SpecPro Digest Midterm

SINCO VS LONGA & TEVEZ 1928 [guardianship]

Facts:
Hacienda Rosario was originally owned by Don Rafael, PFs great
grandfather
- it passed to his son Escolastico, who died prior to 1901
Esco left a widow named Saturnina & his 3 children [Sergio,
Maria, Coloma]
Sergio and Maria still living
Coloma died in 1904, leaving her children, herein PFs
Escos widow and children leased the property for 7 yrs to DF
[for P3k annual rent]
- understanding: lessees would assume the indebtedness
existing against the estate and apply the rent due until the debt of
the estate of Esco shall be completely paid
July 1903: 7-year lease was extended for a further period of 2
years
Oct 7 1907: same lessors [except Coloma] agreed with the DFs
for an extension of another 1 year
- advance payment of P1500
Aug 1909: Saturnina died
- she left a will acknowledging an encumbrance to the
extent of P3k on the hacienda in favor of her grandchildren, the PFs
> this was questioned by Sergio and Maria [as the
uncle and aunt] but the same later subsided
> probate of the will abandoned
> the claim of P3k in the will of their GM was left
unheeded
Sergio proposed to the DF to sell his 1/3 undivided interest in
the hacienda
DF with Trinidad [widow of Mateo Longa] agreed to buy the
property
- understanding:
1] Maria will sell her share
2] PFs share will be sold by the guardian upon
approval by the court
Feb 1910 sale was consummated as to Sergio and Marias share
only in Nov 17 1910 consummation of sale as to the PFs share
[approved by the court]
Feb 12 1910 date of the DOS
Hacienda and its improvements were valued at P23, 600
- 2/3 of which, which is P15, 733.32 was received by the
grantors Sergio and Maria

After Coloma had died Saturnina, Sergio and Maria executed a

mortgage on the hacienda in favor of Trinidad to secure a sum of
money
- Feb 3 1903 court authorized the guardian [Emilio] of the
PFs to join, binding the PFs share
after Saturninas death: Sergio borrowed money from DF
Agapito [as lessee]
DF Agapito received from the Sinco[s] P10k owing to him due to
the cancellation of the lease up to 1915
lease agreement from 1911-1915 appears to be false [except]
when they have understandings
- [but] such agreement not binding to the minors
lease contract between Sergio, Maria & DF have been cancelled
lease contract between minors and DF remained
- [but] will be delivered by DF to whom it might lawfully
belong
mortgage debt of Sergio and Maria was paid in the sum of P7,
333.33
- as to the mortgage debt of the minors still remained [P3,
666.66]
Nov 7 1910: Guardian Emilio filed a petition to transfer the
remaining 3rd to the DFs
Nov 16 1910: Court authorized the guardian to make the sale as
requested
- next day: deed of conveyance executed by the guardian
in favor of the DFs
ISSUE
1] W/N THE DF ARE LIABLE TO CONVEY THE PFs SHARE, TO PAY THE
JUST VALUE OF THE PROP AND DAMAGES & W/N THE SALE SHOULD
BE ANNULLED NO
2] W/N THERE WAS PUBLICATION - YES
HELD
minors may be really in a dangerous position, since no one
intervened in the transaction who could have had any real and
unbiased interest in protecting them
[but] the court cannot concur with the view that
authorized sale was irregular and beyond the jurisdiction of the
court
The petition presented by the guardian stated a case, for a
sale of a portion of the guardianship estate for reinvestment, as
contemplated in section 569 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the petition it was clearly set forth that the income of the
children's property was insufficient property to maintain and

educate them and that it was for their benefit that their share
should be sold.
It was also therein stated that the property was
encumbered.
Admitting that these statements of the petition were untrue
the jurisdiction of the court to authorize the sale was not thereby
affected, because the jurisdiction of the court rests on the
averments of the petition and not upon the truth of those

averments (28 C. J., 1178; Scott vs. Gypsy Oil Co., 112 Okla., 13;
239 Pac., 887).
The suggestion that the order was irregular and
beyond the jurisdiction of the court because publication
was not made over the whole period required by law losses
its force in view of the fact that the next of kin of the
minors are stated in the order to have personally appeared
in court.