IN RE GUARDIAN OF JOSEFA PONCE ALIAS JOSEFINA UY PONCE.

In the proceedings of guarianship of the minor Josefa Ponce (Sp. Proc. No.
11-R of Cebu), appellant Gregoria Daclan, second wife of the deceased Dionicio
Uy Ching Siong (great grandfather of the said minor) and administratrix of his
estate, had filed a motion asking for the annulment and revocation of previous
orders authorizing the mortgage, and later the sale, of the minor’s interest in
lots Nos. 2668 and 8057 of the Cebu Cadastre, issued by the Court to the
guardian Jose Ponce. The ground alleged was that said orders were secured
without due notice to movant as representative of the heirs of Dionisio Uy Ching
Siong; it being alleged by her that said lots 2668 and 8057 belonged exclusively
to the estate of her deceased husband, because the latter had allegedly
purchased all the interest of his first wife Catalina Taboada in said lots from
the latter’s heirs. The Court below denied the motion, finding that movant
Gregoria Daclan, being only the minor’s step-grandmother, “no es pariente de la
citada menor de acuerdo con la ley” and hence was not entitled to notice of the
guardianship proceedings (Rec. App. pp. 21-22). Daclan moved to reconsider said
order but failed, hence this appeal.

Said appellant now urges that the petition for the guardianship of the minor
Josefa Ponce, as well as the motions for the mertgage and sale of her properties
filed by her guardian Jose Ponce, are void and did not confer jurisdiction upon
the Court for lack of notice to her (appellant) as next of kin.

The argument is without merit. By her own admission, appellant is the second
wife of Dionisio Uy Ching Siong, great-grandfather of the minor; i.e., she is
only the step great-grandmother of the child. Under Rule 94, Rules of Court,
only the “next of kin” of the ward are entitled to notice of the guardianship
proceedings, and “next of kin” has been interpreted by this Court to mean those
relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to share in the
minor’s estate as distributees. (Lopez vs. Judge Teodoro, 47 Off. Gaz. (Suppl.
to No. 12) p. 141) As the second wife of the minor’s great-grandfather,
appellant has absolutely no interest in her estate, since she would not even be
a remote heir in case of the minor’s death, not being related by blood to the
latter. In our system of law, inestate succession devolves only upon blood
relatives of the decedent, with the sole exception of the surviving spouse.
Consequently, notice of these proceedings need not be given to appellant.

Appellant also claims that the petition for the appointm4ent of a guardian
over the property of the minor did not confer jurisdiction upon the court
because the same did not allege the names, ages and residence of the minor’s
relatives. Again the claim is untenable. Even assuming that the allegations as
to the names, ages and residences of the minor’s relatives is jurisdictional,
the same was not necessary in this case, for the petition was filed by the
minor’s relatives themselves, to wit, her surviving great-grandmother Ignacia
Zabate, grandaunt Dolores Taboada and her granduncles Flaviano, Francisco and
Pedro Taboada, with the written consent of her widowed father, Jose Ponce. As
for the fact that appellant was not named therein, appellant is not, as we have
already stated, such relative as is entitled to notice of the petition and other
proceedings of the guardianship.

Appellant’s intervention in these proceedings appears to be, not for the
purpose of protecting the interest and rights of the minor Josefa Ponce, but to
claim and prove the interest adverse to that of the minor’s, for it is the
contention of appellant that the parcels of land represented by the guardian to
belong to his ward, and mortgaged and sold by him as such guardian with
authority of the court, do not belong to the minor but are properties of
appellant and her children as heirs of her deceased husbandDionisio Uy Ching
Siong. It is clear that such intervention is not proper in guardianship
proceedings, which are aimed at safeguarding the rights and interest of the
incompetent person. If it be true, as appellant claims, that the alleged
properties of the minor Josefa Ponce really belong to her and her children as
heirs of the late Dionisio Uy Ching Siong, her remedy, as pointed out by the
Court below, is to ventilate said question in a separate action in the court of
proper jurisdiction. Specially so, because the transactions under attack have
already been consummated, and third persons’ interests have become vested.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against
appellant Gegoria Daclan.

Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.