Case Summary (G.R. No. 139882)
Guardianship Petition and Initial Proceedings
On March 19, 2007, Abad filed a petition for guardianship over Maura’s person and properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dagupan City, Branch 42, alleging her advanced age and incapacity rendered her vulnerable to deceit and exploitation. The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and set it for ex parte hearing on April 27, 2007, at which no opposition initially appeared.
Interventions and Opposition Filings
After submission of Abad’s evidence, Atty. Magno filed a motion to intervene with an opposition to Abad’s appointment. On June 14, 2007, Biason likewise moved to intervene and filed his opposition, asserting his priority appointment by Maura through power of attorney, and contending that Abad’s residence in Metro Manila disqualified him from effective guardianship of a ward in Pangasinan.
RTC Decision and Bond Requirements
On September 26, 2007, the RTC denied Abad’s petition and appointed Biason guardian of Maura’s person and estate. The court required a P500,000 guardianship bond and imposed the duties prescribed in Rule 94, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: to inventory the ward’s estate, faithfully discharge guardianship duties, render accountings, and comply with all court orders.
RTC Reconsideration and Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Abad’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 11, 2007. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in disqualifying him solely for residing outside Mangaldan, that no hearing assessed Biason’s qualifications, and that Maura had expressly selected him as guardian.
Court of Appeals Decision
On August 28, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC. It held that neither Abad nor Biason was disqualified by character; residency outside the local municipality was not legally dispositive; and Maura’s alleged preference carried limited weight given her advanced age and purported mental state. The CA dismissed Abad’s appeal for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 19, 2010.
Petition for Review and Supervening Event
Abad filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court. Subsequently, Biason died on April 3, 2012. Maura moved to dismiss the petition as moot and academic, and Abad, in his comment, concurred, noting that Biason’s death terminated the guardian–ward relationship and rendered further adjudication impractical.
Supreme Court Rationale and Disposition
Applying the d
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 139882)
Facts and Background
- On March 19, 2007, petitioner Eduardo T. Abad, nephew of Maura B. Abad, filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his aunt, Maura, a single woman over ninety years old, resident of Mangaldan, Pangasinan.
- Abad resides in Quezon City and alleged that Maura’s advanced age and poor health rendered her unable to manage her affairs and vulnerable to deceit and exploitation.
- The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 2007-0050-D before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dagupan City, Branch 42.
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
- The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and scheduled it for hearing.
- On April 27, 2007, the case was called; there was no opposition and Abad presented his evidence ex parte.
- During the interim:
- Atty. Gabriel A. Magno sought leave to intervene with an opposition-in-intervention.
- Leonardo Biason, another nephew, filed a motion to intervene plus an opposition, alleging lack of notice and arguing that Abad’s residence in Metro Manila disqualified him, whereas Biason, armed with a prior power of attorney, was better positioned to serve.
RTC Decision and Order
- On September 26, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment:
- Denied Eduardo Abad’s petition and declared him disqualified to act as guardian.
- Appointed Leonardo Biason as guardian of Maura B. Abad’s person and properties.
- Fixed the guardianship bond at ₱500,000 and prescribed strict compliance with Rule 94, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (inventory, faithful execution of duties, rendering of accounts, performance of court orders).
- A motion for reconsideration filed by Abad was denied on December 11, 2007.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Abad elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that:
- He met all qualifications under the Rules and was expressly chosen by Maura.
- His residence outside Pangasinan should not disqualify him.
- The RTC failed to conduct any hearing on Biason’s qualifications and overlooked Maura’s alleged objection to Biason’s appointment.
CA Decision and Resolution
- On August 28, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC decision:
- Held that no legal req
...continue reading