As guardian  of  the property of the minor Mariano L. Bernardo, the Philippine Trust Company filed in the Manila court of first instance a  complaint to annul two contracts regarding 17  parcels of land:  (a) sale thereof by Socorro Roldan,  as  guardian of  said minor, to Fidel C.  Ramos; and (b)  sale thereof by Fidel C. Ramos to Socorro Roldan personally.   The  complaint likewise  sought  to  annul  a conveyance of four out of the said seventeen parcels by Socorro  Roldan to Emilio Cruz.

The action rests  on the proposition that the  first  two sales  were in reality a sale by the guardian  to herself therefore, null and void under Article  1459 of  the  Civil Code.  As to the third conveyance, it is also ineffective, because  Socorro Roldan  had  acquired  no valid title to convey to Cruz.

The material facts of  the case are  not  complicated. These 17 parcels located in Guiguinto, Bulacan, were part of the properties inherited by Mariano  L. Bernardo  from his father,  Marcelo Bernardo,  deceased.  In view of  his minority, guardianship proceedings were instituted, where in Socorro Roldan was appointed his  guardian.  She was the surviving spouse of Marcelo Bernardo, and the  step-mother of said Mariano L.  Bernardo.

On July 27, 1947, Socorro Roldan filed in said  guardianship  proceedings  (Special Proceeding  2485,  Manila), a motion asking for authority to sell  as guardian the 17 parcels for the sum of P14,700 to Dr. Fidel C.  Ramos, the purpose of the sale being allegedly to invest the money in a residential house, which the minor  desired to have on Tindalo  Street, Manila.   The motion was granted.

On August 5, 1947 Socorro Roldan, as guardian, executed the proper deed of  sale  in favor of her brother-in-law Dr. Fidel C. Ramos  (Exhibit  A-l); and  on August 12, 1947 she asked for, and obtained judicial confirmation of the sale.  On August 13, 1947, Dr. Fidel C. Ramos executed in  favor of Socorro Roldan, personally, a deed of conveyance covering the same seventeen  parcels,  for the sum of PI5,000  (Exhibit A-2)   And on October 21, 1947 Socorro Roldan  sold four parcels out of the  seventeen  to Emilio Cruz for P3,000, reserving to herself the right to repurchase (Exhibit A-3).

The Philippine Trust  Company replaced Socorro Roldan as guardian, on  August 10, 1948.  And  this  litigation, started two months later, seeks to undo what the previous guardian had done.  The step-mother in effect, sold to herself,  the properties  of her ward, contends  the  plaintiff,  and the sale  should be annulled because  it violates Article  1459 of the Civil Code prohibiting the guardian from purchasing "either in person or through the mediation of another" the property of her ward.

The  court  of first instance, following our  decision in Rodriguez vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. 13  held the article was not controlling,  because there  was no proof  that. Fidel C. Ramos was a mere intermediary or that the  latter had previously agreed with Socorro Roldan to buy the parcels for her benefit.

However, taking the former guardian at  her word she swore she  had  repurchased the lands from Dr.  Fidel C. Ramos to preserve it,and to give  her protege opportunity to  redeem the (Court  rendered judgment  upholding the contracts  but allowing the minor to repurchase all the parcels  by paying P15,000,  within one  year.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, adding that the minor knew  the  particulars  of, and approved the transaction, and that "only clear  and positive evidence of fraud or bad faith, and not mere insinuations and inferences will overcome the presumptions that a sale was concluded in all  good faith for value".

At first glance the resolutions of  both courts accomplished substantial justice: the minor recovers his properties.  But if the conveyances are annulled as prayed  for, the minor will obtain a better deal: Tie receives all the fruits of the lands from the  year 1947 (Article 1303 Civil  Code) and will return P14,700, not P15,000.

To our minds the first two transactions herein described couldn't  be in  a better  juridical situation than if this guardian had purchased the seventeen parcels on the day following the sale to Dr. Ramos.   Now,  if she was willing to  pay  P15,000  why  did. she sell the  parcels for less? In  one  day  (or actually one week) the price could not have risen so suddenly.  Obviously when, seeking  approval of the sale she represented the price to be the best obtainable in the market, she was not entirely truthful.  This is one phase  to consider.

