G.R. No. L-2963-4 - Ferdo vs. Crisostomo

Guardianship of Rufino Crisostomo, Sr. and his minor children (Rufino, Jr., Juan, Roberto, and Gabriel Crisostomo) in G.R. No. L-2693.
Intestate estate proceedings of the deceased spouses Rufino Crisostomo, Sr. and Petra Fernando in G.R. No. L-2694.

Hermogenes C. Fernando, appointed guardian of the minor children.
German Crisostomo and Pacita Fernando, next of kin and co-administrators appointed for the intestate estate.

On August 14, 1945, Hermogenes C. Fernando was appointed guardian of Rufino Crisostomo and his four minor children.
Following the death of Rufino Crisostomo, Sr., the guardian attempted an extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses.

The extra-judicial partition executed on May 23, 1948, was set aside by an order from the Court of First Instance due to the principle that the guardian of the minors is not automatically the administrator of the deceased’s estate.

The guardian filed a motion for the approval of the extra-judicial settlement and subsequently appealed after the motion was denied.
A petition for contempt was also filed against German Crisostomo and Victor Dimagiba for allegedly unlawfully taking possession of the minor wards’ properties; this petition was denied since Crisostomo was acting in his capacity as co-administrator, and Dimagiba was merely his overseer.

German Crisostomo, as next of kin, petitioned for the opening of the intestate proceedings and the appointment of himself and Pacita Fernando as co-administrators of the deceased spouses’ estate.
Despite the guardian’s opposition on the grounds that the properties were already under his guardianship, the court repeatedly proceeded with the appointment of the administrators.
Motions for dissolution or termination of the intestate proceedings by the guardian were also denied with orders declaring the extra-judicial partition null and void.

On April 27, 1948, the guardian filed a petition (G.R. No. L-2172) seeking a preliminary injunction aimed at halting the intestate proceedings.
The petition argued that the orders by the Court of First Instance, particularly those issued on April 1, 6, and 7, 1948, were void on jurisdictional grounds regarding the guardianship and estate administration.
The lower courts maintained that:

Jurisdiction over the estate administration derived from the death of the decedent and his residence where the probate court sat, not from the guardian’s competency.
The guardian had no automatic right to administer the deceased’s properties until proper judicial or extrajudicial partition had been effected.

The Supreme Court initially denied the petition for certiorari with the preliminary injunction, affirming that next of kin had the right to petition for letters of administration.
On reconsideration, the Supreme Court, in its resolution of June 11, 1948, emphasized that:

The guardian’s role did not extend to administering properties of the deceased until a partition was made.
The actions taken by the lower court regarding the appointment of co-administrators were within its jurisdiction.

The resolution reaffirmed earlier rulings which declared the extra-judicial settlement null, thereby resolving the principal issue regarding the proper administration of the estate.

Whether the guardian of the minor children was entitled to act as administrator of the deceased’s estate prior to the completion of proper judicial or adjudicative proceedings.
Whether the appointment of German Crisostomo and Pacita Fernando as co-administrators was valid and within the court's jurisdiction.

Whether the extra-judicial settlement executed by the guardian was legally valid.
Whether such settlement should be approved in light of precedents stating that a guardian of minors does not automatically acquire the power of administration of the deceased’s estate.

Whether the petition to dismiss the intestate proceedings should have been granted after the proceedings had commenced.
Relatedly, whether the petition for contempt against German Crisostomo and Victor Dimagiba should be sustained.

Whether errors in the guardianship appointment could be corrected by a petition for certiorari or if appeal was the proper remedy.
The effect of any alleged errors on the jurisdictional validity of the appointments and subsequent orders.