G.R. No. L-3071 - Lopez vs. Teodoro Sr.

The case involves Salvacion Lopez as petitioner and Jose Teodoro, Sr., Eulalio Lopez, Jr., and Jesus Jalbuena as respondents, decided on May 29, 1950, reported in 86 Phil. 499 (G.R. No. L-3071).
The subject matter relates to the guardianship proceedings concerning an incapacitated owner, Eulalio Lopez, Sr., and the disposition of his sole property – an hacienda in Silay, Negros Occidental, covering over 100 hectares.

Eulalio Lopez, Sr. was declared incapacitated and placed under the judicial guardianship of his son, Eulalio Lopez, Jr.
During the guardianship proceedings, movants (Senen L. Gamboa and Adelaida Gamboa) filed for guardianship and, subsequently, the court issued an order on September 3, 1948, directing the guardian to pay P7,312 plus 12 percent interest from August 1944, representing properly authorized loans made by the movants.
The court order specifically provided that if the guardian lacked sufficient funds to meet these obligations, he was authorized to take necessary steps for the sale of some of the ward’s property.

Acting on the court’s authority, the guardian sold the only property of the incapacitated – the hacienda – on January 11, 1949, to Jesus Jalbuena for P66,000.
Under the terms of sale, Jesus Jalbuena bound himself to pay a mortgage debt and other obligations aggregating P22,346.30, with the balance to be settled in two installments.
Critical procedural lapses occurred: the court failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule 96 which mandates summoning the next of kin and other interested persons to show cause, and it did not specify whether the sale should be conducted publicly or privately.

Although Eulalio Lopez, Jr. was the judicial guardian, the incapacitated was in the actual care and custody of his sister, Salvacion Lopez.
Believing that the sale violated procedural requirements and was prejudicial to her brother’s interests, Salvacion Lopez first filed a motion for reconsideration of the sale order; when that motion was denied, she advanced a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to set aside the sale and correct the order.

The judicial guardian (Eulalio Lopez, Jr.) and the vendee (Jesus Jalbuena) maintained that the proper remedy for grievances in this context is by appeal, not by certiorari or mandamus.
They asserted that Salvacion Lopez lacked an interest in the subject matter, as she was neither a forced heir nor directly prejudiced by the sale.
They argued that any objection regarding the alleged prejudicial nature of the sale should be addressed in a separate action, and that the sale did not contravene existing laws.
Additionally, respondents noted that, having been issued a new transfer certificate of title in favor of the purchaser, the probate court had effectively lost jurisdiction over the property.

Whether the sale of the incapacitated’s property, effected by the judicial guardian under the court’s order, was null and void due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 96.

Specifically, whether the failure to notify the next of kin and interested parties (as mandated by Section 2 of Rule 96) invalidated the sale.

Whether the use of certiorari and mandamus was the proper remedy for Salvacion Lopez’s challenge, or if her grievances should have been raised on appeal.
Whether Salvacion Lopez, being the sister and not a forced heir or legal representative sharing in the estate, had the legal standing or requisite interest to contest the sale.