Petition  for review of a judgment  rendered by the Court of Appeals reversing an order entered by the Court of  First Instance  of  Manila  in  special  proceedings No. 18569 which allowed  the claim of Rosita H. Porcuna  in the  sum of  P3,710  and  directed the guardian  People's Bank  &  Trust Co.  to pay it out of  the  available funds of the wards.

The Court of Appeals found and held as follows:

In this special proceedings, Rosita H. Porcuna filed a petition in which, for the reasons  stated  therein,  she  prays that  she be authorized to collect  the sum  of P3,710 from the People's Bank and Trust Company, the  guardian of the minors Elena and Dominador Coca.  Petitioner alleges  that from December 20, 1951 up to April 30, 1953, she gave to Visitaci6n Almonte Vda.  de Coca, mother of the  minors Elena  and Dominador  Coca,  for  the maintenance, support  and  education  of said  minors several  sums  of money amounting to P3,710; that she gave these various loans to Visitacion Almonte Vda. de Coca on the condition that they  would be paid by the latter from the money due to the minors  Elena  and Dominador Coca  from the U.S. Veterans  Administration Office; and that the aforesaid minors  have  already  received certain sums  of money from  the  U.S.  Veterans Administration,  which  money  can  be applied to the money borrowed by their mother for  their  maintenance, support and  education.

The U.S. Veterans  Administration  opposed the  petition on the ground (1) that Visitaci6n Vda. de Coca  is personally liable for the payment of the claim of Rosita H.  Porcuna; and (2) that even granting, without admitting, that Visitacion Almonte Vda. de Coca, mother of the aforementioned  minors,  obtained funds  from Rosita H.  Porcuna  for  the maintenance, support and education of said minors, these amounts of money obtained by her are  not payable from the estate of the  two minors for the reason that said Visitacion Almonte Vda. de Coca has no power  to encumber  the property of the wards.

We opine that the only question to be resolved in this appeal is whether the petitioner appellee Rosita H. Porcuna has the right to collect the amount of P3,710 from the estate of  the minors Elena and  Dominador  Coca.

There is no dispute  that the amounts of money  stated in Exhibits A, A-l to A-19  amounting to  P3,710 were actually  given by Rosita H. Porcuna to the mother of the minors Elena and Dominador Coca. According  to the testimony of  Visitacion Almonte Vda. de Coca she received said sums of money as loans for the  expenses of her children Elena  and Dominador Coca,  who  were studying  at the Manila Northern College during  the years 1951  to 1953; that the monthly tuition fees of these  two children  were P10.00 and P5.00 respectively;  that  the. monthly  expenses for their support, maintenance and education was P250.00 more or less monthly; and that she  did not  have any means of  livelihood  during  the period from December 20, 1951 to  April 30, 1953.

Oppositor-appellant  U.S. Veterans Administration has established that  Visitacion Vda. de Coca received from it  during the period from December 12, 1951  to November 10, 1952 the amount of $2,322.50 as indemnity for the  insurance due to Valentin Coca, the deceased father of the minors  Elena and Dominador  Coca, another amount of P2.600.00 as gratuity pay due to said Visitacion Almonte Vda. de Coca; and  that  she  has  been  receiving a monthly pension of $92.90.

From the  testimony  of  Visitacion Almonte Vda.  de Coca  we deduced that/for  the period of  two years  from  1951  to 1953 she had spent P6,360 for the maintenance,  support  and education of her two children, the minors Elena and  Dominador  Coca.  She received from the United States Veterans Administration the total sum  of P7,245.  This amount is  even  more  than what  she had actually spent for  her  two children  during the above mentioned period.  In addition to  this  amount, Visitacion Almonte  Vda. de Coca had been receiving a monthly pension from the U.S. Veterans Administration.  It  is apparent that she had sufficient money in her possession to pay the loans she secured from Rosita H. Porcuna, even  granting that  these loans were for the maintenance, support and education of Elena and  Dominador  Coca.  Consequently there is no  reason now  why the  estate  of  these two minors  should answer for said loans.

Furthermore, legally speaking, said loans  can not be paid from the estate of the minors, for the  reason that the mother  of the minors has no authority to encumber the minors, property in order to guarantee  a loan she  secured for the purpose of  purchasing food, clothing and  other necessities for said minors.  In  the case at bar, Visitacion  Almonte Vda. de Coca, the mother of the minors Elena and Dominador Coca, is only  the natural guardian of the persons of said minors,  while the  People's  Bank and Trust Company  is the judicial  guardian of  said minors' properties.  As such judicial guardian,  the latter  is the  only  one authorized  to secure loans to be  paid  from the property  of the  ward.  And  even then, it needs, the court's approval, before it can validly contract such loans. (U.S.V.A. vs. Bustos, 48 Off. Gaz., 5240; Section 3, Rule 96, Rules of Court.)

In  the light of the foregoing considerations, we  declare that the estate of the minors Elena and  Dominador  Coca is  not obliged to pay Rosita H. Porcuna's claim in  the amount of P3,710. Premises  Considered,  the  resolution  appealed  from is. hereby reversed.  The petition of Rosita  H. Porcuna is dismissed. Costs against appellee.

