6/27/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 040

[No. 15119. January 19, 1920.]

In re guardianship of the incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti,

MARIA CONSUELO Rico VDA. DE INCHAUSTI,
petitioner and appellant, vs. MANUEL SOLER, opponent
and appellee.

1. GUARDIAN AND WARD; TUTELAGE FOUNDED ON

LACK OF MENTAL CAPACITY; PETITION FOR
REHABILITATION ; NOTICE TO WARD.—The notice
required by section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
be given to the ward of the date of the hearing of the
petition to rehabilitate him may be given in any
convenient way which the court shall direct. Such notice is
not personal

683

VOL. 40, JANUARY 19, 1920 683

In re guardianship of incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti.

service of process in the sense necessary to give the court

jurisdiction over the ward. It is therefore of no moment
that the person to be notified lives in a foreign country
and is thus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippine court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RESTORATION OF WARD TO NORMAL

MENTAL STATE.—A person who has been placed under
tutelage upon the occasion of a violent access of dementia
should be restored when it appears that he has returned
to a normal mental state and has been in this condition for
a period sufficiently long to justify the belief that he is
cured.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SPENDTHRIFT.—The fact that such person

has exhibited wasteful proclivities and may prove to be a
spendthrift, if placed in control of his estate, affords no
reason for maintaining the guardianship which was
created on the ground of mental incapacity.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b9862a9fd88ff4c3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
6/27/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 040

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of

Manila. Ostrand, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Claro M. Recto for appellant.
Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for appellee.

STREET, J.:

On January 18, 1915, an order was entered in the Court of

First Instance of the city of Manila, upon the application of
Maria Consuelo Rico, viuda de Inchausti, appointing her
guardian of the person and property of her son Jose R. de
Inchausti, on the ground that the latter had become
demented and incapable of properly caring for himself and
estate. Soon after this step had been taken, the ward was,
upon the advice of physicians, sent to Barcelona, Spain,
where he has continued to reside.
On August 30, 1915, Manuel Soler, a resident of the city
of Manila, in the character of friend to the incapacitated
person, filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings,
asking the court to rehabilitate him and bring the
guardianship to. an end. This motion was opposed by the
mother of the incapacitate, in her character as guardian, on
the grounds (1) that the ward had not been given sufficient
notice of the hearing and (2) that it had not been satis-
684

684 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

In re guardianship of incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti.

factorily shown that he is now capable of taking care of

himself and property. Upon hearing the petition the trial
judge overruled both of these objections and adjudged the
ward, Jose R. de Inchausti, to be of sound mind. A further
order was made requiring the guardian to render her
account within the period of thirty days from the date upon
which the order should become final. From this decision
the- guardian appealed.
Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals
with the subject of the judicial restoration of incompetents
to capacity, declares that, upon receiving the petition, the
court shall appoint a day for the hearing and cause notice
of the same to be given to the ward. In the present case the
clerk, by order of the court, sent a cablegram to the United
States Consul at Barcelona, requesting him to notify Jose
R. de Inchausti that the petition for his restoration to
capacity would be heard in the Court of First Instance of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b9862a9fd88ff4c3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/4
6/27/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 040

Manila on October 19, 1918. In reply to this, a cablegram

was received from Barcelona on October 14, 1918, signed
by the Consul General of the United States in that city,
advising that Inchausti had been duly notified according to
instructions. The trial judge held that notice to the ward
had been given as required by law, and he proceeded, on
the appointed day, to dispose of the petition upon its merits
in accordance with the proof then submitted.
In our opinion there was no error in the action thus
taken, The notification of the ward required in section 562
of the Code of Civil Procedure is not intended as a personal
service of process in the sense necessary to give the court
jurisdiction over the ward. It is, therefore, of no moment
that the person to be notified was living in a foreign
country and thus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Manila court. Nor is the manner in which the court
procured service of the notice of any importance. It is
sufficient that the notice was given. The court in which the
guardianship was pending already had jurisdiction of the
cause and the parties; and notification to the ward—
685

VOL. 40, JANUARY 19, 1920 685

In re guardianship of incompetent Jose R. de Inchausti.

where the petition to rehabilitate him is presented by a

friend—is required merely as an assurance that the
individual chiefly concerned shall have cognizance of what
is being done. It at least gives him an opportunity to advise
the court in case action taken by the mover of the petition
was officious or unauthorized. That the messages were sent
and received by cable, as above stated, affords sufficient
evidence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that
notification was duly effected, as reported in the return of
the Consul General.
Upon the question of the propriety of the order declaring
the ward to be of sound mind and requiring the guardian to
submit her accounts, we are of the opinion that the proof
fully sustains the action taken by the court. In this
connection it appears that the violent access of dementia
which manifested itself prior to the original appointment of
the guardian passed off after Inchausti was taken away
from Manila in 1915 and the same extreme manifestations
of derangement have not reappeared. Furthermore, the
evidence shows that at the time the petition for his
rehabilitation was heard, the ward was in normal mental
state and had been in this condition for a period sufficiently
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b9862a9fd88ff4c3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/4
6/27/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 040

long to justify the belief that he -is permanently restored.

Under these circumstances it would be highly improper to
prolong the guardianship.
The opposition to the termination of the guardianship
seems to be based chiefly on the fear, entertained by his
mother, that Inchausti, if placed in control of the large
property to which he is heir, will prove to be a spendthrift.
Even though this fear should be well-founded, it affords no
reason for maintaining a guardianship which had its origin
in his mental incapacity. Of course if he is, or should
hereafter prove to be, a spendthrift, proper proceedings can
be instituted to protect him from wasteful proclivities. But
present mental capacity being proved, he is entitled to be
discharged from tutelage.
The order appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in

686

686 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vitug Dimatulac vs. Coronel.

conformity with said order. No special pronouncement will

be made as to costs. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Malcolm, and Avanceña, JJ.,

concur.

Order affirmed.

_____________

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b9862a9fd88ff4c3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/4