SARAH VITO MORALES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. LAURO C. MAIQUEZ, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH V. AND ROSA VICTORINO VDA. DE SAN JOSE, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Petitioner in this case is the mother of seven minor children had with Manuel
V. San Jose without benefit of marriage, with whon she lived from April, 1937 to
March, 1952. She recognized all her seven children publicly and openly in the
records of the local civil registrar and had always supported them providing
them with clothing and shelter and sending them to school, Manuel V. San Jose
has not legally acknowledged them. By reason of trouble that arose between her
and Manuel V. San Jose in March, 1952, she fled from the common dwelling. She
tried to get custody of her children but only succeeded in getting that of
Elisa, age 16, Rosa Concepcion, age 13, and Carmelita, age 4. The remaining
four, namely, Manuel, age 14, Roberto, age 12, Alberto, age 10, and Carlos, age
7, remained with Manuel V. San Jose.

On December 21, 1953, Rosa Victorino Vda. de San Jose, Manuel V. San Jose’s
mother, instituted special proceedings No. 130 in the Municipal Court of Manila
for the guardianship of all the above-mentioned minor children. Petitioner
herein filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the
Municipal Court of Manila has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the
action but the said Municipal Court denied her petition. Petitioner herein filed
a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case
No, 2173), asking for the annulment of the order of the Municipal Court in the
above-mentioned special proceedings No, 130. This notion was denied, so
petitioner has presented an appeal directly to this Court.

The question squarely brought before Us is whether the municipal court has
jurisdiction of a guardianship proceeding, union does not involve any property
or funds and which is limited to the custody of the person of minors. The above
question involves the interpretation of the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 643
and 644, which amended the Judiciary Act of 1948, both approved on June 12,
1950} the pertinent provisions of which are as follows :

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 643

X X X X

“Section 1. Section ninety of Republic Act Numbered Two Hundred and
ninety-six is hereby amended to read as follows :

” ‘Sec. 90. Concurrent jurisdiction to appoint guardians.- Justices of
the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with courts of first instance to appoint guardians or
guardians ad litem for persons who are incapacitated by being of minor age or
mentally incapable in matters within their respective jurisdiction.’

“Sec. 2. Section one, Rule ninety-three of the Rules of Court in the
Philippines is hereby amended to read as follows:

” ‘Sec. 1. Where to institute proceedings.- Guardianship of the person
or estate of a minor or incompetent shall be originally cognizable by the Court
of First Instance of the province where the minor or inconpetent resides, and if
he resides in a foreign country, by the Court of First Instance of the province
wherein his property or part thereof is situated: Provided,
however, that the justice of the peace courts or municipal courts of
chartered cities, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of first
instance in cases where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent
falls within the jurisdiction of the latter courts.’ “

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 644

X X X X

“Section 1. Section eighty-six of Republic Act Numbered Two hundred and
ninety-six is hereby amended to read as follows :

“‘Sec. 86. Jurisdiction of justices of the peace and judges of municipal
courts of chartered cities.- The jurisdiction of justices of the peace and
judges of municipal courts of chartered cities shall consist of :

X X X X

“‘(c) The last phrase of paragraph (e) of section forty-three of this Act,
notwithstanding, justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance in the appointment of
guardians and adoption cases.'”

The claim of the petitioner is that the phrase “in matters, within their
respective jurisdiction” contained in Section 90 of the Judiciary Acts as
amended limits the jurisdiction of justice of the peace or municipal courts to
guardianship proceedings in which the amount or value of the property involved
is within the jurisdiction of the said justice of the peace or municipal courts,
i.e., two thousand pesos or less. On the other hand, the respondent contends
that the concurrent jurisdiction granted said inferior courts embraces cases in
which the wards have no property, both the courts of first instance and the
municipal and justice of the peace courts having concurrent jurisdiction when
the property of the ward does not exceed two thousand pesos in value. It is also
argued that Republic Act No, 644, which grants jurisdiction to them in cases of
adoption and guardianship warrants the above conclusion (that the jurisdiction
was granted in appointment of guardians when the wards have no property).

Republic Act No. 643 originated in the Senate as S. No. 159. In the original
bill the term “persons” was substituted for the term “litigants in their
courts” in Section 90 of the Judiciary Act of 1943, and concurrent jurisdiction
is granted to appoint guardians or guardians ad litem for them
(persons). Under Section 2 of the bill concurrent jurisdiction Is granted
“in cases where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent falls
within the jurisdiction of the latter courts.” We see in these two provisions an
evident intention to grant jurisdiction over persons only and when the
guardianship involves properties of a ward when said properties are worth two
thousand pesos or less. In the final draft approved, the phrase “involving
amounts” contained in Section l of the original bill, S, No. 159, was
eliminated, and the phrase “in matters within their respective jurisdiction”
retained, The retention of this last phrase at first would seem to give the
impression that inferior courts are granted concurrent jurisdiction only when
the amount of the property of the ward or wards is two thousand pesos or less.
But this is expressly covered by the next section, which already grants this
class of jurisdiction. The phrase left in the law, “in matters within their
respective jurisdiction,” will have no possible application, if it is held to
refer to jurisdiction over the subject matter, because there are no guardianship
proceedings over which justice of the peace courts have jurisdiction, and the
next section already covers guardianship cases in which the amount or value of
the property in controversy is within the jurisdictional amount of the justice
of the peace courts (two thousand pesos or less). On the other hand, the grant
is with respect to persons only, not with respect to guardianship over
properties of wards as in the next grant. The only inference that may be drawn
from these circumstances is that the grant in Section 1 of Republic Act No, 643
is as to persons only, not as to properties of wards, and the retention of the
phrase “in matters within their respective jurisdiction” must have been
motivated by a desire for clearness, i.e., that the jurisdiction granted is for
the appointnent of guardians for persons only within their
territorial limits. No other reasonable interpretation could be
given thereto.

The above interpretation is confirmed by the enactment of Republic Act No.
644 also amendatory to the Judiciary Act, The bill, which later became Republic
Act no. 644 was House bill No. 812. The original bill purported to grant
jurisdiction to justice of the peace courts in adoption cases only, but the
final law as passed includes cases of appointment of guardians or guardians
ad litem. The amendment (grant of jurisdiction in the appointnent of
guardians and adoption cases) was inserted in the general provision granting
jurisdiction to supplement and complement the express grant in Republic Act No.
643. The grant of concurrent jurisdiction in the appointment of guardians of
persons is perfectly justifiable. If justice of the peace or municipal courts
are considered fully qualified to take cognizance of adoption cases, which
involve custody of persons resulting in changes of family relationship, they
should also be qualified to take cognizance of guardianship cases where custody
only is involved. Furthermore, guardianship proceedings are temporary in nature
only, during minority of the ward, and are different fron adoption cases which
occasion final and lasting consequences in family relationships, and the
legislature evidently desired the grant of jurisdiction in both cases.

The petition is denied, with costs against petitioner.

Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and
J.B.L. Reyes, JJ., concur.