G.R. No. L-45622; May 5, 1939
JUAN GOROSTIAGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUELA SARTE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 27, 1936, Juan Gorostiaga filed an action to recover a sum of money against Manuela Sarte. Attorney Gregorio A. Sabater filed an answer in Sarte’s name, raising defenses including her alleged physical and mental incompetence to manage her estate. Sarte did not appear at trial, and judgment was rendered against her. On December 23, 1936, the general guardian of Sarte (appointed in separate guardianship proceedings) filed a motion to declare all proceedings null and void for lack of jurisdiction over Sarte’s person. The motion was denied, prompting this appeal. It was established that a petition for guardianship over Sarte had been filed on May 18, 1936 (nine days before the complaint), and the court later issued an order on December 3, 1936, declaring Sarte physically and mentally incapacitated to manage her estate due to senile debility, a condition existing since at least the filing of the guardianship petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Manuela Sarte, given her adjudicated incapacity and the lack of valid service of summons and notices to her or her guardian.

RULING

No. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Sarte’s person. The order in the guardianship proceedings, though issued later, related back to the incapacity existing at the time of the petition’s filing on May 18, 1936, which was prior to the institution of the civil action. Consequently, during all proceedings in the civil case, Sarte was physically and mentally unfit to manage her affairs. Since no valid summons or notices were served upon her or her guardian (as none was yet appointed), the court lacked jurisdiction over her person under Section 396, No. 4 of Act No. 190 . The appearance and answer filed by Attorney Sabater did not cure the defect, as Sarte’s adjudicated incapacity rebutted the presumption that she could validly authorize the attorney. The issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any time and was not waived. The motion for relief under Section 113 of Act No. 190 did not require a showing of mistake or excusable negligence when the court acted without jurisdiction. The judgment was reversed, all proceedings declared null and void, and the case remanded for a new trial after properly joining the guardian as a party defendant.