Lavides vs. City Court of Lucena

The jurisdiction of a municipal or city court over a petition for guardianship of several minors is determined by the value of the individual share or property of each minor, not by the total value of the decedent's undivided estate. Where each minor's share falls within the inferior court's jurisdictional amount, that court may validly take cognizance of the proceedings, jurisdiction over the subject matter being fixed by the allegations of the petition.

Petitioner Alberto C. Lavides is the father of the seven minor children whose persons and property were the subject of the guardianship proceeding, and the surviving spouse of their deceased mother, from whose estate the minors derived their shares. Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court grants municipal and city courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance over guardianship of the person or estate of a minor, subject to the proviso that where the value of the minor's property exceeds the inferior court's jurisdiction, the proceedings must be instituted in the Court of First Instance; the jurisdictional amount for inferior courts was fixed by Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. 3828. The dispute required the Court to reconcile that grant with its earlier ruling in Delgado vs. Gamboa, which had construed the concurrent jurisdiction conferred by R.A. No. 643.

On April 5, 1971, Alberto C. Lavides instituted before the City Court of Lucena, Branch I, a guardianship proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 0609) over the persons and property of his seven minor children — Cecilia, Rebecca, Florida, Raphael, Rodolfo, Luisito, and Teodoro — following the death of his wife. The petition alleged that the estate left by the deceased, which had not been previously settled, had a total value of P35,000.00, or P5,000.00 pertaining to each minor. The facts material to the controversy were undisputed.

On May 10, 1971, the City Court appointed Lavides judicial guardian, and he qualified as such. On June 23, 1971, upon motion and while the court was presided over by Judge Filemon Juntereal, he was authorized to settle the estate extrajudicially and to sell a portion thereof consisting of shares of stock. Pursuant to that authority, Lavides extrajudicially settled the estate and, on August 28, 1971, sold the shares of stock for P64,512.00.

On November 22, 1978, Lavides filed a motion for confirmation and approval of a Deed of Exchange Agreement dated November 18, 1978. While that motion was still pending consideration, the City Court, now presided over by Judge Jose J. Parentela, Jr., reviewed the records of the case and, finding that the undivided estate left by the deceased was worth at least P35,000.00, issued an order dated December 5, 1978 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, revoking Lavides's appointment as guardian, and annulling all proceedings taken prior to the issuance of that order.

Lavides moved for reconsideration, which the City Court denied in its order dated December 27, 1978. The dismissal rested on two grounds: that the P35,000.00 undivided estate was clearly outside the court's jurisdiction under Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that Delgado vs. Gamboa barred the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction where the estate exceeded the jurisdictional amount for inferior courts. Lavides maintained, for his part, that the petition alleged an individual share of P5,000.00 for each of the seven minors, an amount well within the City Court's jurisdiction, and that the Revised Rules of Court, effective January 1, 1964, had overruled and abandoned the Delgado doctrine.

• Jurisdiction Measured by Individual Shares: Petitioner contended that in a petition for guardianship of more than one minor, it is the individual share of each minor — the estate of that minor — that determines the jurisdiction of the court under Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court; since the total estate of P35,000.00 divided among seven minors yields P5,000.00 per minor, that determined estate falls well within the jurisdiction of the respondent City Court.
• Delgado vs. Gamboa Overruled by the Revised Rules of Court: Petitioner argued that Delgado vs. Gamboa, promulgated on February 28, 1962, was decided when Section 1, Rule 93 of the former Rules of Court still governed and made guardianship originally cognizable by the Court of First Instance, and that the doctrine had been overruled and abandoned when the Revised Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964, allowing guardianship proceedings to be instituted in the municipal and city courts.
• Judicial Stability: Petitioner argued that permitting the respondent court to reverse its stand after seven years would pave a pattern of judicial instability which, to reason and logic, is not a healthy administration of justice and not conducive to the veneration of courts.

• Total Value of the Estate: The respondent City Court dismissed the petition for guardianship on the ground that a perusal of the records showed the undivided estate left by the deceased to be worth P35,000.00, an amount clearly outside its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Delgado vs. Gamboa: The respondent City Court relied on Delgado vs. Gamboa, which held that the concurrent jurisdiction of the justices of the peace with the Court of First Instance over the guardianship of the person and properties of minors and incompetents cannot be exercised when the estate has a value in excess of the jurisdictional amount for the former courts.

• Jurisdictional Basis in Guardianship Proceedings: Whether the respondent City Court's jurisdiction over a petition for general guardianship is based on the total value of the estate left by the deceased or on the value of the individual share of each of the minors in that estate.
• Effect of the Revised Rules of Court on Delgado vs. Gamboa: Whether the promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court, effective January 1, 1964, overruled the doctrine laid down in Delgado vs. Gamboa.

• Jurisdictional Basis in Guardianship Proceedings: The individual share of each minor. Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court makes the value of the property of the minor or incompetent the test of jurisdiction, and where several minors are sought to be placed under guardianship, that property is the individual estate of each; the petition having alleged P5,000.00 per minor, the City Court had jurisdiction.
• Effect of the Revised Rules of Court on Delgado vs. Gamboa: No. The Revised Rules of Court did not abandon Delgado vs. Gamboa, Section 1 of the present Rule 92 merely restating Section 1 of former Rule 93, as amended by R.A. No. 643; in any event, Delgado does not militate against the City Court's jurisdiction because each minor's share of P5,000.00 is within its jurisdictional amount.

• Jurisdictional Basis in Guardianship Proceedings: Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court grants concurrent jurisdiction to municipal and city courts with the Courts of First Instance in the appointment of guardians over the person or property of a minor or incompetent, except that where the value of the property of such minor or incompetent exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal or city court, the proceedings shall be instituted in the Court of First Instance. The value of the property of the minor or incompetent sought to be placed in guardianship therefore determines which court has jurisdiction, and that property is the individual estate of the minor; where more than one minor is involved, the value of the individual property of each minor determines jurisdiction. The City Court's reasoning that the P35,000.00 undivided estate was outside its jurisdiction was rejected because it overlooked the petition's allegation that the individual estate or share of each of the seven minors was P5,000.00, an amount well within the City Court's jurisdiction under Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. 3828. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint and/or petition. That each of the seven minors became owner of a one-seventh (1/7) share, or P5,000.00, of the P35,000.00 estate upon the death of their mother could not be denied, Article 777 of the New Civil Code providing that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the decedent's death, from which point the heir becomes the absolute owner of the decedent's property, subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, and cannot be deprived of that right except by methods provided by law.
• Effect of the Revised Rules of Court on Delgado vs. Gamboa: Delgado vs. Gamboa, decided when Section 1 of former Rule 93, as amended by R.A. No. 643, was still effective, merely restated and confirmed the doctrine laid down in Morales vs. Marquez, which expounded the grant of concurrent jurisdiction between inferior courts and the Court of First Instance under R.A. No. 643. A comparison of Section 1 of former Rule 93, as amended, and Section 1 of the present Rule 92 shows that the latter restates the former: under both, municipal or city courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance where the value of the property of the minor or incompetent falls within the jurisdiction of the former courts, and the criterion for determining in which court the guardianship proceeding shall be instituted remains the same. It cannot therefore be accurately stated that the Delgado ruling has been abandoned. In any case, Delgado does not militate against petitioner's contention, because a more careful examination of its facts reveals that it involved guardianship over three minor children and an undivided estate valued at P7,000.00, giving each minor a share of P2,333.33, which amount was in excess of the jurisdictional amount for inferior courts; in the case at bar, the share of P5,000.00 for each of the seven minors is well within the City Court's jurisdiction, so that Delgado cannot validly be invoked to support the dismissal. What is decisive is not the total value of the estate of the decedent but the value of the individual share of each of the minor heirs, for whom a guardian is sought to be appointed individually and not collectively. The Court further observed that the City Court had entertained and granted the guardianship petition as early as May 10, 1971 and had exercised jurisdiction by authorizing the extrajudicial settlement and the sale of shares of stock, and that dismissing the case seven years later, revoking the appointment, and annulling all prior proceedings would undermine stability in litigations, given the time lost, effort wasted, anxiety augmented, and additional expenses incurred.

• Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is fixed by the averments of the pleading that initiates the action, not by the evidence subsequently presented or by the court's later appreciation of the record. The Court applied this rule in holding that the City Court had jurisdiction because the guardianship petition itself alleged an individual share of P5,000.00 for each minor, and that the City Court's contrary conclusion, drawn from its own review of the records showing a P35,000.00 undivided estate, was erroneous.
• Individual share as the measure of jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings — Under Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court, the value of the property of the minor or incompetent determines which court has jurisdiction, and where guardianship is sought for more than one minor, the controlling figure is the value of the individual property of each minor, not the aggregate value of the decedent's undivided estate. The Court thus held that the P5,000.00 share of each of the seven minors, and not the P35,000.00 total estate, fixed the City Court's jurisdiction.
• Transmission of succession rights at the moment of death — Under Article 777 of the New Civil Code, the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the decedent's death, at which point the heir becomes the absolute owner of the decedent's property, subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, and cannot be deprived of that right except by methods provided by law. The Court used this provision to establish that each of the seven minors became owner of a one-seventh (1/7) share, or P5,000.00, of the estate upon the death of their mother, thereby fixing the individual property that measured the City Court's jurisdiction.
• Delgado vs. Gamboa doctrine restated, not abandoned — The concurrent jurisdiction of inferior courts with the Court of First Instance over guardianship of minors and incompetents cannot be exercised when the estate has a value in excess of the jurisdictional amount for the inferior courts. The Court clarified that Section 1 of the present Rule 92 restates Section 1 of former Rule 93, as amended by R.A. No. 643, so that the criterion for jurisdiction remained unchanged and the Delgado ruling was not abandoned by the Revised Rules of Court; the doctrine was in any event inapplicable because each minor's share in the case at bar fell within the inferior court's jurisdictional amount.
• Stability in litigation as a consideration against belated dismissal for lack of jurisdiction — A court that has entertained a proceeding and exercised jurisdiction over it for a substantial period should not thereafter dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction where doing so would draw a tenuous jurisdictional line and undermine stability in litigations. The Court weighed the time to be lost, effort wasted, anxiety augmented, and additional expenses incurred in setting aside the City Court's dismissal after seven years of proceedings, although the primary ground for reversal remained the erroneous measure of jurisdiction applied by the City Court.

