SpecPro Digest Midterm on Guardianship

Oropesa vs Oropesa
Facts:
P Nilo filed a petition for him and Ms. Louie to be appointed as
guardians over the property of his father [R Cirilo] [SP 04-0016]
- alleged:
1] R afflicted with several maladies
2] sickly for over 10 years, suffered a stroke
3] judgment and memory were impaired [evidence:
hospitalization]
4] R had lapses in memory and judgment; failure to
manage his properties properly [even before stroke]
5] due to his age and medical condition he cannot
manage his property wisely
[t] become an easy prey for deceit and
exploitation, particularly by Ms. Ma. Luisa, his
GF
R filed his opposition to the petition for guardianship
R presented his evidence testimonies of:
1] his sister
2] former nurse
P failed to file his evidence, [t] R filed an Omnibus Motion &
Demurrer to Evidence
TC granted the latter
CA dismissed Ps appeal
Issue:
W/N R IS AN INCOMPETENT PERSON AS DEFINED UNDER SEC. 2,
R.92, ROC WHO SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER GUARDIANSHIP - NO
Francisco vs CA
Guardianship
- 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
- designed to further the wards well-being, not that
of the guardian
- intended to preserve the wards property, as well as
to render any assistance that the ward may personally
require

Custody immediate care and control

Guardianship plus one in loco parentis as well
Guardianship proceeding
- court may appoint a qualified guardian [if] prospective
ward proven to be a minor or incompetent
Sec. 2, R.92
- incompetents persons who, though of sound mind but by
reason of [age, disease, weak body or other similar causes] are
incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without
outside aid
Anchored on clear, positive and definite evidence
Ps proof of testimonies insufficient to convince Ps cause of
action
Set aside Ps procedural lapse [fail to offer formal evidence], his
documentary proof do not relate to his fathers alleged incapacity
to make decisions for himself
Report on Neuropsychological Screening [attached to the
petition]
- although it had negative findings regarding memory
lapses, it also contained findings that supported Rs view that he
was average and indeed competent
Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not
necessary; observations of the TC coupled with evidence
establishing the persons state of mental sanity will suffice
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.
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.