Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
Baguio City
FIRST
DIVISION
|
NILO OROPESA, Petitioner, - versus - CIRILO
OROPESA, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 184528 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: April
25, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision[1]
dated February 29, 2008, as well as the Resolution[2]
dated September 16, 2008, both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 88449, entitled NILO OROPESA vs. CIRILO
OROPESA. The Court of Appeals
issuances affirmed the Order[3]
dated September 27, 2006 and the Order[4]
dated November 14, 2006 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City,
Branch 260 in SP. Proc. Case No. 04-0016, which dismissed petitioner Nilo
Oropesas petition for guardianship over the properties of his father,
respondent Cirilo Oropesa (a widower), and denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration thereof, respectively.
The
facts of this case, as summed in the assailed Decision, follow:
On January 23, 2004, the (petitioner) filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Paraaque 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.)
The
trial court granted respondents demurrer to evidence in an Order dated
September 27, 2006. The dispositive
portion of which reads:
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]
Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but this was denied by the trial court in an Order dated
November 14, 2006, the dispositive portion of which states:
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]
Unperturbed, petitioner elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed through the now
assailed Decision dated February 29, 2008, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
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]
A motion for reconsideration was
filed by petitioner but this was denied by the Court of Appeals in the similarly
assailed Resolution dated September 16, 2008. Hence, the instant petition was filed.
Petitioner submits the following
question for consideration by this Court:
WHETHER RESPONDENT IS CONSIDERED AN INCOMPETENT
PERSON AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 92 OF THE RULES OF COURT WHO SHOULD BE
PLACED UNDER GUARDIANSHIP[9]
After considering the evidence and
pleadings on record, we find the petition to be without merit.
Petitioner comes before the Court
arguing that the assailed rulings of the Court of Appeals should be set aside as
it allegedly committed grave and reversible error when it affirmed the erroneous
decision of the trial court which purportedly disregarded the overwhelming
evidence presented by him showing respondents incompetence.
In Francisco v. Court of Appeals,[10]
we laid out the nature and purpose of guardianship in the following wise:
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]
In a guardianship proceeding, a
court may appoint a qualified guardian if the prospective ward is proven to be
a minor or an incompetent.
A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of
the Rules of Court tells us that persons who, though of sound mind but by
reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes, are incapable of
taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid are considered
as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. The full text of the said provision reads:
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.
We have held in the past that a finding
that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive and definite
evidence.[12]
We consider that evidentiary standard
unchanged and, thus, must be applied in the case at bar.
In support of his contention that
respondent is incompetent and, therefore, should be placed in guardianship, petitioner
raises in his Memorandum[13]
the following factual matters:
a. Respondent has been afflicted with several maladies
and has been sickly for over ten (10) years already;
b. 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;
c. Respondents residence allegedly has been left
dilapidated due to lack of care and management;
d. The realty taxes for respondents various properties
remain unpaid and therefore petitioner and his sister were supposedly compelled
to pay the necessary taxes;
e. 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;
f. Respondent withdrew at least $75,000.00 from a joint
account under his name and his daughters without the latters knowledge or
consent;
g. 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;
h. Respondent continuously allows his girlfriend to
ransack his house of groceries and furniture, despite protests from his
children.[14]
Respondent denied the allegations
made by petitioner and cited petitioners lack of material evidence to support
his claims. According to respondent,
petitioner did not present any relevant documentary or testimonial evidence
that would attest to the veracity of his assertion that respondent is
incompetent largely due to his alleged deteriorating medical and mental
condition. In fact, respondent points
out that the only medical document presented by petitioner proves that he is
indeed competent to run his personal affairs and administer his properties. Portions of the said document, entitled
Report of Neuropsychological Screening,[15]
were quoted by respondent in his Memorandum[16]
to illustrate that said report in fact favored respondents claim of
competence, to wit:
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]
With the failure of petitioner to
formally offer his documentary evidence, his proof of his fathers incompetence
consisted purely of testimonies given by himself and his sister (who were
claiming interest in their fathers real and personal properties) and their
fathers former caregiver (who admitted to be acting under their direction). These testimonies, which did not include any
expert medical testimony, were insufficient to convince the trial court of
petitioners cause of action and instead lead it to grant the demurrer to
evidence that was filed by respondent.
Even if we were to overlook
petitioners procedural lapse in failing to make a formal offer of evidence,
his documentary proof were comprised mainly of certificates of title over real
properties registered in his, his fathers and his sisters names as co-owners, tax
declarations, and receipts showing payment of real estate taxes on their
co-owned properties, which do not in any way relate to his fathers alleged
incapacity to make decisions for himself. The only medical document on record is the
aforementioned Report of Neuropsychological Screening which was attached to
the petition for guardianship but was never identified by any witness nor
offered as evidence. In any event, the
said report, as mentioned earlier, was ambivalent at best, for although the
report had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of respondent,
it also contained findings that supported the view that respondent on the
average was indeed competent.
In an analogous guardianship case
wherein the soundness of mind of the proposed ward was at issue, we had the
occasion to rule that where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion
is not necessary [and that] the observations of the trial judge coupled with
evidence establishing the persons state of mental sanity will suffice.[18]
Thus, it is significant that in its
Order dated November 14, 2006 which denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration on the trial courts unfavorable September 27, 2006 ruling, the
trial court highlighted the fatal role that petitioners own documentary
evidence played in disproving its case and, likewise, the trial court made
known its own observation of respondents physical and mental state, to wit:
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.)
It
is axiomatic that, as a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a
petition for review on certiorari
because the Court is not a trier of facts.[20]
We only take cognizance of questions of
fact in certain exceptional circumstances;[21]
however, we find them to be absent in the instant case. It is also long settled
that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court. As a rule, such findings by the lower courts
are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on
this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[22]
We therefore adopt the factual findings
of the lower court and the Court of Appeals and rule that the grant of
respondents demurrer to evidence was proper under the circumstances obtaining
in the case at bar.
Section
1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court provides:
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.
A
demurrer to evidence is defined as an objection by one of the parties in an
action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or
sustain the issue.[23]
We have also held that a demurrer to
evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant
having to submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily have to do, if
plaintiffs evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought.[24]
There
was no error on the part of the trial court when it dismissed the petition for
guardianship without first requiring respondent to present his evidence
precisely because the effect of granting a demurrer to evidence other than
dismissing a cause of action is, evidently, to preclude a defendant from
presenting his evidence since, upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
February 29, 2008 as well as the Resolution dated September 16, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88449 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[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.