GR L 15119; (January, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15119; January 19, 1920
In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti, MARIA CONSUELO RICO VDA. DE INCHAUSTI, petitioner-appellant, vs. MANUEL SOLER, opponent-appellee.
FACTS:
On January 18, 1915, Maria Consuelo Rico Vda. de Inchausti was appointed by the Court of First Instance of Manila as the guardian of her son, Jose R. de Inchausti, who was found to be demented and incapable of managing himself and his estate. The ward was subsequently sent to Barcelona, Spain, for residence. On August 30, 1915, Manuel Soler, as a friend of the incapacitated person, filed a petition to terminate the guardianship and restore Jose R. de Inchausti to capacity. The guardian opposed the petition, arguing that the ward was not given sufficient notice of the hearing and that it was not proven he had regained capacity. The trial court overruled the objections, adjudged the ward to be of sound mind, and ordered the guardian to render her accounts. The guardian appealed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the notice of hearing for the petition for restoration to capacity, given via cablegram to the ward in a foreign country, complied with the legal requirement under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the evidence sufficiently established that the ward had regained his mental capacity, warranting the termination of the guardianship.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order.
1. On the issue of notice: The Court held that the notification requirement under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a jurisdictional requirement for personal service of process but is intended merely to inform the ward of the proceedings. Since the court already had jurisdiction over the guardianship case and the parties, the manner of notification was not critical. The cablegram sent to the U.S. Consul in Barcelona, who confirmed that the ward was duly notified, constituted sufficient compliance with the law. The ward’s residence abroad did not preclude effective notice.
The order was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. No costs were awarded.