Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

On May 27, 1936, Juan Gorostiaga, plaintiff-appellee, instituted an action against Manuela Sarte to recover the sum of money and attorney Gregorio A. Sabater in the name of the defendant, 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 in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

 

A motion 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.

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.

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

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 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.

ISSUE:

Whether of Not the court acquires the JURISDICTION UPON AN INCOMPETENT PERSON.

 

HELD:

NO.  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

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.

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.