Abad vs. Biason

The death of the appointed guardian renders a petition challenging the propriety of that appointment moot and academic, because the guardian-ward relationship is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward.

Eduardo T. Abad and Leonardo Biason were both nephews of Maura B. Abad, a single woman over ninety years of age residing in Mangaldan, Pangasinan, who due to advanced age had become unable to manage her own person and properties. Abad resided in Quezon City while Biason had previously been granted a power of attorney by Maura to manage her properties. The dispute centered on which nephew should be appointed as Maura's guardian under Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, with the RTC ultimately preferring Biason over Abad principally on the ground of residence proximity.

On March 19, 2007, Eduardo T. Abad filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of Maura B. Abad with the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 42, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 2007-0050-D. Abad, a resident of Quezon City, alleged that he was Maura's nephew and that Maura, a single woman over ninety years of age residing in Mangaldan, Pangasinan, was in dire need of a guardian due to her advanced age, sickness, and inability to manage herself and her properties unassisted, making her an easy prey of deceit and exploitation. Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC gave it due course and scheduled it for hearing.

When the petition was called for hearing on April 27, 2007, nobody appeared in opposition, and Abad was allowed to present evidence ex parte. After Abad formally offered his evidence and the case was submitted for decision, Atty. Gabriel Magno filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene with an Opposition-in-Intervention. Subsequently, on June 14, 2007, Leonardo Biason, also a nephew of Maura, filed a Motion for Leave to File Opposition, alleging that he had not been notified of the pendency of the petition. Biason opposed Abad's appointment on the ground that Abad resided in Quezon City while Maura lived in Mangaldan, Pangasinan, making it impossible for Abad to perform his duties as guardian. Biason prayed that he instead be appointed, noting that Maura had previously granted him a power of attorney to manage her properties.

On September 26, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision denying Abad's petition and appointing Biason as Maura's guardian, fixing the guardianship bond at ₱500,000.00. Abad's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on December 11, 2007. Abad appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in disqualifying him solely on the basis of residence, that he had actively and efficiently managed Maura's affairs despite residing in Metro Manila, that Maura had expressly chosen him as her guardian, that no hearing was conducted to determine Biason's qualifications, and that the RTC overlooked Maura's express objection to Biason's appointment. On August 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, acknowledging that residence in the same locality was not a legal requirement but finding no grievous error in the RTC's preference for Biason, who was likewise a nephew of Maura and against whom no vices of character had been established. The CA also noted that Maura's alleged choice of Abad could not be heavily relied upon given her alleged mental state due to advanced age. Abad's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on April 19, 2010.

On June 7, 2010, Abad filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. Subsequently, Maura herself filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene together with a Petition-in-Intervention. Pending resolution of the petition, Biason died on April 3, 2012 at SDS Medical Center, Marikina City, due to multiple organ failure, septic shock, community-acquired pneumonia high risk, and prostate cancer with metastasis. On May 11, 2012, Maura filed a Manifestation and Motion informing the Court of Biason's death, praying that the petition be dismissed and the guardianship terminated. The Court required Abad to comment, and on August 9, 2012, Abad expressed his acquiescence to Maura's motion, agreeing that the issues had been rendered moot by Biason's death and supporting the termination of the guardianship on the ground that Maura's filing of a petition-in-intervention indicated she was of sound mind and capable of managing her own affairs.

• Due Process and Procedural Irregularity: Abad contended that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's decision despite the fact that no hearing was conducted to determine whether Biason possessed all the qualifications for a guardian as provided by law, and that Abad was not given the opportunity to submit evidence to controvert Biason's appointment.
• Residence as Qualification: Abad argued that residence in the same locality as the ward is not a legal requirement for appointment as guardian, and that the more significant considerations are good moral character, capability, and sound judgment to care for the ward and prudently manage the ward's assets.
• Ward's Preference: Abad maintained that Maura had expressly chosen him to be her guardian, as evidenced by her testimony, and that the RTC overlooked Maura's express objection to Biason's appointment.

• Mootness: Whether the petition challenging the appointment of Biason as guardian has been rendered moot and academic by Biason's death.
• Termination of Guardianship: Whether the guardianship should be terminated in light of Biason's death and Maura's intervening petition asserting her own capacity to manage her affairs.

• Mootness: Yes. The petition was rendered moot and academic by Biason's death, the guardian-ward relationship being necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward.
• Termination of Guardianship: Yes. The Court found Maura's motion meritorious and dismissed the petition, noting that Abad himself acquiesced in the dismissal and supported termination of the guardianship.

• Mootness: An issue or case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, such that a determination of the issue would be without practical use or value. In this case, Abad's petition sought the nullification of the CA decision affirming the RTC's appointment of Biason as Maura's guardian, essentially challenging Biason's qualifications and the procedure by which he was appointed. With Biason's death on April 3, 2012, it became impractical and futile to resolve the merits, because the well-established rule is that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward. The supervening event of death dissolved the juridical tie between Biason and Maura, and any disposition of the petition would afford no substantial relief to Abad or anyone else. Moreover, Abad himself consented to the dismissal, sharing Maura's belief that the petition had lost its purpose.

• Termination of Guardianship: Maura's motion to dismiss the petition and terminate the guardianship was found meritorious. Abad, in his Comment, not only acquiesced in the dismissal but also supported Maura's prayer for termination, asserting that Maura's act of filing a petition-in-intervention was indicative of her sound mind and her competence to manage her own business affairs. The Court did not reach the substantive question of Maura's capacity, as the dispositive turned entirely on the mootness arising from Biason's death.

• Moot and Academic Doctrine — A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that any determination would be without practical use and value; no actual substantial relief would be available to the petitioner, and dismissal would not negate any entitlement. Applied here: Biason's death dissolved the guardian-ward relationship, making resolution of the propriety of his appointment pointless and futile.

• Termination of Guardianship by Death — The relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward. Applied here: Because Biason died pending the Supreme Court's resolution, the juridical tie between him and Maura was severed, and the petition challenging his appointment could no longer afford any substantial relief.

• "An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination of the issue would be without practical use and value." — This passage states the Court's canonical formulation of the moot and academic doctrine, which it applied to dismiss the petition upon the supervening death of the appointed guardian.

• "It is a well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on termination of guardianship by death, which formed the ratio decidendi for the dismissal.

• Roxas vs. Tipon, G.R. No. 160641, June 20, 2012 — Cited for the definition of the moot and academic doctrine, which in turn cited Romero II vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 396, 404. The Court relied on this formulation to conclude that the petition no longer presented a justiciable controversy.

• Cañiza vs. CA, 335 Phil. 1107, 1120 (1997) — Cited for the proposition that the guardian-ward relationship is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward. This rule was the decisive basis for holding the petition moot.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governed the mode of appeal by which Abad sought review of the CA decision and resolution. The petition was filed under this rule to annul and set aside the CA rulings.

• Rule 94, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Cited by the RTC in fixing the conditions of the guardianship bond, requiring the guardian to make a true inventory, faithfully execute the duties of trust, render accounts, and perform all court orders. This provision was part of the RTC's dispositive appointing Biason.

Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro (Acting Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Jose Portugal Perez (Acting member per Special Order No. 1385 dated December 4, 2012 vice Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno).