G.R. No. 184528 - Oropesa vs. Oropesa

On January 23, 2004, petitioner Nilo Oropesa, together with Ms. Louie Ginez, filed in the RTC of Parañaque City (Branch 260, SP Proc. No. 04-0016) a petition to be appointed guardians over the property of his father, respondent Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa, a widower.
Petitioner alleged that respondent had been afflicted with multiple maladies for over ten years, suffered strokes on April 1 and June 1, 2003, and displayed impaired judgment and memory, making him incapable of managing his property and vulnerable to exploitation, particularly by his girlfriend, Ms. Ma. Luisa Agamata.

On January 29, 2004, the RTC set the case for hearing and directed a court social worker to conduct a social case study; respondent refused to cooperate.
Respondent filed his Opposition on July 6, 2004 and Supplemental Opposition on August 3, 2004.
Petitioner presented three lay witnesses—himself, his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett, and former nurse Alma Altaya—and rested his case on May 29, 2006, but failed to file a written offer of exhibits.
Respondent moved (July 2006) to declare petitioner’s failure to offer evidence as waiver, to expunge petitioner’s documents, and for leave to file a demurrer to evidence; the RTC granted these requests on July 14, 2006.
Respondent filed his Demurrer to Evidence on July 23, 2006. On September 27, 2006, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the petition for lack of proof of respondent’s incompetence. On November 14, 2006, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in a Decision dated February 29, 2008, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC orders. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 16, 2008.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising the sole question whether respondent is an “incompetent person” under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court.

Whether respondent Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa is an “incompetent person” as defined under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court and should be placed under guardianship.
Whether the trial court erred in granting respondent’s demurrer to evidence and dismissing the petition for guardianship.