Facts:

On April 2, 1903, Jose E. Alemany and Andrea Atayde, the plaintiffs and appellants in this case, initiated legal proceedings against Juana Moreno, the defendant and appellee, who was the mother, guardian, and administratrix of the minor children Leandro Gruet and Maria de la Paz Gruet. The plaintiffs sought to have Juana Moreno removed from her position, claiming that she was physically incapable of fulfilling her duties as guardian and administratrix. The court, on April 6, 1903, granted the plaintiffs' request, citing Juana Moreno's ill health as the reason for her removal, and appointed Andrea Atayde as the guardian and Jose Alemany as the administrator of the minors' estate, contingent upon the filing of a bond amounting to 25,000 pesos. The bond was duly filed on April 7, 1903, and the appointments were formalized. However, on the same day, Juana Moreno passed away, which prevented the sheriff from serving her with the order requiring her appearance in the ca...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

• Plaintiffs and Appellants: Jose E. Alemany and Andrea Atayde.
• Defendant and Appellee: Juana Moreno, mother, guardian, and administratrix of the minor children Leandro Gruet and Maria de la Paz Gruet.

2. Initial Action:

• On April 2, 1903, the appellants filed a lawsuit against Juana Moreno, seeking her removal as guardian and administratrix of the minor children and their estate. They claimed she was physically incapable of fulfilling her duties due to ill health and requested that Andrea Atayde and Jose Alemany be appointed as her replacements.

3. Court Order on April 6, 1903:

• The court granted the appellants' request, removing Juana Moreno from her position and appointing Andrea Atayde as guardian and Jose Alemany as administrator of the minors' estate. The appointments were contingent upon the filing of a bond worth 25,000 pesos, Mexican.

4. Filing of Bond and Juana Moreno's Death:

• The bond was filed on April 7, 1903, and the appointments were issued. However, Juana Moreno died on the same day, making it impossible to serve her with the court order.

5. Motion to Set Aside Appointments:

• On April 7, 1903, attorney Herrero, representing Juana Moreno's estate, filed a motion to set aside the appointments of the appellants. The court granted the motion and ordered the appellants to show cause why their appointments should not be vacated.

6. Final Decision on April 16, 1903:

• After a hearing, the court vacated the appellants' appointments, canceled the bond filed by Jose Alemany, and appointed Carlos Rastrollo and Miguel Velasco as guardian and administrator, respectively, pending the probate of Juana Moreno's will.

7. Appeal to the Supreme Court:

• The appellants appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that their removal was unjust and illegal.

Issue:

1. Whether the removal of the appellants as guardian and administrator was legally justified.
2. Whether the death of Juana Moreno and the probate of her will justified the court's decision to vacate the appellants' appointments.
3. Whether the court's order vacating the appointments effectively amounted to a removal from office.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that the appointments of Andrea Atayde and Jose E. Alemany as guardian and administrator, respectively, were valid and in full force and effect. The Court ruled that the removal of the appellants was unwarranted and not based on any legal grounds specified in Section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also held that the death of Juana Moreno and the probate of her will did not justify the vacating of the appellants' appointments.

Ratio:

1. Legal Grounds for Removal of a Guardian:

   • Section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates specific grounds for the removal of a guardian, such as insanity, incapacity, unsuitability, mismanagement of the estate, or failure to render an account. None of these grounds applied to the appellants, making their removal unjust and illegal.

2. Effect of Juana Moreno's Death:

   • The Court clarified that if Juana Moreno's death occurred before the appellants' appointments, the guardianship would have been vacant, and the court would have had the right to fill it. If her death occurred after the appointments, she would have had the right to appeal, but this right terminated with her death. In either case, her death did not justify the vacating of the appellants' appointments.

3. Nature of the Court's Order:

   • The Court held that the order vacating the appellants' appointments effectively amounted to a removal from office, as the appointments had already taken effect upon the filing of the bond. The terms of the order could not alter the fact that the appellants were removed from their respective offices.

4. Validity of Appointments:

   • The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the appointments made in favor of Andrea Atayde and Jose E. Alemany, as they were in accordance with the trial court's order of April 6, 1903. The appellants were entitled to take possession of their offices upon filing the required bond.