In this appeal taken by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Abra, as amended, in the above entitled case, directing the Philippine National Bank to pay to Dr. Jose 0, Ramos, the sum of  P5 a  month from April 29, 1946 to June 30, 1956, by way  of compensation for his services as guardian of the person of the minors Virginia and Pepita, both surnamed Dato, and holding that beginning July  1, 1956, Dr. Ramos shall  be paid compensation at the rate of 2 per cent, and the Philippine National Bank  3 per cent of all monies received for each ward every year the only question raised is one of law, namely, whether the guardian of the person of a minor is entitled to  compensation for his services as such  guardian.

It appears that on April 29, 1946,  Dr. Ramos  became the judicial  guardian of the person and properties of the minors  above mentioned.   On  motion of the United States Veterans Administration, the Court subsequently appointed the Philippine National Bank  as guardian of  said properties, in  lieu of  Dr.  Ramos, who continued as guardian of the person of said minors.  As such guardian, Dr. Ramos incurred expenses for their support, which were later reimbursed by order  of the Court.  Since 1952, he received from the Bank the sum of F40 as monthly allowance for the support of each minor, which was increased in  1955 to P50  for the  minor Virginia Dato.   Upon petition filed by Dr.  Ramos,  on June 23, 1955, and,  over the objection of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, the Court of First Instance of Abra issued, after  due hearing, an order, dated August 25,   1955,  directing  payment by the  Philippine National Bank to Dr. Ramos  of the sum of F10 a month from April  29,  1946.  The   Administrator  of Veterans Affairs and the Philippine National Bank moved for a reconsideration of this order, which, the court amended on November 15, 1955, in the manner indicated in the opening paragraph of this decision.  The Administrator of Veterans Affairs has appealed from said  order, as amended, upon the ground that:

"1. The lower court erred in maintaining that a guardian of the person of a minor is entitled to compensation as such guardian.

"2. The lower court erred in ordering  that the guardian of the persons of the minors be paid the sum of P5 a month from April 29, 1946 to June 30,  1956 and two (2%)  per centum of all monies received for  each "ward  every year thereafter."

Briefly stated, appellant maintains that the right to compensation, if any,  of  a guardian, as such, is purely statutory in nature; that  there  is no law granting said right to guardians whose authority as such is limited only to the person  of their respective wards and does not extend to the latter's property; and that, pursuant to section 15 of Republic Act No.  390, the compensation of guardians of minors entitled to receive benefits payable by or through the Veterans Administration "shall not exceed five per cent of the amount of money received during any year," which was being paid to the Philippine National Bank, as guardian of the estate of the minors Virginia and  Pepita Dato.

Section 27 of Republic Act No. 390  declares that Rules 98 to 98, inclusive, of the Rules of Court, insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions  of said Act, shall apply to proceedings under the same.   Section 8  of Rule 97 of said Rules, in turn,  provides:

"Upon the  expiration of a year from the time of Ms appointment, and as often thereafter as may be requited, a guardian must present his account to the court-  for settlement and allowance.  In the settlement of the account, the guardian shall be allowed the  amount of his reasonable expenses incurred in' the execution of his trust and also such compensation for his services as the court deems just, not exceeding fifteen per centum of the net income of the ward."

We find in this section nothing that would indicate clearly an intention to deny the right to  compensation for services rendered  by the guardian of the person of a minor.  On the contrary, it provides that "the guardian shall be allowed * * * such compensation for his services as the court deems just," without any distinction as to whether the guardianship extends to the property,  or is limited to the person, of the ward.  The maximum of  "fifteen per centum of the net income  of the ward" prescribed in said  section, does  not necessarily imply that said income must be received by the guardian whose services are to be compensated.  Upon the other hand,  logic  and reason,  as well as equity and justice, demand  that every  person be duly compensated for  his services, in the absence of express legal provision, or manifest intent of the  lawmaker, to the contrary, none of which exists in the case at bar.  Moreover, appellant's pretense would seem to be premised upon the assumption that  Dr. Ramos does not handle any funds belonging to the minors, which is not a fact, for he receives the monthly allowances for their support, and is accountable and liable therefor. What is more, he advanced his own funds for the support of said  minors, from 1946 to 1952, and he was not reimbursed  therefor until November, 1954. Again, although the compensation of guardians, under section  15 of Republic Act No. 390,  "shall not  exceed  five per cent of the amount of monies received during any year," the same section authorizes  "reasonable  additional compensation in case of extraordinary  or unusual services" rendered by the guardian.  Inasmuch as Dr. Ramos is  not related  to the Datos, we are not prepared  to  hold that the lower court had erred in characterizing as  "unusual" the services rendered by the guardian,  considering particularly that he  supported the minors, with his personal funds, for seven (7)  consecutive years.  It should be noted, also, that, beginning from July 1, 1956, said normal maximum  of 5 per cent will  not be exceeded, for  the order appealed from, as amended, provides that, thereafter, "Dr. Ramos shall be paid compensation at the rate of 2 per cent, and the Philippine  National  Bank  3 per  cent,  of  all amounts received for each ward  every  year."

Wherefore,  the  order  appealed from, as  amended,  is hereby affirmed in toto, without special pronouncement  as, to costs.  It is so ordered.

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