G.R. No. L-10050; January 6, 1915
LUIS R. YANGCO, petitioner, vs. THE DIVISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE CITY OF MANILA PRESIDED OVER BY THE HONORABLE A. S. CROSSFIELD AS JUDGE, and TEODORO R. YANGCO, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Luis R. Yangco, a 21-year-old resident of the Philippine Islands and owner of property valued at nearly P1,000,000, was temporarily traveling abroad. During his absence, respondent Teodoro R. Yangco filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to have Luis declared a spendthrift and incompetent to manage his estate, and for the appointment of a guardian over his property. The court did not give personal notice to Luis. Instead, acting under its judicial discretion, it required notice to be given only to Julia Stanton de Regidor and Cristobal Regidor, Luis’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively. Based solely on the petition and the answer of the said relatives admitting the allegations and not opposing the petition, without taking any evidence, the court declared Luis a spendthrift and appointed a guardian for his property. Luis filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the proceedings and the decree for lack of jurisdiction due to absence of the required notice and lack of evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction in declaring Luis R. Yangco a spendthrift and appointing a guardian for his property, thereby rendering its judgment null and void.

RULING:
Yes, the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction. The judgment declaring Luis R. Yangco a spendthrift and appointing a guardian is null and void.

2. Lack of a “Full Hearing and Examination”: Section 560 requires the court to appoint a guardian only “after a full hearing and examination” and when it appears from such hearing that the person is incapable. The proceeding below had no hearing. The court based its decree solely on the petition and the answer of the relatives, which contained no evidence but merely an admission of the petition’s allegations. A decree of incompetency cannot rest on the naked allegation of one person admitted by another; it must be supported by clear and positive evidence. A judgment with absolutely no evidence to support it is a nullity when directly attacked.

The writ of certiorari is granted. All proceedings, orders, and the decree in the guardianship case are declared null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction.