Short answer. Yes. Article 2262 of the Civil Code says guardians of a minor's property appointed by the courts before the Code took effect on August 30, 1950 continued acting as guardians without interruption. The switch to the new Code, including its rules letting a parent administer a child's property, did not end or replace those existing appointments.

What the law says

Guardians of the property of minors, appointed by the courts before this Code goes into effect, shall continue to act as such

Civil Code, Article 2262 — Guardians Appointed Before Effectivity. Read the full provision →

Why the Civil Code needed a transition rule

When the Civil Code of the Philippines took effect on August 30, 1950, it replaced the older Spanish-era civil code and introduced new family-law provisions, including rules on how parents administer a minor child's property. Lawmakers anticipated that many guardianships over minors' property had already been established under the old law, often through lengthy court proceedings, and did not want the changeover itself to disturb those arrangements or force families back to court. Article 2262 was written to settle that question directly, so no reappointment was needed.

What the provision actually covers

Article 2262 applies narrowly to guardians of a minor's property, not guardians of the minor's person, and only to those appointed by a court before the Code's effectivity date. A guardian who fit that description kept full authority to manage the child's property under the new Code exactly as before, with no need for the family to seek reappointment or a fresh court order. The guardian remained accountable to the same court under the same appointment, subject to the usual duties of accounting and management that guardianship already carried.

How it interacts with parental administration

A separate Civil Code provision gave parents authority to administer their unemancipated children's property, which could have been read as displacing an existing court-appointed guardian. Article 2262 heads that off with its notwithstanding clause: an existing guardianship stands even though the new Code otherwise lets a parent step into that administrative role. The guardian, not the parent, continued to answer to the court under the terms of the original appointment, and the parent's new statutory authority to administer a child's property simply did not reach property already under a court-supervised guardian.

Why this mostly matters historically now

Because the cutoff date was August 30, 1950, Article 2262 only ever protected guardianships that existed at that moment, and any minor under such a guardianship would have reached the age of majority decades ago. The provision no longer has living guardianships to protect, but it remains part of the Code's transitory rules chapter and illustrates the general legislative approach: new civil-law rules were written to respect rights and appointments that already existed rather than wipe them out automatically, a drafting choice that shows up again and again across the Code's other transitional articles.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.