GUARDIANSHIP OF THE MINORS LIM CHU HIONG ET AL. LIM CHU LAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. LIM CHU KUN, GUARDIAN AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
the City of Manila removing the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, from the
position of guardian of the minor, Lim Chu Lan and appointing in his
stead one Chin Chong Gui, husband of Lim Chu Lan.

It appears that the minor, Lim Chu Lan, is now over 20 years of age
and the wife of Chin Chong Gui, to whom she was married on December 26,
1927. The motion with which we are here concerned was filed by Lim Chu
Lan on October 31, 1928, and it is therein stated that the estate of
the minor is in the hands of the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, a brother of
Lim Chu Lan, in the character of guardian. It is also shown that, from
the reports of the guardian, approved by the court, the value of the
estate of the petitioner ending with the year 1927 was in the amount of
P333,496.04 and that from January, 1922, to December, 1927, the annual
average income of the petitioner’s property has been more than P15,000.
In the month of December, 1927, the petitioner contracted marriage with
Chin Chong Gui; and it appears that, since that date, the guardian, Lim
Chu Kun, has supplied no maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner
therefore asks that her guardian be required to supply maintenance in
the amount of P500 per month and that he be substituted in the
guardianship by the petitioner’s husband, Chin Chong Gui.

The facts stated in the petition are not controverted, but
opposition is made by the guardian on the ground that no sufficient
ground has been shown for removing him, and in particular that none of
the reasons specified in section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure
relative to the removal of guardians has been shown to exist. From this
it is argued that the substitution, or removal, of the guardian cannot
be effected.

We have no hesitancy in declaring that the order appealed from was a
proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Court of First Instance
in such matters, since it is clear that in the language of section 574
of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant had shown himself to be
unsuitable for the position of guardian of the petitioner. The fact of
marriage alone introduces a change in the conditions of guardianship
over a minor woman, and although the marriage of a girl who is under
guardianship does not ipso facto abolish the guardianship
over the property, it does terminate ihe guardianship over the person
(sec. 575, Code of Civ. Proc). Moreover, the existence of a
guardianship over the estate of a married woman in other hands than
those of the husband is in certain respects undesirable, since the
husband is legally entitled to the management of conjugal property, and
the earnings of the paraphernal property of the wife constitute
community property. Therefore, if the husband is found to be a suitable
person, he is the proper individual to fill the office. In the case
before us it is not shown that the husband is unfit for the office to
which he was appointed by the trial court.

We note that, after the appealed order was made, the appellant
entered into an agreement with the representatives of Lim Chu Lan to
pay her P500 a month for maintenance, but this was done grudgingly; and
it is insisted here that the amount which the appellant is thus paying
is too much. We are of the opinion that the sum of P500 per month is
not improper for a person having the standing of the petitioner in the
community, in view of the size of the capital of her estate and its
earning capacity.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., dissent.