GR 124553; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124553 February 10, 1997
ROSARIO R. TUASON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and EMILIO R. TUASON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosario Tuason filed a petition for the confinement and treatment of her son, private respondent Emilio Tuason, as a drug dependent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered his confinement. Subsequently, Rosario initiated guardianship proceedings over Emilio’s person and estate, and letters of guardianship were issued in her favor. Later, Emilio moved for the dismissal of the drug dependency case, claiming he was freed from dependence, which the RTC granted.
Emilio then filed a motion in the guardianship proceedings seeking termination of the guardianship or the appointment of a new guardian. The RTC denied his motion and a motion for reconsideration. Emilio elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, arguing the guardianship proceedings were null and void for lack of jurisdiction. He asserted that the sheriff’s return showed the petition and hearing notice were served on the hospital director, not on him personally, and he disclaimed awareness of the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of Emilio Tuason in the guardianship proceedings despite the alleged defect in the service of summons.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person may be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by voluntary appearance. The records show Emilio voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing several pleadings that sought affirmative relief and resulted in interlocutory orders from the trial court. These included a “Motion to Remove Guardianship,” an “Urgent Omnibus Motion,” and a motion for a temporary restraining order or injunction.
By seeking these affirmative reliefs without seasonably objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over his person, Emilio is deemed to have waived any defect in the service of summons. Voluntary appearance cures such defects. The Court cited La Naval Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, which holds that a defendant who appears voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction, and if he wishes to object to jurisdiction, he must do so seasonably and solely for that purpose. Emilio’s actions constituted a general appearance. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the proceedings null and void was reversed, and the trial court’s orders were reinstated.