View full case

NILO OROPESA v. CIRILO OROPESA

FACTS:

Nilo Oropesa filed a petition for guardianship over the properties of his father, Cirilo Oropesa, alleging that his father was afflicted with various illnesses and had impaired judgment and memory. Nilo claimed that his father needed assistance to manage his property and protect him from exploitation. The trial court scheduled a hearing and ordered a social case study, but the report did not contain any findings as the respondent refused to cooperate. Cirilo filed opposition and supplemental opposition to the petition, while Nilo presented his evidence without filing a formal offer of evidence. Subsequently, Cirilo filed a motion to declare Nilo to have waived the presentation of evidence and asked for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The trial court granted Cirilo's motion and eventually dismissed the case upon granting the demurrer to evidence. Nilo's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. Nilo then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts erred in disregarding the substantial evidence he presented regarding his father's incompetence. The Supreme Court, however, found Nilo's petition to be without merit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent is incompetent and in need of guardianship.

  2. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's claim of incompetence.

  3. Whether expert opinion is necessary to determine the sanity of a person.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for guardianship without requiring the respondent to present evidence.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide clear, positive, and definite evidence to establish the respondent's incompetence. The testimonies presented by the petitioner and his sister, as well as the former caregiver, were insufficient to convince the trial court of the petitioner's cause of action. Moreover, the petitioner's documentary evidence, consisting of certificates of title, tax declarations, and receipts, did not relate to the respondent's alleged incapacity to make decisions for himself. The only medical document on record, the "Report of Neuropsychological Screening," did not conclusively support the petitioner's claim of incompetence as it contained findings that indicated the respondent was competent. Thus, the trial court properly granted the respondent's demurrer to evidence.

  2. Expert opinion is not necessary to determine the sanity of a person. The observations of the trial judge, coupled with evidence establishing the person's state of mental sanity, are sufficient.

  3. The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition for guardianship without requiring the respondent to present evidence. The grant of the respondent's demurrer to evidence was proper under the circumstances.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive, and definite evidence.

  • Testimonies without expert medical testimony are insufficient to establish incompetence.

  • Documentary evidence must be relevant and directly related to the alleged incapacity.

  • In a guardianship case, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish incompetence.

  • When the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary. The observations of the trial judge, together with evidence proving the person's mental state, are enough.

  • Questions of law may only be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally not disturbed.

  • A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, asserting that the evidence presented by the other party is insufficient, whether true or not, to support the case or sustain the issue.

  • Granting a demurrer to evidence precludes the defendant from presenting evidence and authorizes a judgment on the merits without requiring the defendant to submit evidence.

  • The effect of granting a demurrer to evidence is to dismiss the cause of action when the plaintiff has shown no right to relief based on the facts and the law.