G.R. No. L-10792; April 30, 1958
ENRIQUE T. JOCSON and JESUS T. JOCSON, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, oppositor and appellee, and INTESTATE ESTATE OF AGUSTIN A. JOCSON represented by BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON, Special Administratrix, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

In Special Proceedings No. 734 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Agustin A. Jocson was appointed guardian of his minor children, including Enrique and Jesus Jocson, on October 3, 1950. The Empire Insurance Company acted as surety on his guardian’s bond. The minors’ estate included sums from war damage payments, with a total of P18,000 deposited in a bank. During the guardianship, Agustin Jocson submitted periodic accounts to the court, which included expenses for the education and clothing of the wards Enrique and Jesus for specific periods (P400.20 and P330.40 for the first period; P850.26 and P1,410.10 for the second period). These accounts were approved by the court. Agustin Jocson died on February 12, 1954. Perla Jocson, another child who had attained majority, was appointed successor guardian for the still-minor Enrique and Jesus. On September 29, 1954, Perla filed a petition to reopen the accounts of the deceased guardian, claiming the disbursements for education and clothing were illegal. Upon reaching majority, Enrique and Jesus adopted this petition and moved for the disbursements to be declared illegal and for the guardian’s bond (Empire Insurance Co.) to answer for them. The surety company and the administratrix of Jocson’s intestate estate opposed the motion. The lower court denied the motion, declared the bond cancelled, and terminated the guardianship. The movants (Enrique and Jesus) appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the disbursements made from the guardianship funds by the deceased guardian, Agustin A. Jocson, for the education and clothing of his minor children (the appellants) were illegal, thereby making his surety bond liable.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. The appellants’ contention that the expenses for education and clothing were part of the support owed by their father and that using guardianship funds for such constituted illegal disbursements was without merit. While support includes education and clothing (Art. 290, New Civil Code), the right to support must be demanded and established before it becomes payable (Art. 298, New Civil Code). The law presumes no necessity for support unless it is demanded. In this case, there was no showing that support was ever demanded from the father or that the need for it was established. This is especially true given that the minors had their own means (the war damage funds). Therefore, the court-approved disbursements for education and clothing were not illegal, and the guardian’s bond was not liable. Furthermore, any claim for support should be pursued in a separate action, not within the guardianship proceedings. The appeal was dismissed as a paupers’ appeal, without costs.