Practice question
A suitable proposed guardian lives abroad but has a concrete, credible arrangement to discharge the duties and protect the child. The opposition argues that overseas residence alone creates an absolute legal disqualification. Which is correct under Santos?
- Availability and actual ability must be assessed in the full best-interests inquiry; the Rule does not equate availability with unbroken physical presence in every case.
- Foreign residence always makes guardianship impossible.
- Foreign residence guarantees appointment without further inquiry.
- The court must ignore conflicts of interest if an applicant lives abroad.
- The child's needs are irrelevant once the applicant has money.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_72-109_proceedings.html — Rules88–91 and adult-guardianship Rules92–97, subject to later law and AM03-02-05-SC for minors.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/journals/Collation_and_Codification_of_SC_Issuance_DIGITAL.pdf — Supreme Court primary compilation pp1228–1236, AM03-02-05-SC April1 2003, Rule on Guardianship of Minors.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jun2024/gr_268643_2024.html — Santos v Republic, GR268643, June10 2024, main decision (minor guardianship and best interests).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.