THIRD DIVISION
PILAR Y. GOYENA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
147148
January 13, 2003
-versus-
AMPARO
LEDESMA-GUSTILO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
From the Court of Appeals
June 19, 2000 Decision which affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati, Branch 149 in Special Proceeding No. N-4375 appointing
herein respondent Amparo Ledesma Gustilo as guardian over the person
and
property of her sister Julieta Ledesma, Pilar Y. Goyena, Julieta’s
close
friend and companion of more than 60 years, comes to this Court on
petition
for review on certiorari.
On July 8, 1996, respondent
filed at the RTC of Makati a "PETITION FOR LETTERS OF GUARDIANSHIP"[1]
over the person and properties of her sister Julieta, the pertinent
allegations
of which read:
2. That
for the most part during the year 1995 and 1996, Julieta Ledesma has
been
a patient in the Makati Medical Center where she is under medical
attention
for old age, general debility, and a "mini"-stroke which she suffered
in
the United States in early 1995;
3. That
Julieta Ledesma is confined to her bed and can not get up from bed
without
outside assistance, and she has to be moved by wheel chair;
4. That
Julieta Ledesma owns real estate and personal properties in Metro
Manila
and in Western Visayas, with an aggregate estimated assessed and par
value
of P1 Million Pesos;
5. That
Julieta Ledesma is not in a position to care for herself, and that she
needs the assistance of a guardian to manage her interests in on-going
corporate and agricultural enterprises;
6. That
the nearest of kin of Julieta Ledesma are her sisters of the full
blood,
namely, petitioner Amparo Ledesma Gustilo, Teresa Ledesma (aka. Sister
Cristina of the Religious of the Assumption, and Loreto Ledesma Mapa,
all
of whom have given their consent to the filing of this petition as
shown
by their signatures at the bottom of this petition;
7. That
petitioner has extensive experience in business management of
commercial,
agricultural and corporate enterprises, many of which are in the same
entities
where Julieta Ledesma holds an interest, and that she is in a position
to monitor and supervise the delivery of vitally needed medical
services
to Julieta Ledesma whether in the Metro Manila area, or elsewhere.cralaw:red
Petitioner filed an
Opposition to the petition for letters of guardianship. She later filed
an Amended Opposition on August 15, 1996 reading in part:
2.03 The petition lacked
factual and legal basis in that Julieta Ledesma is competent and sane
and
there is absolutely no need to appoint a guardian to take charge of her
person/property. She is very able to take charge of her affairs, and
this
is clearly evident from her letters to the petitioner. Copies of her
recent
letters are herewith attached as Annexes 'A' to 'E.' chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
2.05 Petitioner is not
fit to be appointed as the guardian of Julieta Ledesma since their
interests
are antagonistic (Sudler v. Sudler, 121 Md. 46. 49 L.R.A. 800, as cited
in vol. V-B Francisco Revised Rules of Court, Rule 93, Section 4, p.
414).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
3.01 The above captioned
petition should be dismissed for utter lack of legal and/or factual
basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.02 In the remote event
that this Honorable Court should find that Julieta Ledesma is
incompetent
and resolve that there is need to appoint a guardian over her person
and
property, this Honorable Court should appoint as such guardian:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Oppositor
Goyena;
2. Bart
Lacson;
3. Fely
Montelibano;
4. Jose
T. Revilla; or
5. a
qualified
and reputable person as may be determined fit by this Honorable Court.cralaw:red
By Decision[2]
of October 4, 1996, the trial court found Julieta "incompetent and
incapable
of taking care of herself and her property" and appointed respondent as
guardian of her person and properties, ratiocinating as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A perusal of the records
shows that petitioner (Amparo) is 72 years of age, the youngest sister
of Julieta. Admittedly, the Oppositor Pilar Goyena, 90 years of age has
been the close friend and companion of Julieta for 61 years. Julieta
was
with Oppositor when she suffered her first stroke in Makati in 1991
which
was the reason why Julieta had to give up the management of their
hacienda
in Bacolod. It is also not disputed that Julieta was with Pilar when
she
had her second stroke in the U.S. In short, the special bond of
friendship
existing between Julieta and the Oppositor cannot be denied. Now that
Julieta
is unable to manage her personal life and business concerns due to
senility
and "vascular dementia," the oppositor wants to be appointed her
guardian
or else Bart Lacson, Fely Montelibano and Jose T. Revilla.cralaw:red
It is interesting to
note that the oppositor has interposed her objection to the appointment
of Amparo as guardian because she thinks that the latter dislikes her.
