Jocson vs. Empire Insurance Company

Support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable; the need for support cannot be presumed from the mere fact of relationship. Where minor wards have means of their own and no demand for support was made upon the father, disbursements from guardianship funds for their education and clothing, made with court approval, are not illegal, and the guardian's bond cannot be held liable therefor.

The case involves the guardianship of the minor children of Agustin A. Jocson, who was appointed guardian of the persons and properties of his minor children, including petitioners Enrique and Jesus. The minors' properties included sums of money from war damage payments forming part of their inheritance from their mother, who died in 1934. The guardian filed a bond with the Empire Insurance Company as surety. The dispute concerns whether expenses paid from guardianship funds for the education and clothing of the minors should be charged against the guardian's bond.

Agustin A. Jocson was appointed guardian of the persons and properties of his minor children, Carlos, Rodolfo, Perla, Enrique, and Jesus, on October 3, 1950, in Special Proceedings No. 734 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. As guardian, he filed a bond with the Empire Insurance Company as surety. Among the properties of the minors were sums of money from war damage payments forming part of their inheritance from their mother, who died in 1934. A total of P18,000 of such war damage payments was deposited in the bank by the guardian to the account of the minors.

In the course of the guardianship, Jocson submitted periodic accounts to the court, including those for expenses incurred for the education and clothing of the wards for the period from October 2, 1950 to October 2, 1951, and again for the period from October 13, 1951 to March 16, 1953. The portions of the said expenses corresponding to the minors Enrique and Jesus were, respectively, P400.20 and P330.40 for the first period, and P850.26 and P1,410.10 for the second period. The accounts were approved by the court.

Jocson died on February 12, 1954. Perla, who together with her brothers Carlos and Rodolfo had already attained majority, was appointed guardian of the remaining minors Enrique and Jesus. On September 29, 1954, Perla filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings to have the accounts of the deceased guardian reopened, claiming that the disbursements made from the guardianship funds for the education and clothing of the minors Enrique and Jesus were illegal. Upon coming of age, Enrique and Jesus adopted the petition as their own and moved that the disbursements be declared illegal and that Jocson's bond as guardian be made to answer therefor.

The motion was opposed by the Empire Insurance Company, the surety on the bond, as well as by the administratrix of the intestate estate of Jocson. The court, after considering the written arguments submitted by the parties, rendered an order denying the motion and declaring the bond cancelled and the guardianship terminated. The movants appealed, and the appeal was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals.

• Illegal Disbursements: The petitioners-appellants contended that the expenses for their education and clothing during their minority were part of the support they were entitled to receive from their father, and that when the latter paid those expenses from the guardianship funds, he made illegal disbursements therefrom for which his bond as guardian should be made to answer.

• Opposition to the Motion: The Empire Insurance Company, as surety on the bond, and the administratrix of the intestate estate of Jocson opposed the motion to declare the disbursements illegal and to hold the bond liable.

• Liability of the Guardian's Bond: Whether the disbursements made by the deceased guardian from guardianship funds for the education and clothing of the minor wards were illegal, thereby making the guardian's bond liable therefor.
• Proper Forum for Support Claims: Whether the claim for support should be enforced in the guardianship proceedings or in a separate action.

• Liability of the Guardian's Bond: No. The disbursements for the education and clothing of the minors were not illegal, as support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable, and the need for support cannot be presumed. The guardian's bond was therefore not liable.
• Proper Forum for Support Claims: No. The claim for support should be enforced in a separate action and not in the guardianship proceedings.

• Liability of the Guardian's Bond: The Court held that while support does include what is necessary for the education and clothing of the person entitled thereto under Article 290 of the New Civil Code, support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable, pursuant to Article 298 of the New Civil Code and the case of Marcelo vs. Estacio, 70 Phil., 215. The right to support does not arise from the mere fact of relationship, even from the relationship of parents and children, but from imperative necessity without which it cannot be demanded. The law presumes that such necessity does not exist unless support is demanded. In the present case, it did not appear that support for the minors, be it only for their education and clothing, was ever demanded from their father and the need for it duly established. The need for support cannot be presumed, especially where the minors had means of their own. In the circumstances, the disbursements made by the deceased guardian with the approval of the court for the education and clothing of the appellant minors cannot be said to be illegal, so the lower court did not err in holding the guardian's bond not liable for the same.

• Proper Forum for Support Claims: The Court further held that the claim for support should be enforced in a separate action and not in the guardianship proceedings.

• Support must be demanded before it becomes payable — Under Article 298 of the New Civil Code, support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the guardian's disbursements for the education and clothing of the minors were not illegal because no demand for support was ever made upon the father and the need for it was not duly established.
• The need for support cannot be presumed — The right to support does not arise from the mere fact of relationship but from imperative necessity without which it cannot be demanded. The law presumes that such necessity does not exist unless support is demanded. The Court applied this principle to the facts, noting that the minors had means of their own, further negating any presumption of need.

• "Support does include what is necessary for the education and clothing of the person entitled thereto (Art. 290, New Civil Code). But support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable (Art. 298, New Civil Code; Marcelo vs. Estacio, 70 Phil., 215)." — This passage establishes the controlling rule that support, while including education and clothing, must be demanded before it becomes payable, and cites the governing statutory and jurisprudential authority.
• "For the right to support does not arise from the mere fact of relationship, even from the relationship of parents and children, but 'from imperative necessity without which it cannot be demanded, and the law presumes that such necessity does not exist unless support is demanded'." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the doctrine that the right to support is grounded in imperative necessity, not mere relationship, and that necessity is presumed not to exist absent a demand.
• "The need for support, as already stated, cannot be presumed, and especially must this be true in the present case where it appears that the minors had means of their own." — This passage applies the doctrine to the facts, emphasizing that the minors' own resources further negate any presumption of need for support from their father.

• Marcelo vs. Estacio, 70 Phil., 215 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable.

• Article 290, New Civil Code — Defines what support includes, specifically what is necessary for education and clothing. The Court acknowledged that the expenses in question fall within the scope of support but held that this alone does not render the disbursements legal.
• Article 298, New Civil Code — Provides that support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable. The Court applied this provision as the controlling rule in determining that the disbursements were not illegal.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concurred.