• "It is clear, therefore, that the value of the property of the minor or incompetent sought to be placed in guardianship determines which court has jurisdiction. And that property referred to is the individual estate of the minor so much so that when there are more than one minor or incompetent sought to be placed under guardianship, what determines which court has jurisdiction is the value of the individual property of each minor or incompetent." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the jurisdictional question, construing Section 1, Rule 92 of the Revised Rules of Court and supplying the canonical formulation of the individual-share rule in guardianship proceedings.
• "That the respondent city court has jurisdiction over the case cannot be denied, for the rule is well-settled that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint and/or petition." — This passage applies the settled jurisdictional rule to the guardianship petition, explaining why the City Court's reliance on its own reading of the records rather than on the petition's allegations was misplaced.
• "For what is decisive is not the total value of the estate of the decedent, but the value of the individual share of each of the minor heirs for whom a guardian is sought to be appointed individually not collectively." — This passage crystallizes the distinction between the aggregate estate and the individual shares, and explains why Delgado vs. Gamboa, where each share exceeded the inferior court's jurisdictional amount, could not support the dismissal.
• "To draw a tenuous jurisdictional line is to undermine stability in litigations." — This passage encapsulates the Court's supplementary policy consideration against permitting a court to disclaim jurisdiction after seven years of proceedings, revocation of the guardian's appointment, and annulment of all prior acts.

• Delgado vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. L-14326, February 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 505 — The ruling invoked by the respondent City Court as the basis for dismissing the petition; the Court clarified that it merely restated Morales vs. Marquez, that it was decided under former Rule 93 as amended by R.A. No. 643 whose criterion the present Rule 92 retains, and that its facts are distinguishable because each of the three minors there held a share of P2,333.33, in excess of the inferior court's jurisdictional amount.
• Morales vs. Marquez, G.R. No. L-7463, May 27, 1955 — The source of the doctrine on concurrent jurisdiction between inferior courts and the Court of First Instance under R.A. No. 643, which Delgado vs. Gamboa restated and confirmed; cited to show that the Delgado ruling was not a novel or superseded doctrine.
• Paraguya vs. Tiro, 41 SCRA 137; Tumalad vs. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143; Union Obrera de Tabaco, Inc. vs. Quicho, 40 SCRA 589; Bautista vs. Fernandez, 38 SCRA 548 — Cited in support of the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition.
• Baun vs. Heirs of Baun, 53 Phil. 654; Cuison vs. Villanueva, 90 Phil. 850 — Cited in support of the rule that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the decedent's death, so that each heir becomes the absolute owner of the decedent's property from that instant.

• Section 1, Rule 92, Revised Rules of Court — Governs where guardianship proceedings over the person or estate of a minor or incompetent may be instituted, granting municipal and city courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance, except that where the value of the property of the minor or incompetent exceeds the jurisdiction of the inferior court, the proceedings shall be instituted in the Court of First Instance. The Court read the provision as making the value of the minor's property the jurisdictional test and, in cases involving several minors, as referring to the individual estate of each minor; because each of the seven minors had a share of P5,000.00, the City Court had jurisdiction.
• Section 88, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by R.A. No. 3828 — Fixes the jurisdictional amount for inferior courts, which at the time of the decision was not more than P10,000.00, having originally been fixed at not more than P2,000.00. The Court used this provision to establish that the P5,000.00 individual share of each minor was well within the City Court's jurisdiction.
• Article 777, New Civil Code — Provides that the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. The Court relied on it to hold that each of the seven minors became the absolute owner of a one-seventh (1/7) share, or P5,000.00, of their mother's estate upon her death, thereby fixing the individual property that determined the City Court's jurisdiction.
• Section 1, former Rule 93, as amended by R.A. No. 643 — The predecessor provision in force when Delgado vs. Gamboa was decided, which likewise granted inferior courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance where the value of the minor's or incompetent's property fell within the jurisdiction of the former courts. The Court compared it with the present Section 1, Rule 92 and concluded that the latter restates the former, so that the criterion for jurisdiction remained unchanged and the Delgado doctrine was not abandoned.

Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concurred. Concepcion, Jr., J., was on leave. Justice Aquino filed a separate concurring opinion, stating that the concurrent jurisdiction in guardianship cases of inferior courts and the Court of First Instance is provided for in Section 90 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by R.A. No. 643.