1) In 1936, PF Gorostiaga sued DF Sarte to recover a debt but DF was declared physically and mentally incompetent by the court in a guardianship case from May 1936.
2) Despite this, the court case proceeded without notifying DF's guardian and ruled in favor of Gorostiaga.
3) On appeal, the court held the earlier proceedings were null and void because the lower court did not have jurisdiction over the incompetent DF, who was unrepresented despite her incapacity. The case was remanded for a new trial.
1) In 1936, PF Gorostiaga sued DF Sarte to recover a debt but DF was declared physically and mentally incompetent by the court in a guardianship case from May 1936.
2) Despite this, the court case proceeded without notifying DF's guardian and ruled in favor of Gorostiaga.
3) On appeal, the court held the earlier proceedings were null and void because the lower court did not have jurisdiction over the incompetent DF, who was unrepresented despite her incapacity. The case was remanded for a new trial.
1) In 1936, PF Gorostiaga sued DF Sarte to recover a debt but DF was declared physically and mentally incompetent by the court in a guardianship case from May 1936.
2) Despite this, the court case proceeded without notifying DF's guardian and ruled in favor of Gorostiaga.
3) On appeal, the court held the earlier proceedings were null and void because the lower court did not have jurisdiction over the incompetent DF, who was unrepresented despite her incapacity. The case was remanded for a new trial.
1) In 1936, PF Gorostiaga sued DF Sarte to recover a debt but DF was declared physically and mentally incompetent by the court in a guardianship case from May 1936.
2) Despite this, the court case proceeded without notifying DF's guardian and ruled in favor of Gorostiaga.
3) On appeal, the court held the earlier proceedings were null and void because the lower court did not have jurisdiction over the incompetent DF, who was unrepresented despite her incapacity. The case was remanded for a new trial.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
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