G.R. No. L-5244
EULOGIO TRIA, administrator of the intestate estate of Francisca Peña, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAMON ORTIZ, defendant-appellee.
December 2, 1909

FACTS:
Francisca Peña, born in 1878, inherited property. Ramon Ortiz was appointed her guardian by a family council. In July 1898, Ortiz resigned from his guardianship. On September 21, 1898, the family council, after examination by the protutor and the new guardian, Jose Peña, and other members, formally approved Ortiz’s general accounts and accepted his resignation, subsequently cancelling his bond.

Francisca Peña came of age on July 23, 1901, and died on March 2, 1902, leaving a child and her husband, Eulogio Tria.

On January 18, 1905, Eulogio Tria, as administrator of Francisca’s estate, initiated proceedings (Case No. 478) to compel Ortiz to render an accounting under Section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ortiz rendered the accounts, but the court, without approving or disapproving them, merely closed the proceedings on November 13, 1906, reserving Tria’s right to bring a proper action.

On December 7, 1907, Tria filed the present suit, demanding Ortiz to pay P63,850 or deliver specific property (rice, carabaos, cattle, horses), alleging Ortiz’s failure to account for his administration.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, ruling that Ortiz had accounted for the property, and the family council had approved his accounts and accepted his resignation, thereby relieving him of all liability. Tria appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the former guardian, Ramon Ortiz, was relieved of liability for his administration after the family council approved his accounts and accepted his resignation in 1898, despite a subsequent action by the ward’s administrator to compel a new accounting.

RULING:
Yes, Ramon Ortiz was relieved of liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

The Court held that under Articles 279, 280, and 282 of the Civil Code, the family council has the exclusive right to “censurar” (to pass upon, approve, or reject) all accounts rendered by a guardian, whether annual, general, or final. The evidence presented, particularly the record of the family council meeting on September 21, 1898, clearly showed that upon Ortiz’s resignation, his general accounts were examined by the new guardian and the protutor, and then reviewed and expressly approved by the family council.

Once the family council, exercising its legal authority, approved Ortiz’s accounts and accepted his resignation, he was effectively relieved from all liability connected with his administration of the ward’s property.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Article 280 of the Civil Code, when a guardian is replaced, the new guardian (Jose Peña in this case) is obliged to demand and examine the general accounts of his predecessor. The new guardian becomes liable to the minor for any losses or damages should he fail to demand and examine these accounts. In this case, the new guardian, along with the protutor, did examine the accounts. Therefore, any subsequent claim for losses or damages related to Ortiz’s administration, if valid, should have been directed against the new guardian, Jose Peña, who was the one responsible for the proper transition and for ultimately accounting to the minor upon her coming of age.