IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF EULOGIO IMPERIAL, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, GUARDIAN.  GLORIA GOMEZ, CUSTODIAN-CLAIMANT-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ESTEBAN IMPERIAL, AQU…

Appeal from some orders of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte.

On August 9, 1956,
the Philippine National Bank commenced Special Proceedings No. R-145 of said
court with a petition praying-pursuant to Republic Act No. 390^[1] –
that Eulogio Imperial – an 85 year old veteran, who
was to receive a monthly pension of P270 from the U.S. Veterans Administration
and had been found by the same to be incompetent – be so adjudged and that the
Bank be appointed guardian of his estate and authorized to pay therefrom not more than P100.00 a month to the person in
actual custody of said incompetent, namely, his granddaughter, Gloria Gomez, at
No. 20 Arellano St., Dipolog, Zamboanga
del Norte.  It was alleged in said
petition that the other near relatives of the incompetent had signified their
“waiver, agreement and conformity”, which was attached to the
petition.

On the same date, the court granted the petition as well as the
authority therein prayed for.  Thereupon,
the Bank qualified as guardian and discharged its duties as such.  After filing the necessary petitions, which
were granted by the court, the monthly allowance for the ward was, from time to
time, increased, from P100.00, on August
9, 1956, to P200.00, as of January, 1962.  Similarly, the net value of the estate of the
ward had gradually increased until it reached the sum of P10,131.57 as of December 10, 1963, when, in view of
the death of the ward, on September
13, 1962, the bank submitted its final account, which was approved
by the court on February 8, 1964.  In its order of that date, the court,
likewise, directed Miss Gomez to submit a verified statement of the names of
all known legal heirs of the deceased. 
The last para­graph of said order was of the following tenor:

“In the meantime, the guardian Philippine National Bank is
hereby directed to deposit the residuary estate of said ward with its bank
agency in Dipolog, this province, in the name of the
estate of the deceased of the same to the heirs when the latter shall be known,
and, upon proof of deposit of said residuary estate, the guardian Philippine
National Bank shall forthwith be relieved from any responsibility as such, and
this proceeding shall be considered closed and terminated.”

Soon thereafter, or on February 21, 1964, four children of the
deceased, namely, Rufino, Esteban, Nicasia and Irinea, all surnamed
Imperial – the last two represented, respectively, by their descendants, Aquilla Alonzo and Francisca Ordinario
Imperial – filed a motion to set aside said order of February 8, 1964, and
prayed that an accounting be rendered by Miss Gomez either together with, or
separately from, the Bank, and that the termination of the proceedings or the
division of the residuary estate be held in abeyance until said accounting
shall have been made.

On February 29, 1964,
Miss Gomez objected to this motion. 
Moreover, on March 10, 1964,
she submitted to the court the names and addresses of seven (7) children of the
deceased, three (3) of whom were, likewise, deceased, and the names and
addresses of the children of the latter. 
On the same date, she, also, filed a motion for the payment of a monthly
compensation of P15.00, for her services as custodian of the person of the
ward, from August 9, 1956 to
September 13, 1962, or the
aggregate sum of P1,080.00.

On March 11, 1964,
the Bank reported to the court that the residue of the estate of the deceased
incompetent had been transferred to the Dipolog
agency of said Bank, where a savings account in the name of said estate was
opened.  On May 11, 1964, the court issued an order denying said
motion for reconsideration of the order of February 8, 1964, and granting Miss Gomez the
aforementioned compensation for her services as custodian of the person of the
ward.  A reconsideration of this order
having been denied on July 11, 1964,
the above named children of the deceased interposed the present appeal from
said orders of May 11 and July 11,
1964.

The questions raised in the seven assignments of error made by
appellants herein may be summed up as follows: (a) that the lower court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for guardianship, because notice of said
petition had not allegedly been served upon them; (b) that Miss Gomez is not
entitled to compensation for her services as custodian of the incompetent; (c)
that she may be required to render an accounting; and (d) that the lower court
should have distributed in the present proceedings the residue of the estate of
the incompetent among his heirs.

