Title
IN RE: Lavides vs. City Court of Lucena
Case
G.R. No. L-50261
Decision Date
May 31, 1982
A guardianship case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction was reinstated, as jurisdiction is based on individual minors' shares, not the total estate value.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180986)

Background Facts

On April 5, 1971, following his wife's death, Lavides filed a petition (Special Proceeding No. 0609) for guardianship concerning their seven minor children. He reported the estate's total value as thirty-five thousand pesos (P35,000.00). On May 10, 1971, Lavides was appointed as the judicial guardian, and subsequently received authorization to settle the estate and sell a portion of it. By August 28, 1971, he sold shares of stock from the estate for P64,512.00.

Respondent Court's Orders

On November 22, 1978, while a motion for the confirmation of a Deed of Exchange was pending, Judge Jose J. Parentela, Jr. of the respondent court reviewed the case and dismissed Lavides' petition on December 5, 1978. The dismissal was due to a finding that the undivided estate was valued at P35,000.00, which was beyond the court's jurisdiction as per Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on December 27, 1978, prompting Lavides to file a petition for review.

Legal Issues Raised

The core legal issues in the petition involve:

  1. Whether the jurisdiction of the city court depends on the total value of the estate or the individual shares of the minors.
  2. Whether the promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court effectively overruled precedents set in the case of Delgado vs. Gamboa.

Jurisdiction Analysis

The city court, in its dismissal, contended that because the total estate was valued at P35,000.00, it was beyond their jurisdiction. However, the petitioner argued that each minor's individual share was P5,000.00, a figure well within the jurisdiction of the city court. The Revised Rules of Court state that guardianship proceedings can be instituted in either city or municipal courts unless the value of property exceeds their jurisdiction, which, by this reasoning, supports the petitioner's claim for jurisdiction in this case.

Precedent Consideration

The respondent's reliance on Delgado vs. Gamboa was criticized as it involved a case where the individual share of each minor exceeded the jurisdictional amount for the inferior court, contrasting with Lavides' particular situation where the individual shares were below that threshold. Thus, the argument that jurisdiction must hinge solely on total estate value rather than individual shares was deemed erroneous.

Final Findings and Conclusions

Ultimately, the Court determined that the respondent city court's dismissal of Lavides' petition was not justified, as

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.