SPECPRO 3D- 2012

RULE 93
1. ENCARNACION LOPEZ VDA. DE BALUYOT VS. JUDGE LEONOR INES LUCIANO
Sotero Baluyot died at the age of 86 years, leaving behind Encarnacion Lopez, his 75 yearold widow. Alfredo Baluyot, Soteros nephew, filed a petition for the settlement of his uncles
estate in the CFI of QC. Alfredo alleged that Encarnacion was mentally incapable of
administering her affairs and the decedents estate, or acting as executrix of his will. On the
same day, Alfredo filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC a petition to
declare Encarnacion as incompetent and to place her under guardianship; and presented
himself as guardian.
On motion of Alfredo, the guardianship court ordered the neuropsychiatric examination of
Encarnacion. He also asked that Mrs. Cuesta and Mrs. Viray, Encarnacions sisters, be
appointed guardians. The court advised them to file their own petition. As a result, Alfredo
moved that he be disqualified to act as guardian. Then, Mrs. Cuesta and Mrs. Viray, filed a
petition to declare Encarnacion as incompetent and that they be appointed as her guardians.
Dr. Guzman, a psychologist, was the first to examine Encarnacion. She concluded that
Encarnacion is a well-functioning individual; in touch with reality; and competent enough to
understand her position relative to the case against her. Dr. Lourdes Lapuz, a psychiatrist,
also examined her. She concluded that she needed to be looked after by kind people who
will tend to her day-to-day activities; and that she will need help regarding details and more
complex procedures. Based on the results of the examination, the guardianship court
declared Encarnacion an incompetent.
ISSUES: (1) whether the resolution in the guardianship proceeding of the question as to
Mrs. Baluyut's alleged incompetency should await the adjudication in the administrative
proceeding (pending in the probate court) of the issue as to her competency to act as
administratrix; and
(2) whether she was denied due process when the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
summarily declared her an incompetent just one day after it received the psychiatrist's
report and before that report was set for hearing.
HELD: (1) YES. In consonance with the last sentence of Section 29-A of the charter of
Quezon City1 the guardianship proceedings should be suspended and should await the
adjudication of the issue as to Mrs. Baluyut's competency to act as administratrix. Section
29-A has a salutary purpose it is designed to obviate the rendition of conflicting rulings on
the same issue by the Court of First Instance and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
(2) YES. A finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive and
definite evidence. That kind of proof has not yet been presented to the guardianship court to
justify its precipitate conclusion that Mrs, Baluyut is an incompetent.
The guardianship court should have first set for hearing the psychiatrist's report and
examined Mrs. Baluyut before prematurely adjudging that she is an incompetent. Its hasty
and premature pronouncement, with its derogatory implications, was not the offspring of
fundamental fairness which is the essence of due process.
1

Section 29-A of the Quezon City charter which provides that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has
exclusive original jurisdiction in guardianship cases (paragraph 2), but which also provides an exception in its last
sentence quoted below:
If any question involving any of the above matters (the seven classes of cases over which the court has exclusive
original jurisdiction) should arise as an incident in any case pending in the ordinary court, said incident shall be
determined in the main case.

