RULE 96, 1997 RULES OF COURT, GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS

What are the general powers and duties of guardians?

They are as follows:
a. To have care and cutody over the person of his ward, and / or the mamangement of his estate
(Sec. 1);
b. To pay just debts of his ward out of the latter's estate (Sec. 2);
c. To bring por defend suits in behalf of the ward, and, with the approval of the court, compund for
debts due the ward and give discharges to the debtor (Sec. 3);
d. To manage the estate frugally and without waste, and apply the income and profits to the
comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward and his family (Sec. 4);
e. To sell or encumber the real estate of the ward upon being authorized to do so (Se. 4);
f. To join in an assent to a partition of real or personal estate held by the ward jointly or in common
with others (Sec. 6).

May a guardian make donations on properties entrusted to him by ward?

No. A guardian, just like a trustee, is prohibited under Article 736 of the Civil Code form making a donation
of the properties entrusted to him. ( See Araneta vs Perez, L-18872, 15 July 1966)

What may the court do if anyone is suspected of having embezzled, concealed, or conveyed awya any
money, goods or interest, or a written intrument belonging to the ward or his estate ?
The court my cite the suspected person to appear for examination touching such money, goods, interest, or
instrument, and make such orders as will secure the estate against such embezzlement, concealment and
conveyance (Sec. 6).
The purpose of which, is to secure evidence from persons suspected of embezzling, concealing, or conveying
any property of the ward so as to enable the guardian to institute the appropriate action to obtain the
possession of and secure title to the said property (Cui vs. Piccio, L-5131, 31 July 1952).
When shall the guardian render an inventory and account of the estate of his ward?
A guardian must render an inventory of the estate of the ward to the court within three (3) months after his
appointment ; and annually after such appointment, an inventory and account (Sec. 7). Such inventories and
accounts shall be sworn to by the guardian. Upon the expiration of one year from the time of his
appointment, and as often thereafter as may be required, a guardian must present his account to the court for

settlement and allowance. In the settlement of the account, the guardian other than a parent, shall be allowed
the amount of his reasonable expenses and also such compensation for his services as the court deems just,
not exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of the net income of the ward (Sec. 8).

CASES:
1. CABALES VS CA, G.R. No. 162421, 2007
Link to original text : http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/162421.htm
Facts :
Rurfino Cabales died in 1966 leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his wife,
Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Francisco, Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and Rito. On 1971, the
brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. Corrompido with a right to
repurchase within eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the redemption of the property, Alberto died leaving
behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein petitioner. The said brothers and their mother, in lieu of Alberto,
tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido, during the redemption period. Subsequently,
Saturnina, and her four children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses
Feliano. It was provided in the deed of sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the
sale, will be held in trust by the vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21.
In 1986, Rito received the sum of Php 1,143 from the Spouses Feliano representing his share in the proceeds
of the sale of the property. It was only in1988, that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle, Rito. He
signified his intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a complaint for
redemption against the Spouses Feliano.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no longer entitled
to the property since, his right was subrogated by Saturnina upon the death of his father, Alberto. It also
alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his legal guardian at the time of the sale
was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.
The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by Saturnina in behalf
of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.
Issue : Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian on behalf of the minors were binding upon them.
Ruling :
With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. Under Section
1, Rule 96 : A guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his ward, and
the management of his estate, or the management of the estate only. Indeed, the
legal guardian only has the plenary power of administration of the minors property. It
does not include the power of alienation which needs judicial authority.
Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petitioner, Rito, sold the latters pro
indiviso share in subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do so.

Accordingly, the contract as to the share of Rito was unenforceable. However, when
he received the proceeds of the sale, he
effectively ratified it. This act of ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to
him.

2. LINDAIN VS CA, G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992

Link to original text : http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/aug1992/gr_95305_1992.html
Facts :
The plaintiffs as minors, owned a parel of registered land, whom their mother , Dolores, is
guardian, sold for P2,000.00 under a deed of absolute sale to the spouses Apolonia and Federico. The
latter knew that the sale was without judicial approval but still proceeded with the transaction. The
plaintiffs, in a petition, now contends that the sale is null and void as it was without the court's
approval. The Regional trial Court ruled that the sale is indeed null and void. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals (CA) confirmed the sale as valid and dismissed the complaint. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the sale by the guardian of a minor's property require judicial approval?
Ruling :
Yes. Under Art. 320 (NCC), a parent acting merely as a legal administrator of the property of his
minor children does not have the power to dispose of or alienate the property of the said child
without judicial approval. And under Rule 84 (Code of Civil Procedure), the powers and duties of
the widow as legal administrator of her minor children's property are merely powers of possession
and management. Hence, the power to sell, mortgage, encumber or dispose must proceed from the
court under Rule 89 of the Rules of Court.