FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No.
112014. December 5, 2000]
TEODORO L. JARDELEZA, petitioner,
vs. GILDA L. JARDELEZA, ERNESTO L. JARDELEZA, JR., MELECIO GIL L.
JARDELEZA, and GLENDA L. JARDELEZA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is a
petition for review on certiorari assailing the order[1] dismissing Special Proceedings No.
4689 of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City for appointment of judicial
guardian over the person and estate of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. on the ground
that such guardianship is superfluous and will only serve to duplicate the
powers of the wife, Mrs. Gilda L. Jardeleza, under the explicit provisions of
Article 124, second paragraph, of the Family Code.
Dr. Ernesto
Jardeleza, Sr. and Gilda L. Jardeleza were married long before 03 August 1988,
when the Family Code took effect. The
union produced five children, namely: petitioner, Ernesto, Jr., Melecio, Glenda
and Rolando, all surnamed L. Jardeleza.
On 25 March
1991, Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. then 73 years old, suffered a stroke and
lapsed into comatose condition. To
date, his condition has not materially improved.
On 06 June 1991,
petitioner commenced with the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City Special
Proceedings No. 45689, a petition for appointment of judicial guardian over the
person and property of Dr. Jardeleza, Sr. and prayed for the issuance of
letters of guardianship to his mother, Gilda L. Jardeleza.[2]
On 19 June 1991,
the trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing so that all
persons concerned may appear and show cause if any why the petition should not
be granted.[3]
On 3 July 1991,
petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for the issuance of letters of guardianship to him, rather than
to his mother, on the ground that she considered the property acquired by Dr.
Jardeleza as her own and did not want to be appointed guardian.[4]
On 09 August
1991, respondents filed with the trial court an opposition to the petition for
guardianship and the motion for issuance of letters of guardianship to
petitioner.[5]
On 20 August
1993, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition for guardianship.[6] The trial court concluded, without
explanation, that the petition is superfluous and would only serve to duplicate
the powers of the wife under the explicit provisions of Article 124, second
paragraph, of the Family Code.
On 17 September
1993, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that the Court
of Appeals held in a case under Article 124 of the Family Code where the
incapacitated spouse is incapable of being notified or unable to answer the
petition, the procedural recourse is guardianship of the incapacitated spouse.[7]
On 24 September
1993, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration finding it
unmeritorious.[8]
Hence, this
petition.[9]
The petition
raises a pure legal question, to wit:
whether Article 124 of the Family Code renders “superfluous” the
appointment of a judicial guardian over the person and estate of an incompetent
married person.
Very recently,
in a related case, we ruled that Article 124 of the Family Code was not
applicable to the situation of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. and that the proper
procedure was an application for appointment of judicial guardian under Rule 93
of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court grants the petition,
reverses and sets aside the resolutions of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo
City, in Special Proceedings No. 4689.
The Court
remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] In Spl. Proc. No.
4689, Order dated 20 August 1993, Judge Bartolome M. Fanuñal, presiding.
[2] Petition, Annex “D”, Rollo,
pp. 26-28.
[3] Petition, Annex “E”, Rollo,
pp. 29-30.
[4] Petition, Annex “F”, Rollo,
pp. 31-35.
[5] Petition, Annex “H”, Rollo,
pp. 38-46.
[6] Petition, Annex “A”, Rollo,
p. 23.
[7] Petition, Annex “Q”, Rollo, pp.
96-100.
[8] Petition, Annex “B”, Rollo,
p. 24.
[9] Petition filed on
November 19, 1993, Rollo, pp. 9-22.
[10] Uy v.
Jardeleza, G. R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000.