G.R. No. 133465 - Dolfo vs. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite

A writ of certiorari was sought to review a decree made by the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila.
The decree declared the petitioner, Luis R. Yangco, a spendthrift and appointed a guardian for his property.
The action was initiated by Teodoro R. Yangco, a relative and friend of the petitioner.

The Division of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge A. S. Crossfield.
Teodoro R. Yangco, who filed the petition for guardianship proceedings.

The statutory requirement under Section 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates personal notice to the alleged spendthrift at least five days prior to the hearing.
In the instant case, no personal notice was given to Luis R. Yangco.
The only notice was delivered to his mother-in-law, Julia Stanton de Regidor, and his brother-in-law, Cristobal Regidor, as stated in their answer.
The petitioner’s temporary absence was due to travel, not because he was domiciled outside the Philippine Islands.

The petition filed by Teodoro R. Yangco.
The uncorroborated admissions made by Julia Stanton de Regidor and Cristobal Regidor.

The court proceeded to issue its decree without a full hearing or proper production of evidence regarding the petitioner’s competence.

The proceeding effectively sought to deprive the petitioner of his right to manage and control his property based on mere allegations.
Such judicial action, without satisfying the due process requirements, challenges fundamental rights and raises serious constitutional concerns.

Whether the proceedings declaring the petitioner a spendthrift and appointing a guardian were valid given that no personal notice was given in accordance with Section 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the lack of personal notice and the consequent deviation from the statutory requirements rendered the court’s decree void.

Whether the petitioner’s temporary absence from the Philippines for travel could justify the application of Section 572, which permits substituted notice for persons residing abroad.
Whether the word “resident” in the statute should be reinterpreted to include temporary absentees.

Whether the mere allegations and admissions by relatives, without a full hearing or corroborative evidence, constitute a sufficient basis to declare a person incompetent and deprive him of managing his property.