On January 23, 2004, the (petitioner) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, a petition for him and a certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed as guardians over the property of his father, the (respondent) Cirilo Oropesa. The case was docketed as SP Proc. No. 04-0016 and raffled off to Branch 260.
In the said petition, it is alleged among others that the (respondent) has been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over ten (10) years already having suffered a stroke on April 1, 2003 and June 1, 2003, that his judgment and memory [were] impaired and such has been evident after his hospitalization; that even before his stroke, the (respondent) was observed to have had lapses in memory and judgment, showing signs of failure to manage his property properly; that due to his age and medical condition, he cannot, without outside aid, manage his property wisely, and has become an easy prey for deceit and exploitation by people around him, particularly Ms. Ma. Luisa Agamata, his girlfriend.
In an Order dated January 29, 2004, the presiding judge of the court a quo set the case for hearing, and directed the court social worker to conduct a social case study and submit a report thereon.
Pursuant to the abovementioned order, the Court Social Worker conducted her social case study, interviewing the (petitioner) and his witnesses. The Court Social Worker subsequently submitted her report but without any finding on the (respondent) who refused to see and talk to the social worker.
On July 6, 2004, the (respondent) filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship. On August 3, 2004, the (respondent) filed his Supplemental Opposition.
Thereafter, the (petitioner) presented his evidence which consists of his testimony, and that of his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett, and the (respondents) former nurse, Ms. Alma Altaya.
After presenting evidence, the (petitioner) filed a manifestation dated May 29, 2006 resting his case. The (petitioner) failed to file his written formal offer of evidence.
Thus, the (respondent) filed his “Omnibus Motion (1) to Declare the petitioner to have waived the presentation of his Offer of Exhibits and the presentation of his Evidence Closed since they were not formally offered; (2) To Expunge the Documents of the Petitioner from the Record; and (3) To Grant leave to the Oppositor to File Demurrer to Evidence.
In an Order dated July 14, 2006, the court a quo granted the (respondents) Omnibus Motion. Thereafter, the (respondent) then filed his Demurrer to Evidence dated July 23, 2006.5 (Citations omitted.)
WHEREFORE, considering that the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa is incompetent to run his personal affairs and to administer his properties, Oppositors Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.6
WHEREFORE, considering that the Court record shows that petitioner-movant has failed to provide sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence to establish that Gen. Cirilo Oropesa is incompetent to run his personal affairs and to administer his properties, the Court hereby affirms its earlier Order dated 27 September 2006.
Accordingly, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed orders of the court a quo dated September 27, 2006 and November 14, 2006 are AFFIRMED.8
WHETHER RESPONDENT IS CONSIDERED AN “INCOMPETENT” PERSON AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 92 OF THE RULES OF COURT WHO SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER GUARDIANSHIP9
A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character, in which one person, called a “guardian” acts for another called the “ward” whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own affairs. A guardianship is designed to further the wards well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the wards property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally require. It has been stated that while custody involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as well.11
Sec. 2. Meaning of the word “incompetent.” - Under this rule, the word “incompetent” includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
- Respondent has been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over ten (10) years already;
- During the time that respondent was hospitalized at the St. Lukes Medical Center after his stroke, he purportedly requested one of his former colleagues who was visiting him to file a loan application with the Armed Forces of the Philippines Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI) for payment of his hospital bills, when, as far as his children knew, he had substantial amounts of money in various banks sufficient to cover his medical expenses;
- Respondents residence allegedly has been left dilapidated due to lack of care and management;
- The realty taxes for respondents various properties remain unpaid and therefore petitioner and his sister were supposedly compelled to pay the necessary taxes;
- Respondent allegedly instructed petitioner to sell his Nissan Exalta car for the reason that the former would be purchasing another vehicle, but when the car had been sold, respondent did not procure another vehicle and refused to account for the money earned from the sale of the old car;
- Respondent withdrew at least $75,000.00 from a joint account under his name and his daughters without the latters knowledge or consent;
- There was purportedly one occasion where respondent took a kitchen knife to stab himself upon the “orders” of his girlfriend during one of their fights;
- Respondent continuously allows his girlfriend to ransack his house of groceries and furniture, despite protests from his children.14
General Oropesa spoke fluently in English and Filipino, he enjoyed and participated meaningfully in conversations and could be quite elaborate in his responses on many of the test items. He spoke in a clear voice and his articulation was generally comprehensible. x x x.
x x x x
General Oropesa performed in the average range on most of the domains that were tested. He was able to correctly perform mental calculations and keep track of number sequences on a task of attention. He did BEST in visuo-constructional tasks where he had to copy geometrical designs using tiles. Likewise, he was able to render and read the correct time on the Clock Drawing Test. x x x.
x x x x
x x x Reasoning abilities were generally intact as he was able to suggest effective solutions to problem situations. x x x.17
The Court noted the absence of any testimony of a medical expert which states that Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa does not have the mental, emotional, and physical capacity to manage his own affairs. On the contrary, Oppositors evidence includes a Neuropsychological Screening Report which states that Gen. Oropesa, (1) performs on the average range in most of the domains that were tested; (2) is capable of mental calculations; and (3) can provide solutions to problem situations. The Report concludes that Gen. Oropesa possesses intact cognitive functioning, except for mildly impaired abilities in memory, reasoning and orientation. It is the observation of the Court that oppositor is still sharp, alert and able.19 (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 72-83; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Lucenito N. Tagle and Agustin S. Dizon, concurring.
2 Id. at 85-86.
3 Id. at 457-460.
4 Id. at 468-469.
5 Id. at 73-75.
6 Id. at 460.
7 Id. at 469.
8 Id. at 82.
9 Id. at 667.
10 212 Phil. 346 (1984).
11 Id. at 352.
12 Vda. de Baluyut v. Luciano, 164 Phil. 55, 70 (1976), citing Yangco v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 29 Phil. 183, 190 (1915).
13 Rollo, pp. 653-682.
14 Id. at 659.
15 Records, pp. 10-13.
16 Rollo, pp. 684-705.
17 Records, pp. 11-12.
18 Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, G.R. Nos. 166470 and 169217, August 7, 2009, 595 SCRA 464, 473-474.
19 Rollo, p. 468.
20 Office of the Ombudsman v. Racho, G.R. No. 185685, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 148, 155.
21 Heirs of Jose Lim v. Lim, G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 141, 147.
22 Maxwell Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Yu, G.R. No. 179395, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 653, 658.
23 Republic v. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., G.R. No. 164800, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 404, 422.
24 Uy v. Chua, G.R. No. 183965, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 806, 822.