G.R. No. L-4155 December 17, 1952
In the matter of guardianship of FERNANDO, FRANCISCA, RAFAEL and MARIA CANDELARIA, all surnamed BAUTISTA, minors. FELISA PANGILINAN VDA. DE BAUTISTA, guardian. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, oppositor-appellee, vs. ADELA BUSTOS, claimant-appellant.

FACTS

Special proceedings for the guardianship of the minors Fernando, Francisca, Rafael, and Maria Candelaria Bautista were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The People’s Bank and Trust Company was appointed judicial guardian of the minors’ properties, and their mother, Felisa Pangilinan Vda. de Bautista, was appointed judicial guardian of their persons. On December 13, 1949, after the appointment of the judicial guardians, the minors’ mother signed a “Deed of Loan” in favor of Adela Bustos. In this deed, she declared having borrowed from Bustos, for the support of her minor children, rice, clothing, and money from May 3, 1945, to January 1, 1949, with a total value of P6,525, which would be paid as soon as the claim for pension in favor of the children was approved and received. Based on this deed, Adela Bustos filed a claim for P6,525 in the guardianship proceedings. The U.S. Veterans Administration opposed the claim. The court disallowed the claim without any evidence having been offered, and Bustos appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the claim of Adela Bustos, based on a “Deed of Loan” executed by the minors’ mother after her appointment as judicial guardian of their persons but for expenses incurred prior to the guardianship proceedings, is valid and enforceable against the minors’ property or future pensions.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and disallowed the claim. The Court ruled that the minors’ mother, as a natural guardian, was entitled to their custody and care but such guardianship did not extend to their properties. She was not a de facto guardian of their properties; her acts were performed as the mother of the children. The “Deed of Loan” was executed after the judicial guardian of the minors’ properties had already been appointed and was predicated on expenses incurred prior to the guardianship proceedings. No evidence was offered to prove that the necessaries were actually given and used for the minors, and the deed itself was insufficient and incompetent as proof against the minors. Even assuming loans were secured for the minors’ necessaries, the mother had no power or authority to encumber the property of the wards or to bind their future pensions for the payment of such a loan. Only a judicial guardian of the ward’s property could do so, and even then, only with prior court approval. The authorities cited by the appellant referred to contracts by judicial guardians, not natural guardians, and were thus inapplicable. The Court noted that if the minors should be made to pay for necessaries furnished to them, the appropriate remedy to enforce such liability was not through the written promise made by their natural guardian.