She further added that there were a number of letters allegedly written
by Julieta to Amparo which showed Julieta’s sentiments regarding
certain
matters. Nevertheless, not one of the nearest of kin of Julieta opposed
the petition. As a matter of fact, her sisters signified their
conformity
thereto. Thus, Ms. Goyena’s mere conjecture that Amparo dislikes her is
no sufficient reason why the petition should be denied. Neither does it
make Amparo unsuitable and unfit to perform the duties of a guardian.
On
the contrary, it is Ms. Goyena who could be considered as to have an
adverse
interest to that of Julieta if it is true that 50% of Julieta’s
holdings
at the Makati Medical Center has been transferred to her as alleged in
Exhibit 1 and Exhibit A. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By and large, the qualification
of Amparo to act as guardian over the person and properties of Julieta
has been duly established. As a sister, she can best take care of
Julieta’s
concerns and well being. Now that Julieta 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 Pilar Goyena access to her considering
the special bond of friendship between the two. Needless to say, the
oppositor
at 90 years of age could not be said to be physically fit to attend to
all the needs of Julieta. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, petitioner
Amparo Gustilo, is hereby appointed guardian over the person and
property
of Julieta Ledesma, an incompetent with all the powers and duties
specified
under the law. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, let letters
of guardianship issue to petitioner upon her filing of a bond in the
amount
of P200,000.00 to guarantee the performance of the obligations
prescribed
for general guardians. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
mphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the trial court’s decision was, by Order of
November
4, 1996[3],
denied in this wise: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the Oppositor thru counsel, and finding no
merits on the ground stated therein, considering that petitioner
appears
to be most qualified and suitable to act as Julieta Ledesma’s guardian
after taking into consideration the qualifications of the oppositor and
her other recomendees [sic], aside from the fact that petitioner’s
appointment
as such was not objected to by any of her nearest kin, in contrast to
the
hostile interest of oppositor, the same is hereby DENIED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
On appeal of petitioner,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on the
following
ratiocination:[4]
Indeed, oppositor-appellant
(Pilar) has not shown the authenticity and due execution of the letters
which purport to show the existence of a rift between Julieta and her
family
and dissatisfaction as to how the businesses were managed. At any rate,
while it is correct to say that no person should be appointed guardian
if his interest conflict with those of the ward (Guerrero vs. Teran, 13
Phil. 212), there are really no antagonistic interests to speak of
between
petitioner [Amparo] and Julieta, they being co-owners of certain
properties.
There is also no showing that petitioner’s business decisions in the
past
had resulted in the prejudice of Julieta. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the oppositor
may have been very close to Julieta, there is no sufficient showing
that
petitioner is hostile to the best interests of the latter. On the
contrary,
it was the petitioner who, realizing the need for the appointment of a
person to guard her sister’s interests, initiated the petition for
guardianship.
We see no indication that petitioner is animated by a desire to
prejudice
Julieta’s health as well as financial interests. In point of fact, it
was
oppositor-appellant who had initially concealed the deteriorating state
of mind of Julieta from the court. Oppositor’s advanced age of 90 years
also militate against her assuming the guardianship of the incompetent.
