SpecPro Digest Midterm

Alamayri vs Pabale 2008 [guardianship #5]

Facts:
Feb 6 84: Fernando, representing SM Fernando filed a complaint
for Specific Performance with damages
- against Nave, owner of a parcel of land
- alleged: they entered into a contract to sell involving a
piece of land
> but Nave reneged on their agreement when she
refused to accept the partial down payment because she did
not want to sell her property anymore
- prayed: after trial on the merits, Nave be ordered to
execute the Deed of Sale in his favor
Nave filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ff. grounds:
1] she was not fully apprised of the nature of that piece of
paper for her signature [Jan 3 84]
- she repudiate the paper and refused to receive the
down payment upon learning that it was for the sale of her
property
2] she already sold the property to the Pabale[s] in GF on
Feb 20 84
after the complaint was filed
before she received a copy thereof
3] alleged:
A] Fernando no cause of action against her [as] he
was suing in behalf of SM Fernando, which is not a party to
the alleged contract to sell
B] assuming that SM Fernando is a party in interest
Fernando cannot sue in its behalf [r] no evidence that he
was authorized
Pabale[s] filed a Motion to Intervene
- alleged: they are now the landowners of the subject
property
TRIAL COURT denied Naves MTD
Nave filed a Motion to Admit her amended answer with
counterclaim and cross-claim
- prayed: her atty husband be impleaded as her co-DF
- included defense: undue influence and fraud
[r] she was made to appear as widow when in fact
she was married
TRIAL COURT admitted Naves Motion

Nave later included as defense the fact of her incapacity to

contract for being mentally deficient based on the
psychological evaluation report [Dec 2 85] of Dra.
Panlasigui, clinical psychologist
TC denied
Nave filed a MR [but] it was suspended in 1987, [due to] a
Petition for Guardianship filed by her atty husband
June 22 88: decision was rendered in the guardianship
proceedings
Based on the Neuro-Psychiatric Evaluation Report, Nave is
found an incompetent within the purview of Rule 92 of the
Revised Rules of Court, a person who, by reason of age, disease,
weak mind and deteriorating mental processes cannot without
outside aid take care of herself and manage her properties,
becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation, said
condition having become severe since the year 1980.
She and her estate are hereby placed under guardianship.
Atty. Leonardo C. Paner is hereby appointed as her regular
guardian without need of bond, until further orders from this
Court.
Upon his taking his oath of office as regular guardian, Atty.
Paner is ordered to participate actively in the pending cases of
Nelly S. Nave with the end in view of protecting her interests from
the prejudicial sales of her real properties, from the overpayment
in the foreclosure made by Ms. Gilda Mendoza-Ong, and in
recovering her lost jewelries and monies and other personal
effects.
Nave died on Dec 2 92
Atty Gesmundo, her husband and sole heir executed an Affidavit
of Self-Adjudication
- also filed a writ of execution of the decision in the Petition
for Guardianship
Pabale[s] filed their Opposition on the ff. grounds:
1] not made a party to the guardianship proceedings [t] not
bound by the decision
2] validity of the DOS executed in their favor was not
raised in the guardianship case
Alamayri to whom the said property in question was donated
by Atty Gesmundo filed a Motion for Substitution in the latters
stead
[but] Atty Gesmundo filed a Manifestation that he already
revoked the same on March 5 97

TRIAL COURT [Dec 2 97] recognized Alamayri as the owner of

the property
CA set aside the TCs decision; upheld the validity of the DOS on
Feb 20 84
ISSUE
1] W/N NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO PABALE[S], [T] BINDING THEM - NO
2] W/N NAVI WAS INCOMPETENT WHEN SHE EXECUTED A DOS IN
FAVOR OF THE PABALE[S] - NO

ALAMAYRIS POSITION THAT THE SP COULD NOT BE RE-LITIGATED

IN CIVIL CASE DUE TO CONCLUSIVENESS OF J UNTENABLE
[R] NO IDENTITY OF PARTIES
Atty Gesmundo filed the SP for the appointment of a guardian
over the person and estate of his late wife Nave alleging her
incompetence
Guadian may be appointed by the RTC over the person and
estate of a:
A] minor or
B] incompetent
1] "suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or
2] who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and
dumb who are unable to read and write,
3] those who are of unsound mind, even though they
have lucid intervals, and
4] 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
Rule 93 ROC governs the proceedings for the appointment of
a guardian
Petition for Appointment of a Guardian special proceeding,
without the usual parties in an ordinary civil case [as P vs R]
SP PROC No. 146-86-C title: In re: Guardianship of Nelly S.
Nave for Incompetency, Verdasto Gesmundo y Banayo, petitioner,
with no named Rs
Section 2 and 3, R93
- require that the petition contain the names, ages, and
residences of
1] relatives of the supposed minor or incompetent
and
2] those having him in their care
[r] so that those residing within the same province as the
minor or incompetent can be notified of the time and place of the
hearing of the petition
objectives of RTC for hearing to determine:
1] whether a person is indeed a minor or an incompetent
who has no capacity to care for himself and/or his properties
2] who is most qualified to be appointed as his guardian
assumption people who best could help the trial court
settle such issues would be those who are closest to and most
familiar with the supposed minor or incompetent, namely:
1] his relatives living within the same province and/or

