Francisco v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the guardianship of Estefania San Pedro. Feliciano Francisco was appointed as guardian. Pelagio Francisco, claiming to be a first cousin, along with two others, petitioned for Feliciano's removal and Pelagio's appointment, citing Feliciano's failure to submit an inventory and render an accounting of the ward's estate. While Feliciano eventually submitted an inventory, an objection was raised regarding the sale price of a residential land, alleging a discrepancy between the deed of sale and the reported amount. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan initially ordered Feliciano Francisco's removal as guardian due to the discrepancy in the land sale price. However, upon reconsideration, the court acknowledged the deed of sale as the best evidence and, citing Feliciano's advanced age (72 years old), ordered his retirement as guardian, effective upon the appointment of a replacement. Feliciano's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, Pelagio Francisco filed an omnibus motion seeking to restrain Feliciano, surrender ward's properties, and appoint a new guardian. The trial court ordered Feliciano to submit a nomination for a new guardian, which he opposed. Despite the opposition and pending appeal, the trial court appointed Pelagio Francisco as the new guardian. Feliciano then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the execution pending appeal and Pelagio's appointment. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Feliciano Francisco's petition for certiorari, finding that the retirement of a guardian due to old age, coupled with delays in accounting and inventory, constituted good reasons for execution pending appeal. The appellate court also noted that the appointment of Pelagio Francisco as guardian was not properly raised or questioned in the lower court. Feliciano Francisco now seeks review by this Court, contending that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that removal due to old age is a valid ground for execution pending appeal and in misinterpreting facts regarding his challenge to Pelagio's appointment as guardian.
Issue(s)
Whether the retirement of petitioner as guardian on the ground of old age is a good reason for execution pending appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave misapprehension and misinterpretation of facts in declaring that petitioner did not question the appointment of private respondent as guardian on the ground that the latter is older than the former by five (5) years.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the retirement of petitioner Feliciano Francisco as guardian due to advanced age, coupled with delays in submitting an inventory and accounting, constituted sufficient grounds for execution pending appeal, as it was in the best interest of the ward. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court or the appellate court. Furthermore, the issue regarding the age of the appointed guardian, Pelagio Francisco, was not properly raised in the lower court and thus could not be entertained for the first time on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of execution pending appeal due to retirement on grounds of old age: The Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the retirement of petitioner Feliciano Francisco as guardian on the ground of "rather advanced age" (72 years old) constituted good reasons for execution pending appeal. This conclusion was supported by the petitioner's delay in submitting an inventory and accounting, indicating a potential incapacity to manage the ward's estate. The Court emphasized that a guardianship is a trust relation designed for the ward's well-being, and the selection or retention of a guardian must serve this purpose. Allowing the petitioner to continue in office, given these circumstances, would be detrimental to the ward's interests. The Court reiterated that execution pending appeal is a matter of sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate courts will not interfere unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, which was not found in this case. The primary objective of guardianship, the protection of the ward, justified the immediate execution of the judgment for the replacement of the guardian. On the issue of whether petitioner questioned the appointment of respondent Pelagio Francisco as guardian based on age: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that this issue was not properly raised in the lower court. The appellate court correctly noted that the order of March 11, 1981, appointing respondent Francisco as guardian, was not the subject of the petition for certiorari. The petition primarily concerned the validity of the orders of January 27, 1981, and March 4, 1981, which required petitioner to nominate his replacement. The Court emphasized the well-established rule that appellate courts cannot entertain issues brought before them for the first time on appeal. Petitioner did not appear to have objected to the appointment of respondent Francisco on the ground of his age, nor did he file a motion for reconsideration of the March 11, 1981 order to bring this specific point to the attention of the trial court. Therefore, this point could not be a proper ground for certiorari or a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
The retirement of a guardian on the ground of advanced age, especially when coupled with delays in submitting an inventory and accounting, constitutes a valid reason for execution pending appeal, as it is in the best interest of the ward. Appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court's discretion in granting execution pending appeal unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. Issues not raised or passed upon in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.