G.R. No. L-14383; November 29, 1919
In re Guardianship of the Incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti. Consuelo Rico Vda. de Inchausti, petitioner-appellee, vs. J. R. de Inchausti, opponent-appellant.

FACTS:
On January 11, 1911, Consuelo Rico Vda. de Inchausti (the mother) filed a verified petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that her son, Jose R. de Inchausti, was temporarily insane, confined at San Lazaro Hospital, and possessed considerable property, including an inheritance. She prayed to be appointed as his guardian. The court issued an order setting the hearing for January 18, 1915, and directed the Director of San Lazaro Hospital to appear and, if possible, produce Jose R. de Inchausti. The order was served on the hospital director and the petitioner’s attorneys. At the hearing on January 18, 1915, the court, with the petitioner and her counsel present, appointed her as guardian upon posting a bond.

Subsequently, a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Barcelona, Spain, declared Jose R. de Inchausti mentally sound and ordered the termination of the guardianship and the return of his property. A request for the execution of this judgment in Manila was denied by the local court. The guardian later presented her accounts and resigned. After a brief appointment of another guardian, the petitioner was reinstated and filed a supplementary petition to correct the record to show that Jose R. de Inchausti had been notified of the original hearing, alleging that the hospital director had informed him and that he had initially opposed but later consented to his mother’s appointment.

Jose R. de Inchausti, through counsel, moved to declare all proceedings null and void for lack of jurisdiction, arguing he was never personally notified of the hearing as required by law. The lower court denied this motion. Jose R. de Inchausti appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the failure to personally notify Jose R. de Inchausti of the hearing for the appointment of his guardian renders all subsequent proceedings null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court declared all proceedings null and void.

The Court held that the statutory requirement for personal notice to the alleged incompetent in guardianship proceedings is jurisdictional and mandatory. Section 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure required that notice of the hearing be given to the alleged incompetent. The record failed to show that Jose R. de Inchausti was personally served with notice. The fact that the hospital director may have informed him according to hospital custom, or that a friend (who was also the petitioner’s attorney) discussed it with him, did not constitute the personal notice required by law. The petitioner’s supplementary petition to correct the record was an implicit admission that such notice did not appear in the proceedings.

Citing the precedent in Yangco vs. Court of First Instance of Manila (29 Phil. 183), the Court emphasized that depriving a person of the right to manage their property is a severe measure, and statutes permitting such deprivation must be strictly followed. Any material departure, especially regarding notice, results in a loss of jurisdiction. The requirement for personal notice and the production of the alleged incompetent at the hearing, if able to attend, are essential to due process. Since Jose R. de Inchausti was not personally notified, the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the order appointing the guardian and all subsequent proceedings were null and void. The appealed order was reversed.