G.R. No. L-5131 July 31, 1952
ANTONIO MA. CUI and MERCEDES CUI DE RAMAS, petitioners, vs. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, EUGENIO RODIL, as sheriff of the incompetent Don Mariano Cui, respondents.

FACTS

On March 8, 1946, Don Mariano Cui sold three commercial lots in Cebu City to his children Rosario C. de Encarnacion, Mercedes C. de Ramas, and Antonio Ma. Cui, pro indiviso. Rosario could not pay her share, so her portion was returned to Don Mariano, making Don Mariano, Mercedes, and Antonio co-owners in equal portions. The deed of sale expressly reserved for Don Mariano the usufruct (the right to enjoy the fruits and rents) of the property for life. A building was later erected on a portion facing Calderon Street, rented to a Chinese businessman, with Don Mariano receiving P600 monthly. Mercedes and Antonio later obtained a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) to construct a 12-door commercial building on their share. To facilitate the loan, Don Mariano executed an authority allowing them to mortgage his share, provided his right to rents was not impaired. The loan was secured by a mortgage on all three lots, with Don Mariano as a co-mortgagor. Don Mariano did not join in the construction. The co-owners assigned to Don Mariano the one-third portion facing Calderon Street (where the existing building stood). The 12-door building was constructed, and Mercedes and Antonio collected its rents (P4,800 monthly), using part to pay the RFC loan. In 1948, other children of Don Mariano filed an action to annul the sale, claiming the lots were conjugal property. In 1949, Don Mariano was declared incompetent, and a guardian, Victorino Reynes, was appointed. The guardian filed a motion in the guardianship proceedings to collect the rentals from the 12-door building and to order Mercedes and Antonio to deliver past rentals. This motion was denied by Judge Piccio on July 12, 1949. On May 22, 1951, in the annulment case, the court upheld the sale, finding the lots were Don Mariano’s exclusive property. After this decision, the guardian filed a new motion in the guardianship proceedings on August 1, 1951, again seeking delivery of the building’s rentals. On September 5, 1951, Judge Piccio granted the motion, ordering Antonio and Mercedes to deliver collected rentals and authorizing the guardian to collect future rentals. Antonio and Mercedes moved for reconsideration, which was denied on October 1, 1951. They then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge, in guardianship proceedings, had jurisdiction to issue the order of September 5, 1951, directing the petitioners to deliver the rentals of the 12-door building to the guardian and authorizing the guardian to collect future rentals.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of September 5, 1951, and October 1, 1951, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court held that under Section 6, Rule 97 of the Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the court in guardianship proceedings over a person suspected of embezzling, concealing, or conveying property of the ward is limited to citing such person for examination to secure information or evidence. Its purpose is to enable the guardian to institute the proper action to recover the property. The court in guardianship proceedings generally has no authority to determine ownership of disputed property or to order its delivery. Only in extreme cases, where the property clearly belongs to the ward or where title has already been judicially decided, may the court direct delivery. In this case, the ward’s right to the rentals was not clear and indisputable; it was in question. The guardian had already filed a separate ordinary civil action (Case No. R-1720) to recover the rentals, which was the proper remedy. Therefore, the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction in issuing the contested orders.