Case Summary (G.R. No. 184528)
Petitioner
Nilo Oropesa filed a petition for guardianship over his father’s properties, alleging that Gen. Cirilo Oropesa suffered from chronic illnesses, memory lapses, and impaired judgment following two strokes, making him susceptible to exploitation.
Respondent
Gen. Cirilo Oropesa opposed the petition, asserting his competency to manage his affairs and presenting a neuropsychological screening report indicating generally intact cognitive functioning.
Key Dates
• January 23, 2004 – Petition for guardianship filed in RTC Parañaque City, Branch 260 (SP. Proc. No. 04-0016)
• September 27, 2006 – Trial court granted respondent’s demurrer to evidence and dismissed the petition
• November 14, 2006 – Trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• February 29, 2008 – Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal and affirmed RTC orders
• September 16, 2008 – Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• April 25, 2012 – Supreme Court resolved the petition for review on certiorari
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
• Rules of Court, Rule 92 (Guardianship), Section 2 – Definition of “incompetent” requiring clear and positive evidence
• Rules of Court, Rule 33, Section 1 – Demurrer to evidence as motion to dismiss when plaintiff’s evidence is legally insufficient
• Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure – Petition for review on certiorari
Factual Background
Petitioner alleged that respondent had been medically infirm for over ten years, suffering strokes in April and June 2003, with subsequent memory impairment and inability to manage properties without outside aid. He claimed respondent’s assets were mismanaged, taxes unpaid, personal expenses improperly handled, and that respondent was influenced and exploited by his girlfriend.
Procedural History
The RTC ordered a social case study; the respondent refused participation, so no conclusive report was made. Petitioner presented testimonial evidence (his own, his sister’s, and the former nurse’s) but failed to formally offer documentary exhibits. Respondent filed an omnibus motion to expunge petitioner’s unoffered evidence and moved for demurrer to evidence. The court granted these motions and dismissed the petition.
Issue
Whether Gen. Cirilo O. Oropesa qualifies as an “incompetent” person under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, thereby justifying the appointment of a guardian over his person and estate.
Legal Standard for Guardianship
A guardianship serves to protect the ward’s well-being and property. Section 2, Rule 92 defines “incompetent” to include persons who, though not of unsound mind, cannot manage themselves or their property without aid. The standard of proof is clear, positive, and definite evidence of incapacity.
Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling
Finding petitioner’s evidence procedurally defective and substantively insufficient, the trial court observed that the only medical report on record showed respondent’s average cognitive performance and intact reasoning, with only mild memory impairment. It granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the petition.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that petitioner failed to establish respondent’s le
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 184528)
Facts
- On January 23, 2004, petitioner Nilo Oropesa filed with the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City (Branch 260, SP Proc. No. 04-0016) a petition for guardianship over the properties of his father, respondent General Cirilo O. Oropesa, jointly with Ms. Louie Ginez.
- The petition alleged that respondent had been sickly for over ten years, suffering strokes on April 1 and June 1, 2003, which impaired his memory and judgment and rendered him unable properly to manage his assets without outside aid.
- It was further claimed that respondent’s physical condition and advanced age made him vulnerable to exploitation by his girlfriend, Ms. Ma. Luisa Agamata, and that his properties were being neglected and mismanaged.
- By Order of January 29, 2004, the trial court set the case for hearing and directed a court social worker to conduct and submit a social case study; the worker interviewed petitioner and his witnesses, but respondent refused to cooperate, and no findings as to his condition were obtained.
Procedural History
- Respondent filed his Opposition on July 6, 2004 and a Supplemental Opposition on August 3, 2004.
- Petitioner presented testimonial evidence from himself, his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett, and respondent’s former nurse, Ms. Alma Altaya, then manifested on May 29, 2006 that he was resting his case, but failed to file a formal offer of exhibits.
- Respondent moved on July 14, 2006 by Omnibus Motion (1) to declare petitioner’s waiver of exhibits and close of evidence, (2) to expunge petitioner’s documents, and (3) for leave to file a demurrer to evidence; the trial court granted this motion.
- Respondent filed his Demurrer to Evidence on July 23, 2006. By Order of September 27, 2006, the trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the petition for lack of sufficient evidence to prove respondent’s alleged incompetence.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 14, 2006.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case by Decision of February 29, 2008 and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration in its Resolution of September 16, 2008.
- Petitioner then elevated the matter to this Court by petition for revie