Parco v. CA Digest

Parco v. Court of Appeals 111 SCRA 262

G.R. No. L-33152 January 30,1982

Ponente: De Castro, J.:

Facts:

1. This case stems from a previous Special proceedings for the guardianship of incompetent Soriaya Rodriguez. The guardianship proceeding originally pertained to Branch 1, CFI of Quezon. Subsequently, it was transferred to Branch IV-Calauag, CFI of Quezon, where respondent judge Kayanan took cognizance of the case.

2. The private respondent, Francisco Rodriguez Jr. was the appointed guardian. Respondent judge approved the conveyance of three (3) parcels of land belonging to the ward to the petitioners, the spouses Parco. 

3. Almost two years after the guardianship court's approval of the 'sale', the private respondent filed an urgent petition for the examination of the subject conveyance of the lots to the petitioners, by virtue of the transfer of title to third parties.   He argued that the conveyance was actually a loan agreement with a right to recover while the spouses alleged that there was an absolute sale of the lands in dispute.  

Issue: Whether or not a guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the reconveyance of the properties to the ward

RULING: No, unlike in previous court decision, the facts of this case is not in all fours as there is a cloud over the titles of the properties in question. A reconveyance would  require the determination of the ownership or title of the subject three parcels of land, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the guardianship court, and thus must be threshed out in a separate and ordinary civil action.

In previous decisions, the court approved the reconveyance to the ward of properties embezzled, concealed or conveyed when there is not question as to the ward's title and ownership to the property. Herein, it is premature to say based only on the pleadings that the ward has clear and undisputable title to the properties.