Oropesa v Oropesa, GR 184528, April 25, 2012

Nature
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Decision
rendered by the CA affirming the Order of the RTC in a Special Proceedings
which dismissed Nilo Oropesas, peitioner, petition for guardianship over the
properties of his father, respondent, 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 Paranaque 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.

Nilo Oropesa Petitioner; requesting authority to manage his fathers

properties

Cirilo Oropesa Respondent; father of the petitioner; owner of the

contested property

Facts

On January 23, 2004, Nilo Oropesa filed a petition with a certain Louie Ginez
to be appointed as guardians over the property of his father, Cirilo Oropesa
(respondent), with the contention the his father would be unfit, without aid, to
manage his property wisely after having several maladies such as being
sick for over 10 years, suffering a stroke on April 1, and June 1, 2003 and
thus, with addition to age, susceptible for deceit and exploitation by people
around him, particularly Cirilos then girlfriend Ma. Loisa Agamata.

Cirilo countered and filed his opposition to petition of guardianship on July 6,

2004, which was followed by his supplemental opposition on August 3, 2004.
During trial, a social worker conducted a study on the parties but had no
input from the respondent, who refused to talk to the worker.

Evidence was presented by Nilo through respective testimonies of sister

Gianina Oropesa Bennet and his fathers former nurse Alma Altaya.

An Omnibus Motion was then filed by Cirilo to waive the presentation since
the offer was not formally offered to him. A subsequent Demurrer was filed
and was granted.

MR was filed by petitioner and appealed the case to CA; failed due to lack of
merit, now to the SC.

Issue
 Whether or not the respondent is considered incompetent as per the
Rules who should be placed under guardianship?

Held

No. Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that

respondent is competent to run his personal affairs and to administer his
properties.

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. In this case, it is the observation of the Court that
the oppositor is still sharp, alert and able.