SPECIAL RULES ON IMPLEMENTING THE FAMILY COURT ACT OF 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;

f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;

h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;

i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;

j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and

k) Cases of domestic violence against:

1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and

2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.

If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

IMPLEMENTING RULES 1. Rules on Examination of Child Witness 2. A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC Re: Proposed Rule On Juveniles In Conflict

With The Law 3. A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC Re: Proposed Rule on Commitment of Children 4. A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC Re: Rule on Domestic and Inter Country

Adoption 5. Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage and

Annulment of Void Marriages. 6. Rule on Legal Separation 7. Rule on Provisional Remedies 8. Rule on Guardianship of Minor 9. Rule on Custody of Minor and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to

Custody of Minors 10. Rule on Violence Against Women And Their Children.

GENERAL GUARDIAN AND GUARDIANSHIP Guardianship - is a trust of the most sacred character in which one person called “guardian” acts for another called the ward whom the law regards as in capable of managing his own affairs. It is designed to further the wards well being not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally require. Guardian - is person in whom the law has entrusted the custody and control of the person or estate of both an infant, insane or other person incapable of managing his own affairs. Nature of Guardianship Generally, Guardianship is designed for the protection of a minor or incompetent person, it is also intended to preserved the property and provide assistance, care and control to the ward. Adhering the principle of “loco parentis” Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal

responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. 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.

Court with Jurisdiction over Guardianship Cases Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 vested the Regional Trial Court the jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings regardless of the amount of property involved and without any distinction over the estate or person or both. R.A. 8369 vested the family court with exclusive original jurisdiction on Guardianship of minor. 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 of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45622 May 5, 1939

JUAN GOROSTIAGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUELA SARTE, defendant-appellant.

Calleja and Sierra for appellant. Bonto and Gutierrez Lora for appellee.

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 non-appearance 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 evidence. That answer was, however, filed by an attorney not validly authorized to appear for the defendant who had never been in court except when her guardian filed a motion to quash all the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. In matters of this kind, affecting the jurisdiction of the court and the validity of all proceedings, the court, instead of observing a passive attitude, should take the initiative of, and exercise utmost care in, ascertaining the facts. And although the evidence gathered at the trial is insufficient, if, after judgment, the lack of jurisdiction is clearly shown, and

there has been no waiver thereof, as in this case where a waiver could not have been possible, it is the duty of the court to set aside all the proceedings, take the necessary steps to acquire jurisdiction, and grant a new trial. The position taken by the lower court in this case can hardly be reconciled with its position in the guardianship proceedings.

Appellee contends that in the motion filed by the guardian under section 113 there is no showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable negligence as grounds for relief provided therein. It is, however, more than a surprise to the defendant that she be tried and sentenced without valid summons or notice. And as to the affidavits of merit required to be attached to a motion under section 113, they are not necessary, as we have already held, where the court acted without jurisdiction over the defendant's person. (Coombs vs. Santos, 24 Phil., 446.)

Judgment is reversed, all the proceedings had in the lower court are hereby declared null and void, and the case is remanded to the court below for new trial after the guardian making him a party defendant. With costs against appellee.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.