Case Summary (G.R. No. 184528)
Early Proceedings and Social Case Study
The RTC set the case for hearing and ordered a social case study. The court social worker interviewed petitioner and witnesses and submitted a report; respondent refused to meet the social worker, so the report contained no findings based on direct interview with respondent. Respondent filed opposition and supplemental opposition in July and August 2004.
Petitioner's Evidence Presented at Trial
Petitioner testified and presented witnesses: his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett and respondent’s former nurse, Ms. Alma Altaya. Petitioner did not file a written formal offer of evidence after presenting testimony; he later manifested that his case was rested (manifestation dated May 29, 2006) but failed to formally offer documentary evidence in the record.
Respondent’s Procedural Response: Omnibus Motion and Demurrer
Because petitioner failed to formally offer exhibits, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to (1) declare waiver of petitioner’s presentation of exhibits and closure of his evidence, (2) expunge petitioner’s documents from the record, and (3) grant leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The RTC granted the Omnibus Motion on July 14, 2006. Respondent then filed a Demurrer to Evidence on July 23, 2006.
Trial Court’s Disposition on Demurrer to Evidence
The trial court granted respondent’s demurrer to evidence in an order dated September 27, 2006, dismissing the guardianship petition for failure to prove that Gen. Oropesa was incompetent to manage his affairs and properties. The court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 14, 2006, reiterating that petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence and emphasizing the absence of medical expert testimony showing incapacity.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals and its Resolution
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a decision dated February 29, 2008, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC orders of September 27 and November 14, 2006. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by resolution dated September 16, 2008.
Supreme Court Issue Presented
Petitioner asked whether respondent met the statutory definition of an “incompetent” person under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court and therefore should be placed under guardianship.
Governing Legal Standard for Guardianship
The Court reiterates that guardianship is a trust relation intended to protect the ward’s welfare and property; the appointment of a guardian is appropriate only when the prospective ward is a minor or an incompetent. Section 2, Rule 92 defines “incompetent” to include persons, among other categories, who are not of unsound mind but who, by reason of age, disease, weak mind, or other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming easy prey to deceit and exploitation. The Court emphasized established precedent that a finding of incompetence must be anchored on clear, positive, and definite evidence.
Evidence Adduced and Its Sufficiency
Petitioner’s asserted facts included respondent’s chronic illnesses and strokes, alleged mismanagement of residence and unpaid realty taxes, purported odd financial transactions (e.g., requests to file a loan despite available funds, sale of a vehicle without accounting for proceeds, withdrawal of $75,000 from a joint account without co-owner’s knowledge), alleged self-harm incident, and alleged exploitation by the girlfriend. However, petitioner’s proof consisted mainly of testimonial evidence from interested parties (petitioner and his sister) and a former caregiver who admitted acting under petitioner’s direction; petitioner failed to formally offer documentary evidence. The only medical paper in the records was a “Report of Neuropsychological Screening” attached to the petition but never formally offered or identified at trial. That report contained mixed findings: it documented average performance in many cognitive domains, intact reasoning for problem solving, adequate calculation and attention tasks, and the ability to perform visuo-constructional tasks and clock drawing; it also noted some memory lapses and mildly impaired abilities in memory, reasoning, and orientation. Thus the report was ambivalent and did not conclusively establish incompetence.
Trial Court’s Observations and Reliance on Record
The RTC noted the absence of medical expert testimony asserting incapacity. The court observed respondent’s demeanor and mental faculty in court and referenced the neuropsychological report’s finding of generally intact cognitive functioning except for mild impairments. The court concluded that petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard required to declare respondent incompetent.
Procedural Law on Demurrer to Evidence and Its Application
The Court explained the nature of demurrer to evidence (Rule 33, Section 1): after plaintiff’s evidence, defendant may move to dism
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 184528)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 29, 2008 and Resolution dated September 16, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 88449 (Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa).
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 260, SP. Proc. Case No. 04-0016.
- Trial court issued Order dated September 27, 2006 granting Oppositor’s Demurrer to Evidence and dismissing the petition for guardianship; motion for reconsideration denied by RTC in Order dated November 14, 2006.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC orders in its Decision dated February 29, 2008; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied in the CA Resolution dated September 16, 2008.
- Supreme Court resolved the Rule 45 petition by Decision of April 25, 2012, denying the petition and affirming the assailed CA rulings.
Parties and Roles
- Petitioner: Nilo Oropesa — filed petition for appointment as guardian over his father’s property.
- Respondent / Proposed ward: Gen. Cirilo Oropesa — father of petitioner; subject of guardianship petition; alleged to be infirm and incompetent by petitioner.
- Co-proposed guardian named in petition: Ms. Louie Ginez (petition sought appointment of petitioner and Ms. Louie Ginez as guardians).
- Witnesses who testified for petitioner: petitioner himself, his sister Gianina Oropesa Bennett, and respondent’s former nurse Ms. Alma Altaya.
- Court Social Worker: conducted a social case study and submitted a report but made no finding because respondent refused to see and talk to the social worker.
Facts Alleged by Petitioner (as presented in the petition and memorandum)
- Petition filed on January 23, 2004 seeking guardianship over respondent’s properties.
- Allegations included:
- Respondent afflicted with several maladies; sickly for over ten (10) years.
- Respondent suffered strokes on April 1, 2003 and June 1, 2003.
- Judgment and memory allegedly impaired, evident after hospitalization.
- Prior to strokes, respondent allegedly had lapses in memory and judgment and showed signs of failing to manage property properly.
- By reason of age and medical condition, respondent allegedly could not manage property without outside aid and had become vulnerable to deceit and exploitation, particularly by his girlfriend Ms. Ma. Luisa Agamata.
- While hospitalized at St. Luke’s Medical Center, respondent purportedly requested a former colleague to file an AFPSLAI loan application to pay hospital bills, despite having substantial bank funds.
- Respondent’s residence allegedly left dilapidated due to lack of care; realty taxes on various properties unpaid, allegedly forcing petitioner and sister to pay taxes.
- Respondent allegedly instructed petitioner to sell a Nissan Exalta, but did not procure another vehicle nor account for proceeds.
- Respondent allegedly withdrew at least $75,000.00 from a joint account without his daughter’s knowledge or consent.
- On one occasion, respondent purportedly attempted to stab himself with a kitchen knife at the “orders” of his girlfriend.
- Respondent allegedly allowed his girlfriend to ransack his house of groceries and furniture, despite protests from his children.
Evidence Presented by Petitioner at Trial
- Testimonial evidence consisting of:
- Petitioner’s own testimony.
- Testimony of Gianina Oropesa Bennett (petitioner’s sister).
- Testimony of Ms. Alma Altaya (respondent’s former nurse), who admitted to acting under petitioner and his sister’s direction.
- Documentary evidence alleged in petition and record but not formally offered at trial:
- Certificates of title over real properties showing co-ownership among petitioner, respondent and petitioner’s sister.
- Tax declarations and receipts for payment of real estate taxes on co-owned properties.
- A document titled “Report of Neuropsychological Screening” attached to the petition (Records, pp. 10–13) but not formally identified or offered in evidence by any witness.
Respondent’s Opposition and Evidentiary Position
- Respondent filed Opposition (July 6, 2004) and Supplemental Opposition (August 3, 2004) denying petitioner’s allegations and asserting lack of material evidence.
- Respondent contended that petitioner presented no relevant documentary or testimonial proof of incompetence, particularly lacking expert medical testimony.
- Respondent pointed to the Neuropsychological Screening report as showing competence and argued it contradicted petitioner’s claims.
Court Social Worker Report
- Court Social Worker conducted a social case study, interviewed petitioner and petitioner’s witnesses, and submitted a report.
- The social worker made no finding regarding respondent because respondent refused to see and talk to the social worker.
Procedural Misstep by Petitioner and Oppositor’s Tactical Motions
- After resting his case via manifestation dated May 29, 2006, petitioner failed to file a written formal offer of evidence.
- Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking:
- Declaration that petitioner waived presentation of his offer of exhibits and that his evidence was closed for failure to formally offer same;
- Expungement of petitioner’s documents from the record;
- Leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence.
- RTC granted the Omnibus Motion in Order dated July 14, 2006.
- Respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated July 23, 2006.
Trial Court Ruling and Reasons (RTC Orders dated September 27, 2006 and November 14, 2006)
- RTC granted respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed petitioner’s guardianship petition in Order dated September 27, 2006. Dispositive language: 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,” and Oppositor’s Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED.
- RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in Order dated November 14