Doña Josefa was the youngest in the family of six. She had four sisters and one brother but had been staying with a close friend and companion, Pacita, 90 years old. They had been living together for almost 61 years. In 1991 when they were still living together, Dona Josefa suffered her first stroke in Makati and had to give up the management of their hacienda in Bacolod. When Dona Josefa went to the US Pacita accompanied her. Josefa suffered another stroke there so the two had to come back.
Josefa’s health further deteriorated until she suffered another stroke. This time her older sister, Amalia had to intervene. She took Josefa after her confinement at the hospital and placed her under the care of doctors. Later when Josefa suffered another stroke, Amalia reconfined her at the hospital. Since Josefa was already unable to manage her personal life and business concerns due to senility and "vascular dementia", Amalia filed a petition in Court on July 8,1996 praying that she be appointed guardian of Josefa’s person and properties.
Josefa’s 90-year old best friend, Pacita, opposed the petition. Pacita said that there is absolutely no need to appoint a guardian because Josefa was very able to take charge of her affairs as clearly evident from her four letters to Amalia. The first letter declared Josefa’s lack of interest in future investment as she would just like to have enough money to enjoy the rest of her life and for her future hospitalization. The second letter showed that Josefa resented Amalia for not even visiting her at the hospital and their disagreement as to who should run the hacienda, with their brother supporting her. The third letter was about her request to sell her shares in a certain sugar mill while she was abroad which was ignored by her nephew. The fourth letter was not even addressed to Amalia but to their sister in law about her desire that nobody should stop her on her decision regarding her properties. Pacita said that Amalia wanted to place Josefa under her guardianship because Amalia dislikes her. So she asked that in the event that Josefa should really be found to be incompetent, she or some four other persons named by her be appointed that guardian.
But the lower court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals disagreed with Pacita. They found Josefa incompetent to manage her properties and appointed Amalia. Both courts agree that Amalia is qualified to be the guardian because as a sister she can best take care of Josefa’s person and properties. Now that Josefa is in the twilight of her life her family should be given the opportunity to show their love and affection for her without however denying Pacita access to her considering the special bond of friendship between the two. The courts said that there are really no antagonistic interests to speak of between Amalia and Josefa. There are no indications that Amalia is animated by a desire to prejudice Josefa’s health or financial interests. On the contrary it was Pacita who had initially concealed the deteriorating state of mind of Josefa from the Court.
Were the RTC and the CA correct?
The Supreme Court said yes.
Whether or not the RTC or the CA erred is a question of fact. It is well entrenched doctrine that as a general rule findings of facts of the lower courts should not be disturbed. The test to determine whether the question is one of fact or law is whether the appellate court (the SC) can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of law, otherwise, it is a question of fact. In the selection of a guardian the actions of the lower courts should not be disturbed unless it is made very clear that they have fallen into grievous error. In this case, it has not been shown that the lower courts committed any error.
The letters of Josefa to Amalia cited by Pacita do not establish her claim that there existed a rift between the two which amounts to antagonistic interests. They have no relevance on the issue of Amalia’s fitness and qualification as a guardian. Pacita’s assertion that Amalia’s intent in instituting the guardianship proceedings to take control of Josefa’s properties and use them for her own benefit is purely speculative. Pacita’s opposition to the petition of Amalia as guardian because among other reasons, she felt she was disliked by Amalia does not render the latter unsuitable as guardian. Such fact and the fact that Pacita concealed to the trial court the deteriorating state of mind of Josefa are reflective of a lack of good faith on her part (Goyena vs.Gustilo G.R. 147148 January 13, 2003).