Spec Pro Class 2020

NILO OROPESA, Petitioner,

vs.

CIRILO OROPESA, Respondent.

 

G.R. No. 184528               April 25, 2012

 

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Nilo Oropesa filed with the RTC, a petition for him to be appointed as guardian over the property of his father, Cirilo Oropesa. Said petition alleged that Cirilo Oropesa has been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over 10 years already having suffered a stroke that his judgment and memory were impaired and such has been evident after his hospitalization and 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.

​

Respondent filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship and cited petitioner’s 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 Cirilo Oropesa 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 was entitled Report of Neuropsychological Screening which although had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of Cirilo Oropesa, also contained finding that supported the view that the latter on the average was indeed competent.

​

ISSUE:

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.

​

HELD:

No. The petition for guardianship was denied. The Rules provide that, 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. But the records concluded 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 said respondent is still sharp, alert and able.

​

Further, the Court has ruled that a finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive and definite evidence. Here, Gen Cirilo Oropesa’s incompetency was not proven by clear, positive and definite evidence; hence, petition for guardianship was denied because the respondent is not considered as an “incompetent” one.