Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27680-81)
Facts:
In re Guardianship of the Incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti, G.R. No. 14383, November 29, 1919, the Supreme Court En Banc. Torres, J., writing for the Court.The petition for guardianship was filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the City of Manila by attorneys Crossfield & O'Brien on behalf of petitioner Consuelo (Consolacion) Rico viuda de Inchausti (the mother), alleging that her son, Jose R. de Inchausti (the alleged incompetent and here the opponent/appellant), had become temporarily insane, was confined in San Lazaro Hospital, and possessed considerable property including an impending inheritance worth about P175,000. The petition was verified by A. S. Crossfield as the "friend" of the alleged incompetent and a hearing was set for January 18, 1915; the CFI issued an order (January 12, 1915) directing the Director of San Lazaro Hospital, Dr. A. P. Goff, to appear and, if possible, produce Jose R. de Inchausti.
At the January 18, 1915 hearing the CFI found the medical evidence sufficient, appointed the mother guardian and required a bond of P100,000; the guardian qualified and letters were issued. Various subsequent guardians were appointed, resigned, and the mother was later reinstated; monthly pensions and accounts were approved from time to time. Meanwhile, on November 18, 1915 the Spanish Court of First Instance of the Northern District of Barcelona sent a requisitory letter and a judgment declaring Jose R. de Inchausti mentally sound and ordering the guardian relieved; the Manila CFI refused to give effect to that foreign judgment by order of April 15, 1916.
When Messrs. Inchausti & Co. later withheld funds claiming the guardianship was void for want of personal notice to Jose, counsel for Jose (then represented from Barcelona by attorneys Gutierrez Repide y Socias) moved to annul all prior proceedings on the ground that the CFI lacked jurisdiction because the alleged incompetent had not been personally notified as required by section 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). The CFI denied the motion by order of May 9, 1918. The CFI had before it Dr. Goff’s certificate and A. S. Crossfield’s affidavit stating that, following hospital custom, the Director had informed Jose of the hearing and that Crossfield had visited Jose on January 13, 1915 and been told Jose acknowledged the notice. Jose appealed to the Supreme Court by regular appeal of the CFI order.
The CFI and later the Supreme Court majority treated the controlling question against the backdrop of two statutory provisions: section 559 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) requiring personal notice to the supposed insane when a relative or friend petitions for guardianship, and section 4 of Act No. 2122 (and related Administrative Code provisions, secs. 1043–1044) which prescribes procedures when the Director of Health files a petition for commitment and permits notice to the person having charge of the alleged...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in denying the motion to annul the guardianship proceedings for lack of personal notice to the alleged incompetent, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction?
- Does Act No. 2122, §4 (and related Administrative Code provisions), supersede or modify section 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that service of notice upon the person in charge (e.g., hospital director) suffices in proceedings to appoint a guardian for an insane person?
- Was the petition properly verified when sworn to by A. S. Crossfield (a friend and counsel), satisfying the verification...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)