As regards the first question, suffice it to say that, before the
commencement of this case, and with full knowledge of the fact that the same
would be instituted, the near relatives of the ward had signed a “waiver,
agreement and conformity” – which was attached to the petition for
guardianship – of the following tenor:

“I hereby acknowledge notice that a guardian must be appointed
in the above-styled case before benefits payable through the U.S. Veterans
Administration may be released.  I
request that the Philippine National Bank be appointed as guardian for the
incompetent’s estate, and hereby WAIVE further notice, entry of appearance,
conform to the pleading and consent that this matter may be heard ex-­parte by the court pursuant to Section 19 of the ‘Uniform
Veterans’ Guardianship Act’ (Republic Act No. 390).”^[2]

Indeed, the lower court made specific reference to this
“waiver, agreement and conformity” in granting said petition of the
Bank.  In view of said waiver, which is
explicitly sanctioned by law,^[3]
it is apparent that the lower court had jurisdiction over the guardianship
proceedings and full authority to dispose of the same in the manner in which it
did.  Thus:

“In Burroughs v. De Couts (1886) 70
Cal. 361, 11 p. 734, it was held that there had been a sufficient compliance
with the California statute which provided that before appointing a guardian
for a minor, ‘the judge shall cause such notice to relatives of the minor
residing in the county, and to any person under whose care such minor shall be,
as he shall on due inquiry deem reasonable.’ x x x; where the order making the appointment recited that it
satisfactorily appeared that all the near relatives of the infant, residing in
the county, had assented thereto, and that two of such relatives had filed
their consent in writing.”^[4]

Needless to say, as correctly adverted to in the order of May 11,
1964, “it is extremely hard to believe that in the almost seven years that
this proceeding had been pending” in the lower court appellants herein – all
of them residents of Zamboanga del Norte,
some in the very municipality of Dipolog,
where Miss Gomez and her grandfather were residing – had not known or heard of
the present case.  One can not, of
course, overlook the fact that, on August
9, 1956, when the same began, the sum available for the incompetent
was only P270.  In other words, it was
too meager for the appellants to attach any importance thereto.

With respect to the second question, it is clear that the lower
court had discretion to authorize the payment to Miss Gomez of a nominal
compensation of P15.00 a month, considering that she had agreed to take care of
an old man, who preferred to be with her than with any of his children, and
that none of the latter had volun­teered to give him the attention he needed so
badly.  Besides, in granting the petition
for guardianship – which included a request for authority to pay Miss Gomez a
monthly allowance of P100 for the support of the incompetent – as well as the
subsequent motions of the Bank for the gradual increase of said allowance, the
court had in effect authorized the Bank to engage her services as custodian of
the person of said incompetent.  The
lower court did not err, therefore, in holding that those services should be
compensated, not only as a matter of principle, but, also, because of the
surrounding circumstances and the insignificant amount awarded therefor.

The third assignment of error is, likewise, untenable.  The above-mentioned monthly allowance was in
payment for the board, lodging, clothing and other necessities of the
deceased.  Miss Gomez did not have to
render accounts of the expenses incurred by her for such purpose.  The Bank had already submitted its reports of
the expenses of the guardianship, which reports were ap­proved by the court.

The last assignment of error is manifestly devoid of merit, for
the distribution of the residue of the estate of the deceased incompetent is a
function pertaining properly, not to the guardianship proceedings, but to
another proceeding which his heirs are at liberty to initiate.

WHEREFORE,
the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Otherwise known as the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act.

^[2] Appellee’s brief, p. 6; p. 82, Rollo.

^[3] Section
19 of Republic Act No. 390 provides: “The parties at interest in any case
under this Act, including the Administrator, through his attorney, may, by
written consent filed with the Court waive formal hearing and appearance in any
matter affecting such case; whereupon the Court shall determine the matters
involved solely upon the pleadings and shall render judgment thereon without
requiring the parties or their attorneys to be present and shall cause a
certified copy of any judgment so rendered or order issued to be mailed to the
guardian and to the Chief Attorney of the Veterans Administration.”

^[4] 109
A.L.R., p. 340.