Again,  supposing she knew the parcels were actually worth PI7,000; then she agreed to sell them to Pr.  Ramos at P14,700; and knowing the  realty's  value she offered him the next day  P15,000 or P15,500,  and  got it.   Will there be1 any doubt that she was recreant to her guardianship,  and that her acquisition should be nullified?  Even without  proof that she  had connived  with Dr. Ramos. Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have any inducement to neglect his ward's interest and in line with the court's  suspicion  whenever  the guardian acquires the ward's property ^[1] we have no  hesitation to declare  that in  this case,  in the eyes of the law, Socorro Roldan  took  by purchase her  ward's  parcels thru  Dr. Ramos,  and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.

She acted it may be true without malice; there may have been  no  previous agreement between her and  Dr. Ramos to the effect that the latter would buy  the lands for her. But the  stubborn fact remains  that she acquired her protege's properties, through her brother-in-law.  That she planned to get them for herself at the time of selling them to Dr Ramos, may be deduced from the very short time between the two sales (one week).  The temptation  which naturally besets a guardian so circumstanced, necessitates the annulment of the transaction,  even  if no actual collusion is proved (so hard to prove)  between such guardian and the  intermediate purchaser.   This would uphold  a sound principle of equity and justice.^[2]

We are aware of course that in Rodriguez  vs. Mactal, 60 Phil. p. 13  wherein the guardian Mactal sold in January 1926 the property  of her ward to Silverio Chioco, and in March 1928 she bought it from Chioco, this Court said: 

"In order to bring the sale  in  this case within  the part of Article 1459, quoted above, it is essential that the proof submitted establish  some  agreement between  Silverio Chioco and Trinidad Maetal to  the effect that Chioco  should buy  the property for  the benefit of Mactal.  If there was no such agreement, either express or implied, then the sale cannot be set aside.  * * *.  (Page  16; Italics supplied.)"

However, the underlined  portion was  not intended to establish a general principle of law applicable to all subsequent litigations.  It merely meant that the subsequent purchase by Mactal could not be annulled in that particular case because there was no proof  of a previous  agreement between Chioco  and her.  The court then  considered such proof necessary to establish that the two sales were actually part of one scheme guardian getting the ward's property through another person because two  years had elapsed between the sales.  Such period of time was sufficient to dispel the natural suspicion of the guardian's motives or actions.  In  the case at  bar,  however, only one week had  elapsed.  And  if  we were  technical, we  could say, only one day had elapsed from the judicial approval of  the sale (August  12), to the purchase by the  guardian  (Aug. 13).

Attempting to prove that the transaction was beneficial to the minor, appellee's  attorney alleges that the money (P14,700)  invested in  the house on Tindalo Street produced for him rentals of P2,400 yearly; whereas the parcels of land yielded  to his step-mother  only an  average of PI,522 per year.^[3]    The argument would carry some weight if that house  had been built out  of the purchase price of P14,700 only.^[4]   One thing is certain: the calculation doe3 not include the price  of the lot  on which the  house was erected.  Estimating such lot at  P14,700  only, (ordinarily the city lot is more valuable than the building) the result is that the price paid  for the seventeen  parcels gave  the minor  an  income  of  only  PI ,200 a  year, whereas  the harvest from  the seventeen  parcels netted his step-mother a yearly profit of P1,522.00.  The minor  was thus on  the losing end.

Hence,  from  both  the legal  and equitable standpoints these three sales should not be sustained: the first two for violation of article 1459 of the Civil Code; and the third because Socorro Roldan could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment  carries with it (Article 1303 Civil Code) the obligation of Socorro Roldan to return the 17 parcels together with  their  fruits and the duty of the  minor, through his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.

Judgment is therefore rendered:

a. Annulling  the three contracts  of sale in question; 
b. declaring the  minor  as  the owner of  the seventeen parcels  of land, with the obligation  to return to Socorro Roldan the price of P14,700 with legal interest from August 12, 1947; c.  Ordering  Socorro Roldan and Emilio  Cruz to deliver said parcels of land to the minor; d. Requiring Socorro Roldan to pay him beginning with 1947 the fruits, which her  attorney  admits, amounted to  P1,522 a year; e. Authorizing the minor to deliver directly to Emilio Cruz, out of the  price of P14,700 above mentioned, the sum of P3,000;  and A charging  appellees  with the  costs.  So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angela, Concepcion,  Reyes, J. B. L.,  and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] 25 Am. Jur.  pp. 128,  130; Daniel vs.  Tolon,  53  Okla. 666, 4 A. L. R. 704.

^[2] cf. Severinb vs.  Severino, 44 Phil, 343.  "No fraud in fact need be shown".

^[3] 8 Appellee's brief r p. 20.

^[4] The contract with the builder called for P16,500.00; and Roldan said its total cost  amounted to P18,720.00.