1
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA

SPECPRO 3D- 2012

The lower court should have adhered strictly to the procedure laid down in Rule 93 of the
Rules of Court for appointment of guardians. Rule 93 provides that after the filing of the
petition, the court should fix a time and place for hearing and give the proper notices. At the
hearing, "the alleged incompetent must be present if able to attend, and it must be shown
that the required notice has been given. Thereupon, the court shall hear the evidence of the
parties in support of their respective allegations" (Sec. 5, Rule 93).
In the instant case, the lower court before hearing the evidence of the parties, particularly
Mrs. Baluyot immediately subjected her to a psychiatric examination. That unorthodox
procedure was not warranted. Undoubtedly, the lower court could consult a psychiatrist but
the normal procedure is to hear first the evidence of the parties and examine the
prospective ward. The testimony of the alleged incompetent himself has peculiar cogency in
the determination of whether he should be placed under guardianship.
In fact, the judge in the administration proceedings had concluded that Encarnacion was
healthy and mentally qualified to act.
Yangco vs. CFI of Manila
G.R. No. L-10050 January 6, 1915
Facts: The petitioner herein was a young man, 21 years of age, the owner of property
valued at nearly P1,000,000, and temporarily traveling abroad at the time the proceedings
were had which terminated in the declaration that he was a spendthrift and the appointment
of a guardian of his property.
The proceedings were begun by the respondent Teodoro R. Yangco in the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila, he himself making the petition as a relative and friend. It is
conceded that no notice was given to the petitioner herein personally, the only notice of any
kind in the proceedings being that set forth in the answer of respondent to the other to show
cause issued upon the filing of the petition in this proceeding.
That upon the filing of said petition hereinabove referred to (meaning the petition to have
the petitioner declared a spendthrift and a guardian appointed for his property), the said
Court of First Instance, in the continued absence from the jurisdiction of said court of the
said plaintiff, and acting under and in pursuance of the judicial discretion upon said court
conferred by law, required that notice of said guardianship proceedings be given unto Julia
Stanton de Regidor and Cristobal Regidor, the mother-in- law and brother-in-law,
respectively, of the plaintiff, the latter being the acting manager of the business of the
plaintiff.
Issue: Whether the lack of personal notice due to the absence of the petitioner at the time
of the proceedings rendered the declaration that the petitioner is a spendthrift and
appointment of guardianship is void.
Held: YES. The SC held that the decree declaring the petitioner a spendthrift and
appointing a guardian for his property was and is void for lack of jurisdiction. In proceedings
of this case notice as required by the statute is jurisdictional and the lack of it deprives the
court of power to make a valid decree in the premises. Section 559 of the Code of Civil
Procedure requires personal notice to the alleged spendthrift when he is a resident of the
Philippine Islands. It provides: When it is represented to a Court of First Instance, or a judge
thereof, by petition verified by oath of any relative or friend, that any person who is an
inhabitant or resident of the province, is insane or is a spendthrift, incompetent to manage
his estate, praying that a guardian may be appointed for such person, such court or judge
must cause a notice to be given to the supposed insane or incompetent person of the time
2
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA

SPECPRO 3D- 2012

and place of hearing the petition, not less than five days before the time so appointed; and
such person, if able to attend, must be produced on the hearing.
The statute does not authorized a substitute service except in cases where, as provided in
section 572, the person for whose property the guardian is sought to the appointed is a
resident of a foreign country. Personal notice being essential under the statute, the notice to
the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the alleged spendthrift was of no legal value.
To declare a person of full age to be imcompetent to manage his affairs and thereby deprive
him of the possession of and right to hold and manage his property is a serious thing. It
takes from him one of the greatest privileges of life in contravention of those fundamental
rights which all men naturally have to possess, control, manage and enjoy their own
property.
Another matter of grave importance in this case should be noted. Although no personal
notice was given to the alleged spendthrift, the only notice given at all being, as we have
seen, solely to his mother-in-law and brother-in-law, the court, nevertheless, made a decree
declaring him a spendthrift and appointing a guardian of his property without taking any
evidence and with absolutely nothing before it to justify such a decree except the petition
and the answer thereto of Julia Stanton de Regidor and Cristobal Regidor admitting and
confirming the petition.
Section 560 provides that the court shall appoint a guardian of his person and estate only
"after a full hearing and examination upon such petition" and where "it appears to the court
or Judge" from such full hearing and examination "that the person in question is incapable of
taking care of himself and managing his property."
It is not a full hearing and examination to have A allege that B is an incompetent and to
have C come in and admit the allegation. The court, before it can make the decree as
provided for in the law, must have before it competent evidence demonstrating the facts
necessary to sustain the decree, and that evidence must be clear and definite. The law is
not satisfied unless the court has before it facts which will justify the decree. In proper cases,
of course, the admissions made by way of answer or otherwise by the party alleged to be a
spendthrift may be taken into consideration by the court in the determination of the
question involved and, under certain circumstances, will doubtless be sufficient to sustain a
decree of incompetency; but even such admissions should be received with caution, for in
cases of this character the foundation of the petition is, in a way, the incompetency of the
person against whom the petition is directed and the court should accept his admissions
with considerable hesitation. If there is doubt the court should, in spite of his admissions,
proceed with the hearing of the case and require the production of evidence substantiate
the allegation of incompetency. Except by his own consent, it is legally impossible to declare
a and incompetent and deprive him of his property without clear and positive evidence upon
which the declaration and the deprivation are based.

3
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA