ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45662   May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE<br /><br />068 Phil 4

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45662. May 5, 1939.]

    JUAN GOROSTIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELA SARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

    Calleja & Sierra for Appellant.

    Bonto & Gutierrez Lora for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. INCAPACITY; JURISDICTION UPON AN INCOMPETENT PERSON. — During all the proceedings in the case at bar, from the time of the defendant of the complaint to the rendition of the judgment, the defendant was physically and mentally unfit to manage her affairs, and there having been no summons and notices of the proceedings served upon her guardian, because no guardian was then appointed for her, the court trying the action acquired no jurisdiction over her person (sec. 396, No. 4, Act No. 190).

    2. ID.; ID.; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION; ATTORNEY’S GOOD FAITH. — It is argued that attorney G. A. S. appeared for the defendant in the case and filed an answer in her behalf and that the attorney’s authority is presumed as well as the capacity of the defendant giving the authority of the defendant giving the authority. But this presumption is disputable and it is here entirely rebutted by no less than an order of the same court declaring the defendant physically and mentally unfit to manage her state since at least May 18, 1936. If the defendant was thus incompetent, she could not have validly authorized the attorney to represent her. And if the authority was given by her relatives, it was not sufficient except to show the attorney’s good in appearing in the case.

    3. ID.; ID.; ANNULMENT OF PROCEEDINGS. — In matters of this kind, affecting the jurisdiction of the court and the validly of all the proceedings, the court, instead of observing a passive attitude, should take the initiative of, and exercise utmost care in, ascertaining the facts. And although the evidence gathered at the trial is insufficient, if, after judgment, the lack of jurisdiction is clearly shown, and there has been no waiver thereof, as in this case where a waiver could not have been possible, it is the duty of the court to set aside all the proceedings, take the necessary steps to acquire jurisdiction, and grant a new trial. The position taken by the lower court in this case an hardly be reconciled with its position in the guardianship proceedings.

    4. ID.; ID.; REMEDY PROVIDED IN SECTION 113, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. — Appellee contends that in the motion filed by the guardian under Section 113 there is no showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable negligence as ground for relief provided therein. It is, however, more than a surprise to the defendant that she be tried and sentenced without valid summon or notice. And as to the affidavits of merits required to be attached to a motion under section 113 they are not necessary as we have already held, where the court acted without jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. (Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil., 446.)


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    On May 27, 1936, Juan Gorostiaga, plaintiff-appellee, instituted an action against Manuela Sarte to recover the sum of P2,285.51. An answer was filed by attorney Gregorio A. Sabater in the name of the defendant, wherein a general denial was made, and several defenses interposed, among them, that the defendant was physically and mentally incompetent to manage her estate. At the trial, the defendant did not appear in court and her non-appearance had not been accounted for. On September 21, 1936, judgment was rendered sentencing the defendant to pay the amount claimed. On December 23, 1936, a motion under section 113 of Act No. 190 was filed by general guardian of the defendant, praying that all the proceedings and against the defendant to declared null and void for act of jurisdiction over the person. The motion was denied; hence, this appeal.

    There is no question about the facts. On May 18, 1936, that is, nine days prior to the institution of the action against the defendant, a petition for guardianship was filed with the lower court in favor of the defendant, on the ground the she was incompetent to manage her estate by reason for her physical and mental incapacity. After hearing the petition, wherein depositions of alienists were presented, the court issued an order declaring that the defendant Manuela Sarte "se halla fisica y mentalemente incapacitada para administrar sus bienes por razon de belidad 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 necesidades y administrar sus propios bienes."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Although this order was issued on December 3, 1936, it relates to the incapacity alleged in the petition of May 18, 1963. Consequently, the incapacity thus declared existed at least on the date of the filing of the petition, that is, on May 18, 1936, nine days prior to the institution of the action relied upon by the lower court, the defendant was incompetent to manage her affairs for about two or three years prior to her examination by the alienists. It appears thus clear that during all the proceedings in the case at bar, from the time of the filing of the complaint to the rendition of the judgment, the defendant was physically and mentally unfit to manage her affairs, and there having been no summons and notices of the proceedings served upon her and her guardian, because no guardian was then appointed for her, the court trying the action acquired no jurisdiction over her person (sec. 396, No. 4, of Act No. 190).

    It is argued that Attorney Gregorio A. Sabater appeared for the defendant in the case and filed an answer in her behalf and that the attorney’s authority is presumed as well as the capacity of the defendant giving the authority. But this presumption is disputable and it is here entirely rebutted by no less than an order of the same court declaring the defendant physically and mentally unfit the manage her estate since at least May 18, 1936. If the defendant was thus incompetent, she could not have validly authorized the attorney to represent her. And if the authority was given by the relatives, it was not sufficient except to show the attorney’s good faith in appearing in the case.

    It is contended that the issue as to the incapacity of the defendant was pleaded in defendant’s answer and was squarely decided and that therefore it cannot be reopened unless on the ground of newly discovered evidence. That answer was, however, filed by an attorney not validly authorized to appear for the defendant who had never been in court except when her guardian filed a motion to quash all the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. In matters of this kind, affecting the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of all proceedings, the court, instead of observing a passive attitude, should take the initiative of, and exercise utmost care in, ascertaining the facts. And although the evidence gathered at the trial insufficient, if, after judgment, the lack of jurisdiction is clearly shown, and there has been no waiver thereof, as in this case where a waiver could not set aside all the proceedings, take the necessary steps to acquire jurisdiction, and grant a new trial. the position taken by the lower court in this case can hardly be reconciled with its position in the guardianship proceedings.

    Appellee contends that in the motion filed by the guardian under section 113 there is no showing of mistakes, inadvertence, surprise or excusable negligence as grounds for relied provided therein. It is, however, more than a surprise to the defendant that she be tried and sentenced without valid summons or notice. And as to the affidavits of merit required to be attached to a motion under section 113, they are not necessary, as well as have already held, where the court acted without jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. (Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil., 446).

    Judgment is reversed, all the proceedings had in the lower court are hereby declared null and void, and the case is remanded to the court bellow for new trial after the guardian has pleaded to an amended complaint duly served upon him making him party defendant. With costs against appellee.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-real, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45662   May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE<br /><br />068 Phil 4


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED