SpecPro Digest Midterm

Gorostiaga vs Sarte 1939 [guardianship #4]

Facts:
May 27 1936: PF Gorostiaga institutes an action against DF
Sarte
- to recover the sum of P2, 285.51
DFs atty made a general denial and interposed a defense that
DF was physically and mentally incompetent to manage her estate
DF did not appear at the trial
Sept 21 36: judgment sentenced the DF to pay the amount
claimed
Dec 23 36: general guardian of DF filed a motion under Sec 113
Act 190, and prayed that the proceedings be declared null and void
which was denied
May 18 36 [9 days prior to the action to recover]: Petition for
guardianship was filed in favor of the DF
- ground: she was incompetent to manage her estate [by
reason] of her physical and mental incapacity
court issued an order declaring that the DF "se halla ficica y
mentalmente incacitada para administrar sus bienes poe razon de
debelidad senil, cuya inteligencia si bien le permite sostener una
conversacion por algunos minutos de una manera satisfactoria, no
tiene la consistencia necesaria para atender a sus necesidas y
administrar sus propios bienes."
after hearing
after presentation of depositions of alienists
order issued on Dec 3 1936
relates to the incapacity alleged in the petition of May 18
1936
COURT ACQUIRED NO J OVER HER PERSON
1] during all the proceedings [from the filing of the complaint to the
rendition of JT] DF was physically and mentally unfit to manage
her affairs

2] no summons and notices of the proceedings served her and her

guardian
[r] no guardian was appointed for her
ATTY WHO APPEARED FOR THE DF AND ITS AUTHORITY & DF
GIVING THE AUTHORITY PRESUMED
[but] presumption rebutted by the court order declaring the DF
physically and mentally unfit to manage her estate since at least
May 18, 1936
[t] DF cannot validly authorize atty to represent her
- if authority was given by DFs relatives not sufficient
except to show the attys GF in appearing in the case
ISSUE
W/N THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID FOR LACK OF J YES
HELD
although the issue of incapacity of the DF was pleaded in the DFs
answer thus it could not be reopened [except on the ground of
newly discovered evidence]
- answer filed by an atty whos without authority
it is the duty of the court to set aside all the proceedings and
grant a new trial, if:
1] lack of J clearly shown
2] no waiver
although theres no showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable negligence as ground for relief in the motion filed by
the guardian
- it will be more surprising if the DF be tried and sentenced
without valid summons or notice
AFFIDAVITS OF MERIT TO BE ATTACHED TO A MOTION UNDER SEC
113 NOT NECESSARY
[r] where the court acted without jurisdiction over the DFs
person
CONCLUSION
1] all the proceedings in the lower court null and void
2] case remanded to the court below for new trial
after the guardian making him a party DF