G.R. No. L-4833
RAFAEL LINSANGAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SIMEON LINSANGAN, defendant-appellee.
October 27, 1908

FACTS: Mariano Linsagan, father of the plaintiff Rafael Linsangan, died on March 26, 1894, when Rafael was 14 years old. On March 30, 1894, a family council was constituted and Simeon Linsangan, the defendant, was appointed Rafael’s guardian. An inventory of the ward’s property, consisting mostly of realty with an estimated annual income of P400, was presented to the council on May 11, 1894.

On May 17, 1894, the family council resolved that “the allowance for the maintenance of said minor shall be understood to consist of the rents or returns from the property.” The defendant continued as guardian until 1902 when he delivered the property to Rafael, who was still a minor. Rafael became of age on October 20, 1903.

On January 30, 1907, Rafael filed an action against Simeon, claiming that Simeon had not delivered all the property received as guardian, had never rendered an account of rents and profits, and that these rents and profits exceeded the maintenance costs.

Simeon denied the allegations and counterclaimed that when he turned over the property in 1902, Rafael took 1,512 cavanes of palay, exceeding the 800 cavanes that belonged to him by 712 cavanes, which belonged to Simeon. Simeon also claimed P81.44 for taxes he paid on Rafael’s land after Rafael became of age.

The lower court acquitted Simeon of Rafael’s complaint and ordered judgment in favor of Simeon on his counterclaim. Rafael appealed.

ISSUE: 1. Was the family council’s resolution, granting the guardian the rents of the minor’s property in compensation for his maintenance, illegal and void?
2. Was the guardian obliged to render annual or final accounts under these circumstances?
3. Is Rafael bound to pay for the 712 cavanes of palay he wrongfully took, despite being a minor at the time?

RULING: 1. No, the family council’s resolution was not illegal and void. Article 268 of the Civil Code explicitly grants the family council the right to decide “the part of the income of profit which shall be inverted therein” for the support of the minor, “in view of the inventory.” The Court found no evidence that the resolution, based on the estimated P400 annual income, was unjust or that the council did not exercise reasonable judgment at the time. Therefore, an inquiry into the actual amounts of rents versus maintenance costs is unnecessary.

2. No, the guardian was not obligated to render annual accounts to the family council, and the present action served as a sufficient final accounting. Since the guardian was given the rents of the estate as compensation for maintenance, he was not required to render annual accounts. Regarding a final account to the ward, the Court did not definitively rule on the sufficiency of the verbal accounts rendered by Simeon. However, the Court held that the present action itself, wherein the allegations of unaccounted property were examined and the court found that Simeon had delivered all property included in the duly made inventory, effectively served as the final accounting.

3. Yes, Rafael is bound to pay for the 712 cavanes of palay he wrongfully took. The Court found that there was no contract between the guardian and the ward regarding the palay. Simeon testified that he instructed Rafael to take only 800 cavanes, but Rafael took 1,512 cavanes. While Rafael was a minor at the time, the act constituted a wrongful taking and use of property. He is therefore bound to pay its value.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with the modification that interest on the judgment in favor of the defendant’s counterclaim should run from the date the answer was filed (September 18, 1907), as it constituted the defendant’s complaint for the counterclaim, rather than from the commencement of the action.