The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO 8.
8. SPS Estrada argues that the case is not one of unlawful detainer and that because
EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL
FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA
ESTRADA, respondents.
FACTS:
1. Caniza, a 94 yr old spinster, pharmacist and professors was declared
incompetent by judgment of the RTC of QC in a guardianship
proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo, due to her old age and
physical infirmities which included cataracts and dementia.
Amparo was appointed legal guardian of her person and estate.
2. Caniza owned property that was being leased to SPS Estrada. Amparo
commenced a suit to eject the SPS. It was later amended to identify
that Caniza was suing through her legal guardian Amparo.
3. Amended complaint alleges that: (1) Caniza was the absolute owner of the
property, (2) out of kindness, she allowed the SPS and their
extended family to temporarily reside in her house, rent-free; (3)
Caiza already had urgent need of the house on account of her
advanced age and failing health, so funds could be raised to meet
her expenses for support; (4) Caiza had asked the Estradas verbally
and in writing to vacate the house but they had refused to do so,
enriching themselves.
4. Counterclaim of SPS Estrada: (1) they have been living in the house since 1960;
(2) stay was in consideration to the service of the SPS to Caniza;
(3) Caniza executed a holographic will where she bequeathed to
the SPS Estradas the house and lot
5. MeTC decided in Caniza’s favour. RTC reversed this decision and held that the
"action by which the issue of defendants' possession should be
resolved is accion publiciana.
6. Caniza appealed to the CA. CA affirmed the RTC judgment in toto.
7. Caniza appealed to the SC through her guardian. She contends that the CA erred
in holding that she should have filed an action publican and not
action interdictal, as well as, giving weight to a xerox copy of a
holographic will.
the holographic will of Caniza contains transfer of property from
her to the SPS. it is beyond the power of the legal guardian to oust
them from the disputed premises.
9. Caniza died. Guardians Amparo and Ramon (nephew) substituted her.
ISSUE:
(1) WON Action instituted was proper?
(2) WON Amparo has the authority to bring said action?
(3) WON Amapro can continue to represent Caniza even after death?
HELD:
1. YES, the proper action that should have been instituted is action interdictal,
because the contention is WON the SPS possession is de facto or
de jure. The action was also instituted well within the 1 year period
from the demand to vacate.
2. YES, being the appointed guardian by the court and with the purpose of
preserving the property, Amparo’s action is proper. Sec 4 Rule 96
provides that “ A guardian must manage the estate of his ward
frugally and without waste, and apply the income and profits
thereof, so far as maybe necessary, to the comfortable and suitable
maintenance of the ward and his family, if there be any; and if such
income and profits be insufficient for that purpose, the guardian
may sell or encumber the real estate, upon being authorized by
order to do so, and apply to such of the proceeds as may be
necessary to such maintenance.” Amparo’s action is well within he
right to manage the ward’s estate, because it carried with it the
right to take possession and recover from anyone who retains it.
3. NOPE, it is indeed well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and
ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian
or the ward. However, the suit will be continued by the heirs of
Caniza in accordance to Sec 18 of the ROC, because it is not a
personal suit.
the petition is GRANTED