BASILISA TAN DELGADO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND MIGUEL DELGADO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ESTEBAN GAMBOA AND ANGEL JOSON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Action commenced by the spouses Miguel Delgado and Basilisa Tan
Delgado in the Court of First Instance of Isabela to recover from
Esteban Gamboa and Angel Joson the ownership and possession of a parcel
of agricultural land located in Ilagan, Isabela, and covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4176 and damages in the amount of
P4,200.00 representing the produce thereof from 1952 to 1954, plus
P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The complaint prayed for the appointment
of a receiver but the record is silent as to the action taken on the
matter by the trial court.

The lot in question was originally registered in the name of
Dionisio Rañesis to whom Original Certificate of Title No. I-6755 was
issued. After his death, his widow, Maria Castañeda, first sold a
portion of three hectares to Angel P. Joson (Exhibit 6), and another
portion of two hectares to the same vendee in a private writing on
March 31, 1951 (Exhibit 7-a).

Upon the death of Maria Castañeda on December 13, 1951, her brother,
Agapito Castañeda, instituted a guardianship proceeding (Special
Proceeding No. 1) in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, over the person and property of her minor children named
Roberta, Bernardino, Dominador, Dalmacio and Leopoldo, all surnamed
Rañesis, and although there had been no previous settlement—summary or
otherwise—of the estate of the deceased parents, Castañeda was
appointed and qualified as judicial guardian on August 2, 1952 (Exhibit
C). Upon his petition, on September 27, 1952 the Justice of the Peace
of Tuguegarao authorized him to sell the parcel of land in question and
apply the proceeds in a manner beneficial to his wards (Exhibit D).
Pursuant to said authority, Agapito Castañeda sold the land to Basilisa
Tan Delgado on October 23, 1952 for the sum of P7,000.00 (Exhibit B).
As a result, the original certificate of title in the name of Dionisio
Rañesis was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4176 was
issued in the name of the vendee. In February, 1954 she mortgaged the
land to the Philippine National Bank, Santiago Branch, for P2,000.00,
said mortgage having been duly registered.

It also appears that on September 6, 1952,—that is, prior to the
issuance of the order of the Justice of the Peace Court authorizing the
guardian to sell the property—upon petition of Angel P. Joson, Esteban
Gamboa was appointed administrator of the intestate estate of the
spouses Dionisio Rañesis and Maria Castañeda by the Court of First
Instance of Isabela in Special Proceeding No. 194 (Exhibit 1), letters
of administration having been issued to him on September 25, 1952 (Exh.
2); that the only property of the estate consisted of the land covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. I-6755 of the Register of Deeds of
Isabela assessed at P2.500.00 (Exh. 3); that the court, upon motion of
administrator Gamboa, issued an order dated May 5, 1953 requiring
Agapito Castañeda, who was then in possession of the certificate of
title, to surrender the same (Exh. 5), but the order was not complied
with.

The present action was instituted by Basilisa Tan Delgado when
Esteban Gamboa, as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of
the Rañesis spouses, and Angel Joson, who was in possession of certain
portions of the land in question by virtue of the deeds of sale
executed in his favor by the deceased Maria Castañeda, refused to
vacate the land and to account for the products gathered by them from
1952 to 1954.

After due trial, the trial court rendered the appealed judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“For all the foregoing considerations, the Court
enters judgment (a) declaring, as it hereby declares, null and void the
sale of the property in question made by Agapito Castañeda in favor of
Basilisa Tan Delgado without prejudice to the right of the latter to
recover the sum of P7,000.00 from Agapito Castañeda as guardian in
Special Proceeding No. 1 of Tuguegarao, Cagayan; (b) ordering the
Register of Deeds of Isabela to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-4176 and to issue in lieu thereof another Transfer Certificate of
Title in favor of the original registered owner with the corresponding
annotation at the back thereof of the lien in favor of the Philippine
National Bank, and (c) ordering plaintiff Basilisa Tan .Oelgado to pay
to the Philippine National Bank the sum of P2,000.00, or to pay said
amount to the administrator Esteban Gamboa who, upon receipt of the
sum, shall apply it to the payment of the said loan of P2,000.00 The
complaint is dismissed without special pronouncement as to costs.”

Appellant Basilisa Tan Delgado now contends that the trial court committed the following errors:

“1. The Court a quo erred in stating that
‘the concurrent jurisdiction therein conferred on Justice of the Peace
and Municipal Courts in the appointment of guardians over the property
of the ward, be it personal or real, must be understood to refer to
such property found or situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
said inferior courts’;

“2. The Court a quo erred in
viewing that ‘the sale of the property in favor of the plaintiffs is
also null and void because as a result of the Special Proceeding No.
194 filed with the Court, the land covered by Original Certificate of
Title No. I-6755 had already been in custodia legis by the Court at the
time said property was sold to the plaintiff’ “.

The sale made by the guardian as mentioned above, cannot stand, firstly, because of our decision in Morales vs.
Maiquez, et al., (G. R. No. L-7463, promulgated on May 27, 1955) and
secondly, because at the time the Justice of the Peace Court of
Tuguegarao issued the order authorizing said guardian to sell the
parcel of land in question, the same was already in custodia legis as a
result of the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased spouses Dionisio Rañesis and Maria Castañeda (Special
Proceeding No. 194 of the Court of First Instance of Isabela).

In the Morales case we said the following:

“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 1948, 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 1 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 matter 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 appointment
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 appointment 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.”
(Morales vs. Maiquez, et al, G. R. No. L-7463, May 27, 1955)

But even granting that, under the law, Justice of the Peace Courts
have concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance of the
province over the guardianship not only of the person but also of the
properties of minors and incompetents, that jurisdiction cannot be
exercised when, as in this case, the estate has a value in excess of
the jurisdictional amount for said courts. As is clear from the record,
the property involved in the guardianship proceedings mentioned
heretofore had a value of at least P7,000.00.

In view of the foregoing, we deem it unnecessary to resolve the other questions raised in appellant’s assignment of errors.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,  Paredes, and De Leon JJ., concur.