It  is  alleged that the  sum of P3,710 received by the wards' mother  from  the  petitioner  during the  period from 20  December 1951  to  30  April 1953 was  disbursed for the maintenance,  support and education of the minors; and  that the said  sum  was lent by the petitioner  to the wards' mother on condition that it would be paid  by the latter out  of the money  due  the wards from the United States  Veterans  Administration.  It  appears  that  the ward's mother had received  from  the  United  States Veterans Administration from  12  December  1951 to  10 November 1952 the sum of $2,322.50 or P4,645 as insurance indemnity and  P2,600 as gratuity pay due to the estate of Valentin  Coca,  her  deceased husband  and  father  of the minors, or a total  of  P7,245,  in  addition  to a monthly pension of $92.90 or P185.80; that the guardianship proceedings in this case was  begun on 15  January  1953; and that only in May 1953 did the wards begin to receive  from the United  States Veterans Administration  the  sum of P30 each for monthly allowance and P50 each for immediate necessities (Annex B to petition).  From 20 December 1951  to 30  April 1953,  when  the wards'  mother borrowed  the money from the petitioner,  she  was  in a position to give support to her  minor children who had not yet  received any  benefit  from  the United  States Veterans  Administration  and were not  in a position to support themselves.   The following provisions of the Civil Code  on support  provide;

ART.  290. Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing and medical attendance,  according to the social  position of the  family.

Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be supported  until he completes his education  or  training for some profession,  trade or vocation, even  beyond the  age of majority.

Art.  291. The  following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in  the  preceding article:

(1)  The  spouses;
(2)  Legitimate  ascendants and descendants;

*  *  *

ART.  294. The  claim for  support, when proper and two  or more persons are obliged to give it, shall be made in the following order:

(1)  From the  spouse;
(2)  From the descendants of the nearest degree;
(3)  From the  ascendants, also of the nearest degree;

Granting that the sum of money  lent  by the petitioner was spent  for the  maintenance,  support  and education of the wards, still their funds due from the United States Veterans Administration cannot legally be made answerable for 'the loan secured  by their  mother,  because the latter was in duty bound to give them support at a  time when they did not have the means to support themselves and she was in  a position  to do so.

Appellant contends that pursuant to articles 320 and 326 of the  Civil Code, the mother is the administratrix and guardian  of the  child's properties; that the incurring of debts for the purchase of necessaries and  for  the maintenance, support and education of the child is a  pure act of administration which may be exercised without previous authority of the  court;  and  that pursuant to  section 2, Rule  97,  such debts  must be  paid out  of the ward's personal estate and the income of his real  estate.

Republic  Act  No.  390,  approved on 18  June 1949, governs the guardianship of incompetent veterans, other incompetents and minor beneficiaries  of the United States Veterans  Administration.   Being  a  special  law  limited in operation to money benefits received from the United States  Veterans   Administration,  it  prevails  over   the provisions of the  Civil Code.^[1]  Section 17 of the said Act provides:

A guardian must manage the estate of his ward frugally and without  waste, and  shall not  apply any  portion of  the income or the estate for the support or maintenance of any person other than the ward, the spouse  and the  minor children of the ward, except upon  petition to  and prior order  of the Court after a hearing.  A signed  duplicate or certified copy of said petition shall be furnished  the Chief Attorney of  the Veterans Administration and notice  thereof  shall be  given the Chief Attorney as provided in the case of hearing on a guardian's account or other pleading.

Section 18 of the  same  Act provides:

Guardians appointed  under  this Act, at their discretion, and with written approval of  the Chief Attorney of the Veterans Administration, may make expenditures of guardianship funds for the benefit of their wards, without court approval: Provided, however, That no single expenditure shall exceed the sum of twenty pesos, and  the aggregate of all  such  expenditures in any twelve months period shall not  exceed four hundred pesos  for any ward.

In  United States  Veterans Administration vs.  Bustos, 48 Off. Gaz., 5240-5242, this Court held:

Assuming, arguendo,  that the mother  and her natural children secured loans from claimant-appellant  with which  to purchase the food, clothing, and necessaries  of  her  minor wards  or  to provide them with  education,  she certainly has no  power  nor authority to encumber  the property of the wards to  guaranty the loan thus secured, or  to bind for the payment of the loan the pensions that the minors  may be entitled to  receive  thereafter.  Only  a judicial guardian of the  ward's property may validly do so, and  even then only  with  the court's  prior approval  secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the rules.   (Rule 96, Rules of Court.) The  execution of the "Deed of  Loan" in the case at bar is, therefore, clearly beyond the scope of a natural guardian's power or authority.

Moreover, section 1, Republic Act No. 360, approved on 9  June 1949 provides:

Payments of benefits due or to become due to any person residing in the Philippines under the laws of the United States administered by the United States Veterans Administration shall not be assignable,  and  such payments made to, or  on account of, a beneficiary under any of the  laws of the United  States  administered by the United States Veterans Administration  relating to veterans residing in the Philippines  shall be exempt from  taxation as well as from claims of creditors, and  shall  not be liable  to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatsoever, either before or after receipt-by  the  beneficiary.  * *  *.

The judgment under review  is affirmed,  without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A.. Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia,  JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Baga vs. Phil. National Bank, 52 Off. Gaz., 6140.