Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31316 December 28, 1929
Guardianship of the minors Lim Chu Hiong, et al. LIM CHU LAN, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
LIM CHU KUN, guardian-appellant.
Camus and Delgado and Juan T. Santos for appellant.
Paredes and Buencamino and Jesus G. Barrera for appellee.
STREET, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila removing the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, from the position of guardian of the minor, Lim Chu Lan and appointing in his stead one Chin Chong Gui, husband of Lim Chu Lan.
It appears that the minor, Lim Chu Lan, is now over 20 years of age and the wife of Chin Chong Gui, to whom she was married on December 26, 1927. The motion with which we are here concerned was filed by Lim Chua Lan on October 31, 1928, and it is therein stated that the estate of the minor is in the hands of the appellant, Lim Chu Kun, a brother of Lim Chua Lan, in the character of guardian. It is also shown that, from the reports of the guardian, approved by the court, the value of the estate of the petitioner ending with the year 1927 was in the amount of P333,496.04 and that from January, 1922, to December, 1927, the annual average income of the petitioner's property has been more than P15,000. In the month of December, 1927, the petitioner contracted marriage with Chin Chong Gui; and it appears that, since that date, the guardian, Lim Chu Kun, has supplied no maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore asks that her guardian be required to supply maintenance in the amount of P500 per month and that he be substituted in the guardianship by the petitioner's husband, Chin Chong Gui.
The facts stated in the petition are not controverted, but opposition is made by the guardian on the ground the at no sufficient ground has been shown for removing him, and in particular that none of the reasons specified in section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to the removal of guardians has been shown to exist. From this it is argued that the substitution, or removal, of the guardian cannot be effected.
We have no hesitancy in declaring that the order appealed from was a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Court of First Instance in such matters, since it is clear that in the language of section 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant had shown himself to be unsuitable for the position of guardian of the petitioner. The fact of marriage alone introduces a change in the conditions of guardianship over a minor woman, and although the marriage of a girl who is under guardianship does not ipso facto abolish the guardianship over the property, it does terminate the guardianship over the person (sec. 575, Code of Civ. Proc.). Moreover, the existence of a guardianship over the estate of a married woman in other hands than those of the husband is in certain respects undesirable, since the husband is legally entitled to the management of conjugal property, and the earnings of the paraphernal property of the wife constitute community property. Therefore, if the husband is found to be a suitable person, he is the proper individual to fill the office. In the case before us it is not shown that the husband is unfit for the office to which he was appointed by the trial court.
We note that, after the appealed order was made, the appellant entered into an agreement with the representatives of Lim Chu Lan to pay her P500 a month for maintenance, but this was done grudgingly; and it is insisted here that the amount which the appellant is thus paying is too much. We are of the opinion that the sum of P500 per month is not improper for a person having the standing of the petitioner in the community, in view of the size of the capital of her estate and its earning capacity.lawphi1.net
The order appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., dissent.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
