G.R. No. L-11721; March 26, 1958
INOCENCIA ESPINOSA, petitioner, vs. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch I and JULIA ESPINOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Special Proceedings No. 892 was filed by Julia Espinosa to have her sister, Inocencia Espinosa, declared an incompetent and her properties placed under guardianship. Inocencia was about 99 years old in 1955, legally married to Vicente Figueroa (around 40 years old) since March 9, 1950, and owned properties worth between P65,000 and P75,000. Vicente Figueroa opposed the petition. The lower court ordered an amendment to the petition. A second amended petition was filed, alleging the marriage might be vitiated by fraud due to Inocencia’s age and ill-health, that Vicente administered her paraphernal properties without the required public instrument, and that he did not exercise due diligence. The spouses opposed, stating they had cohabited since 1927, acquired properties through joint industry, and that Inocencia was mentally competent. After an ocular observation and examination, the court issued an order on September 25, 1956, declaring Inocencia an incompetent due to senility and physical and mental infirmity. As petitioner Julia apparently withdrew her opposition, the court appointed Vicente Figueroa as guardian of his wife’s properties. Vicente then filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1956, signifying his willingness to act as guardian and requesting a nominal bond. However, on October 10, 1956, Inocencia, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from the orders of September 27, 1955 (denying motion to dismiss), November 23, 1955 (denying reconsideration), and September 25, 1956 (declaring her incompetent), along with an appeal bond. The lower court denied approval of the record on appeal, ruling the 1955 orders were interlocutory and not appealable, and that the right to appeal from the incompetency declaration was waived because Vicente’s manifestation gave the impression Inocencia consented to the declaration and his appointment. On October 11, 1956, the court ordered Vicente to file a P1,000 bond and submit an inventory. Inocencia’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file this petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to approve the record on appeal and appeal bond, with a prayer for a preliminary injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the acceptance by the husband, Vicente Figueroa, of his appointment as guardian of his wife’s paraphernal properties constitutes a waiver on the part of Inocencia Espinosa of her right to appeal from the order declaring her an incompetent.

RULING

No. The lower court’s order disallowing the appeal is set aside, and the court is ordered to give due course to Inocencia Espinosa’s appeal. While a person declared incompetent has the right to appeal, which can be waived by written consent, Vicente Figueroa’s manifestation signifying his willingness to act as guardian was filed only in his behalf and did not include Inocencia. Her subsequent filing of a notice of appeal and appeal bond clearly indicates she did not share her husband’s stance or consent to the order. The court cannot infer a waiver from the husband’s action in the absence of an express written consent from the wife or evidence of her amenability to the declaration. Although the Court notes Inocencia’s physical and mental infirmity due to senility and the possibility that the appeal might be a delaying scheme by an interested party, the law and jurisprudence do not permit upholding the lower court’s refusal to allow her appeal.