2] persons caring for him

HELD 1
rule: creditors [of minor/incompetent] not necessarily be
identified and notified
[r] presence not essential to the proceedings
only insist that the minor/incompetent is
capacitated to enter into contract & obligated to comply
[t] it cannot be presumed that the Pabale[s] were given
notice and actually took part in the SP
[r] not relatives/nor the ones caring
although the rules allow the RTC to give other gen
or specific notices of hearings it was not established that
the RTC did so
Alamayri alleged that Jose Pabale, the Pabale[s] father attended
hearings [but] the orders cannot confirm if:
1] he was the father or
2] if he was, if he was authorized by her children
Alamayri was not allowed to submit and mark additional
evidence to prove that Jose Pabale was the Pabale[s] father
[because] she submitted additional evidence [after] the
promulgation of the CAs decision
- also even if the evidence is admitted it cannot bind the
Pabale[s] because notice to their father is NOT NOTICE TO
THEM
Since it was not established that the Pabale[s]
participated in SP, any finding should not bind them in
Civil Case
[R] NO IDENTITY OF ISSUES BETWEEN SP & CIVIL CASE
In SP. PROC. No. 146-86-C main issue whether Nave was
incompetent at the time of filing of the petition with the RTC in
1986, thus, requiring the appointment of a guardian over her
person and estate
In the cross-claim of Nave and Atty. Gesmundo against the Pabale
siblings in Civil Case No. 675-84-C issue whether Nave was an
incompetent when she executed a Deed of Sale of the subject
property in favor of the Pabale siblings on 20 February 1984,
hence, rendering the said sale void.
HELD 2
a finding that she was incompetent in 1986 does not
automatically mean she was so in 1984

 significance of the 2-year gap cannot be gainsaid [argued]

[r] Naves mental condition in 1986 may vastly differ from
that of 1984 given the intervening period
- basis: Carillo v. Jaojoco Court despite the fact that the
seller was declared mentally incapacitated by the trial court only
nine days after the execution of the contract of sale, it does not
prove that she was so when she executed the contract
Capacity to act supposed to attach to a person who has not
previously been declared incapable
- presumed to continue so long as the contrary be not
proved --- that is, that at the moment of his acting he was
incapable, crazy, insane, or out of his mind
- burden of proving incapacity to enter into contractual
relations rests upon the person who alleges it
- if no sufficient proof to this effect is presented, capacity
will be presumed

over the subject property, which she executed in favor of the

Pabale siblings on February 20 1984

Nave was examined and diagnosed by doctors to be mentally

incapacitated only in 1986
when the RTC started hearing SP. PROC. No. 146-86-C

CONCLUSION
There being no identity of parties and issues between SP. PROC. No.
146-86-C and Civil Case No. 675-84-C, the 22 June 1988 Decision in
the former on Naves incompetency by the year 1986 should not
bar, by conclusiveness of judgment, a finding in the latter case that
Nave still had capacity and was competent when she executed on
20 February 1984 the Deed of Sale over the subject property in
favor of the Pabale siblings. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not
commit any error when it upheld the validity of the 20 February
1984 Deed of Sale

- she was not judicially declared an incompetent until June

22 1988 when a Decision in said case was rendered by the RTC,
resulting in the appointment of Atty. Leonardo C. Paner as her
guardian
[T] prior to 1986, Nave is still presumed to be capacitated
and competent to enter into contracts such as the Deed of Sale

- burden of proving otherwise falls upon Alamayri, which she

dismally failed to do, having relied entirely on the June 22 1988
Decision of the RTC in SP. PROC. No. 146-86-C
there is no basis for the declaration of Alamayri on the
declaration of the RTC in its Decision dated 22 June 1988 in SP.
PROC. No. 146-86-C on Naves condition "having become severe
since the year 1980
Dr. Ramos & Dr. Maaba [April 20 1987] never stated
when Nave began to suffer said mental condition
- Alamayri did not establish that Nave was mentally
incapacitated when she executed the Feb 20 84 DOS in favor of the
Pabale[s] so as to render the deed void