Nilo Oropesa filed a petition for guardianship over the properties of his father on the ground that his father, due to his advanced age, is not sane enough or is incompetent to manage his properties. Nilo alleged that Cirilo has been sickly for ten years, had took out an unneeded loan, had failed to manage and maintain his house, failed to pay realty taxes, sold his car for no reason, withdrew a substantial amount from a joint account without the consent of the joint account owner (a sibling of Nilo), tried to stab himself once, and has been allowing his girlfriend to ransack his house.
Cirilo opposed the petition.
Nilo presented evidence but he failed to make a formal offer of evidence. Eventually, Cirilo filed a demurrer to evidence which was granted. Nilo is now appealing on the ground the dismissal is wrong because he has overwhelming evidence against Cirilo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nilo was able to prove the incompetence of Cirilo.
HELD: No. Nilo’s evidence were not admitted because he failed to offer them. Even if admitted, those documentary evidence (ownership documents) are not material in proving the alleged incompetence of Cirilo. So his only evidence against Cirilo were testimonial evidence which failed to convince the court.
A finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive and definite evidence.
Where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert opinion is not necessary. The observations of the trial judge coupled with evidence establishing the person’s state of mental sanity will suffice. In this case, the court found Cirilo to be sharp, alert, and able.
