Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts:
(Petitioner) filed with the RTC, 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.
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, 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.
(Respondent) filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship. On August 3, 2004, the (respondent) filed his
Supplemental Opposition.
RTC – petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Cirilo Oropesa is incompetent to run his personal
affairds and administer his properties.
CA – dismissed appeal.
Issue: WON respondent is considered an “incompetent person” as defined under Section 2 Rule 92 of the ROC who should
be placed under guardianship.
Held: We find the petition to be without merit.
Francisco vs. CA – 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 ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s 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.
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.
We have held in the past that a "finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive and definite
evidence."
With the failure of petitioner to formally offer his documentary evidence, his proof of his father’s incompetence consisted
purely of testimonies given by himself and his sister (who were claiming interest in their father’s real and personal
properties) and their father’s 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 petitioner’s cause of action
and instead lead it to grant the demurrer to evidence that was filed by respondent.
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 person’s state of mental sanity will suffice." 18
G.R. No. 191993 December 5, 2012
EDUARDO T. ABAD, Petitioner, vs. LEONARDO BIASON and GABRIEL A. MAGNO, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner Eduardo Abad (Abad) filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of Maura B. Abad (Maura)
with the (RTC).
Abad averred that Maura, who is single, more than ninety (90) years old and a resident of Rizal Street, Poblacion,
Mangaldan, Pangasinan, is in dire need of a guardian who will look after her and her business affairs. Due to her advanced
age, Maura is already sickly and can no longer manage to take care of herself and her properties unassisted thus
becoming an easy prey of deceit and exploitation.
Biason filed a Motion for Leave to File Opposition to the Petition – he is also a nephew of Maura and that he was not
notified of the pendency of the petition for the appointment of the latter’s guardian. He vehemently opposed the
appointment of Abad as Maura’s guardian as he cannot possibly perform his duties as such since he resides in Quezon
City while Maura maintains her abode in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Biason prayed that he be appointed as Maura’s
guardian since he was previously granted by the latter with a power of attorney to manage her properties.
RTC – denied Abad’s petition and appointed Biason as Maura’s guardian.
Abad’s argument – RTC erred in disqualifying him from being appointed as Maura’s guardian despite the fact that he has
all the qualifications stated under the Rules. That he was not a resident of Mangaldan, Pangasinan should not be a ground
for his disqualification as he had actively and efficiently managed the affairs and properties of his aunt even if he is
residing in Metro Manila. Moreover, he was expressly chosen by Maura to be her guardian.
CA – affirmed RTC decision.
Pending the resolution of the instant petition, Biason died.
Maura averred that Biason’s death rendered moot and academic the issues raised in the petition. She thus prayed that
the petition be dismissed and the guardianship be terminated.
Abad commented that the issues raised in the petition pertain to the irregularity in the appointment of Biason as guardian
which he believed had been rendered moot and academic by the latter’s death. He also supported Maura’s prayer for the
termination of the guardianship by asseverating that her act of filing of a petition-in-intervention is indicative of the fact
that she is of sound mind and that she can competently manage her business affairs.
We find Maura’s motion meritorious.
An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a
determination of the issue would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to
which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.22
With Biason’s demise, it has become impractical and futile to proceed with resolving the merits of the petition. It is a well-
established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian
or the ward. The supervening event of death rendered it pointless to delve into the propriety of Biason’s appointment
since the juridical tie between him and Maura has already been dissolved. The petition, regardless of its disposition, will
not afford Abad, or anyone else for that matter, any substantial relief.