administrators. The guardian also moved for the closing of the intestate proceedings, which was denied. The guardian appealed these orders. Prior to this appeal, the guardian had filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-2172) with the Supreme Court, raising substantially the same issues, which was denied by final resolution on July 2, 1948.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the court should have denied the petition to open, or dismissed, the intestate proceedings upon the guardian’s motion, and whether the project of partition submitted in the guardianship proceedings should have been approved. A corollary issue is the denial of the contempt petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders appealed from. The principal issue regarding the dismissal of the intestate proceedings had already been conclusively decided by the Court in the prior certiorari case (G.R. No. L-2172). The resolutions in that case constitute res judicata and “the law of the case.” The Court had ruled that the respondent judge had jurisdiction to appoint the brother and sister (German Crisostomo and Pacita Fernando) of the deceased as administrators, as they were the nearest of kin, and that the guardian of the minor children is not, as such, the administrator of the estate of the deceased until after said estate has been acquired by or adjudicated to the minors by proper proceedings. No partition, judicial or extra-judicial, had yet adjudicated the properties to the minors. The Court found no error in the appointment of the co-administrators, as no evidence was presented against their competency or moral qualifications. Consequently, the claim for dismissal of the intestate proceedings was denied, and all dependent questions, including the denial of the approval of the extra-judicial settlement and the contempt petition, were decided adversely to the appellant guardian.