Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1997
(Republic Act. No. 8369)
PART 1 (GUARDIANSHIP)
The Rule on Guardianship of a minor or incompetent was under
under Rule 92 to 97 of the 1964 Rules of Court and Republic Act 8369
otherwise known as Family Courts Act of 1997 vested the family court with
exclusive original jurisdiction on guardianship of minor.
THE FAMILY COURT ACT OF 1997 (R.A. No. 8369)
The establishment of Family Court is provided under RA 8369.
Section 5 provides the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court over cases
involving:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but
not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the
victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate
sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have
incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of
application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known
as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of
marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of
husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains;
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
Basis of Guardianship
The doctrine of Parens Patriae refers to the public policy power of
the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal
guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or
individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children,
incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are
able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.
Necessity of Guardianship Proceedings
The jurisdiction of a court over a minor or an incompetent person
cannot be acquired if there is no guardian appointed upon whom the
summons and notice of the proceeding might be served.
Purposed of Guardianship
The very purposed of Guardianship is to take care and safeguard the
right and interest of minors and incompetent person.
Kinds of Guardians
a. According to Scope or Extent
1. Guardian of Person- one who lawfully take care of the minor as a
parent
2. Guardian of property- one who is appointed by the court to
manage the property of minor or incompetent
3. General Guardian- appointed by the court to take care both
property and custody of minor or incompetent
b. According to Constitution
1. Legal- guardian without the appointment of the court
2. Guardian ad litem - appointed by Court of Justice to prosecute or
defend a minor, insane
or person declared to be incompetent, in an action in court.
3. Judicial- appointed by court in pursuance to law, as guardian for
insane persons, prodigals, minor heirs of deceased war veterans
and other incompetent persons.
CASE DIGEST:
GOROSTIAGA VS. SARTE (May 1939)
Facts:
Juan Gorostiaga filed a complaint against Manuela Sarte for the
recovery of sum of money amounting to P2,285.51. An order was issued by
the court sentencing the defendant to pay the amount claimed. During the
trial the defendant was represented by Atty. Gregorio Sabater who
interposes in his defense that the defendant was physically and mentally
incompetent to manage her property. Prior to the institution of the complaint
a petition for guardianship is filed in favor of the defendant. It shows that
during the trial of the complaint, the petition for guardianship was still
pending. It is clear that during all the proceedings in the case at bar, from
the time of filing of the complaint to the rendition of judgment, the defendant
was physically and mentally unfit to manage her affairs, and there having
been no summons and notices of the proceeding served to her and her
guardian because there is no guardian being appointed for her, and the
court was trying the case without jurisdiction over the person.
Issue:
Does the court was right in rendering judgment against the defendant?
Ruling:
The court ruled that all the proceedings in the lower court be declared null
and void and the case was remanded for new trial after the guardian
making him a party defendant.
Republic
SUPREME
Manila
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45622
May 5, 1939
JUAN
GOROSTIAGA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANUELA SARTE, defendant-appellant.
Calleja
and
Sierra
Bonto and Gutierrez Lora for appellee.
for
appellant.
MORAN, J.:
On May 27, 1936, Juan Gorostiaga, plaintiff-appellee, institutes an action
against Manuela Sarte to recover the sum of P2,285.51. An answer was
filed by Attorney Gregorio A. Sabater in the name of the defendant, wherein
a general denial was made, and several defenses interposed, among them,
that the defendant was physically and mentally incompetent to manage her
estate. At the trial, the defendant did not appear in court and her nonappearance had no been accounted for. On September 21, 1996, judgment
was rendered sentencing the defendant to pay the amount claimed. On
December 23, 1936, a motion under section 113 of Act No. 190 was filed by
the general guardian of the defendant, praying that all the proceedings had
against the defendant be declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction over
her person. The motion was denied; hence, this appeal.
There is no question about the facts. On May 18, 1936, that is, nine days
prior to the institution of the action against the defendant, a petition for
guardianship was filed with the lower court in favor of the defendant, on the
ground that she was incompetent to manage her estate by reason of her
physical and mental incapacity. After hearing the petition, wherein the
depositions of alienists were presented, the court issued an order declaring
that the defendant Manuela Sarte "se halla ficica y mentalmente incacitada
para administrar sus bienes poe razon de debelidad senil, cuya inteligencia
si bien le permite sostener una conversacion por algunos minutos de una
manera satisfactoria, no tiene la consistencia necesaria para atender a sus
necesidas y administrar sus propios bienes."
Although this order was issued on December 3, 1936, it relates to the
incapacity alleged in the petition of May 18, 1936. Consequently, the
incapacity thus declared existed at least at the date of the filing of the
petition, that is, on May 18, 1936, nine days prior to the institution of the
action in the present case. In fact, according to the evidence relied upon by
the lower court, the defendant was incompetent to manage her affairs for
about two or three years prior to her examination by the alienists. It
appears thus clear that during all the proceedings in the case at bar, from
the time of the filing of the complaint to the rendition of the judgment, the
defendant was physically and mentally unfit to manage her affairs, and
there having been no summons and notices of the proceedings served her
and her guardian, because no guardian was then appointed for her, the
court trying the action acquired no jurisdiction over her person (sec. 396,
No. 4, of Act No. 190).
It is argued that Attorney Gregorio A. Sabater appeared for the defendant in
the case and filed an answer in her behalf and that the attorney's authority
is presumed as well as the capacity of the defendant giving the authority.
But this presumption is disputable and it is here entirely rebutted by no less
than an order of the same court declaring the defendant physically and
mentally unfit to manage her estate since at least May 18, 1936. If the
defendant was thus incompetent, she could not have validly authorized the
attorney to represent her. And if the authority was given by her relatives, it
was not sufficient except to show the attorney's good faith in appearing in
the case.
It is contended that the issue as to the incapacity of the defendant was
pleaded in defendant's answer and was squarely decided and that
therefore it cannot be reopened unless on the ground of newly discovered