The oppositor has declared that she is not interested to be appointed
legal
guardian (p.21, Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 59). But the persons that
she points to as being better choices as Julieta’s guardian over the
appellee
have not acted, nor even indicated, their desire to act as such. In any
case, We see no cogent reason why We should reverse the well-reasoned
disquisition
of the trial court. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, finding no
error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision having been
denied,
she filed the present petition which proffers that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION DATED OCTOBER 4, 1996 AND IN
ISSUING
THE RESOLUTIONS DATED JUNE 29, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 9, 2001. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition fails.cralaw:red
It is well-entrenched
doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of appeal by
certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined
to questions of law.[5]
The test of whether the question is one of law or of fact is whether
the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating
the evidence, in which case it is a question of law; otherwise, it is
question
of fact.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the only issue before this Court is whether or not the appellate court
and the trial court erred in finding that respondent is not unsuitable
for appointment as guardian of the person and properties of Julieta. In
support of an affirmative answer, petitioner posits as follows: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
Court of Appeals’ basis for its decision that there are no antagonistic
interests between [her] and [respondent] is contrary to the evidence on
record,[7]
2. The
Court of Appeals’ erred in holding that there is no showing that
[respondent]
is hostile to the best interest of Julieta,[8]
and
3. Julieta
Ledesma’s appointed representatives are most suitable to be appointed
as
her guardian.[9]
Clearly, the issues
raised and arguments in support of petitioner’s position require a
review
of the evidence, hence, not proper for consideration in the petition at
bar. This Court cannot thus be tasked to go over the proofs presented
by
the parties and analyze, assess, and weigh them to ascertain if the
trial
court and appellate court were correct in according them superior
credit.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the issues raised
are factual is in fact admitted by petitioner in her Reply dated August
30, 2001:[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the general
rule is that this Honorable Court is not a trier of facts, its
jurisdiction
being limited to reviewing and revising only errors of law, it is
nonetheless
subject to the following exceptions which have been laid down in a
number
of decisions of this Honorable Court:
(1) When the conclusion
is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
(3) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is
based
on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of facts are
conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellants
and appellee; (7) When the findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary
to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of facts are
conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
absence
of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record
mphasis
supplied); (Rollo, 350-351) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner claims that
"there is no doubt that the instant petition falls within the
above-stated
exceptions because the findings of the Court of Appeals are clearly
belied
by the evidence on record."[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the selection of
a guardian, a large discretion must be allowed the judge who deals
directly
with the parties.[13]
As this Court said:
As a rule, when it appears
that the judge has exercised care and diligence in selecting the
guardian,
and has given due consideration to the reasons for and against his
action
which are urged by the interested parties, his action should not be
disturbed
unless it is made very clear that he has fallen into grievous error.[14]
In the case at bar,
petitioner has not shown that the lower courts committed any error.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner cannot rely
on Garchitorena v. Sotelo[15]
with respect to the existence of antagonistic interests between
respondent
and Julieta. In that case, the interest of Perfecto Gabriel as creditor
and mortgagee of the minor-wards’ properties (a house and lot) is
antagonistic
to the interest of the wards as mortgagors, hence, Gabriel’s
appointment
as guardian was erroneous. For while he sought to foreclose the wards’
properties as creditor and mortgagee on one hand, he had to, on the
other
hand, endeavor to retain them for the wards as their guardian. Added to
that was Gabriel’s appointment as guardian without him informing the
guardianship
court that he held a mortgage on the properties. Furthermore, he
deliberately
misinformed the said court that the first mortgagee was the Santa Clara
Monastery when it was him. None of the said circumstances obtain in the
present case. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner can neither
rely on certain letters of Julieta to establish her claim that there
existed[16]
a rift between the two which amounts to antagonistic interests. The
first
letter[17]
sent by Julieta to respondent which reads: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x So if you (appellee)
do not agree with me (Julieta) my decision is right to let us divide as
soon as possible, so we will have capital each of us to work, and keep
the Hda, for [sic] generation to generation. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
For the last time I
will repeat even if I have to kneel before you and Carlos I have no
interest
anymore in any future investment due to my age and being single and
alone
in life. I would like to be able to enjoy whatever monies that
correspond
to me. I would like to have enough money as a reserve for any future
need
that I might have like hospitalization, travel, buying whatever I like,
etc. etc. (Letter to appellee; Exhibit '2') chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
merely shows Julieta’s
lack of interest in future investments, not necessarily a business
disagreement,
and certainly not per se amounting to antagonistic interests between
her
and respondent to render the latter unsuitable for appointment as
guardian.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The second letter[18]
which reads:
My mind is still clear
to tell you about Fortuna when I had my stroke I was confined in MMC
for
one month. If I am not mistaken you did not visit me. One day Carlos
came
to visit me and asked me this question. Do you think you will be able
to
continue managing the Hda? I answered him I don’t know it all depends
on
my sickness. Carlos said who do you want to take your place? I said I
want
Cheling Zabaljauregui. Then Carlos said O.K. He asked Pilar can you
contact
Cheling? Tell him to call me or see me. The nephew of Cheling was a
resident
in MMC through him Pilar was able to contact Cheling and gave him
Carlo’s
message. So I thought all the time it was agreeable. I left for USA for
treatment. To my surprise when I came back from USA it was not Cheling,
but you (appellee) took over the management as you requested. Carlos
did
not tell me but decided in your favor. x x x (Letter to appellee;
Exhibit
"3") chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
shows that: 1) respondent
did not visit Julieta when she was confined at the Makati Medical
Center
on account of her stroke, 2) there was disagreement as to who should
run
the hacienda, with Julieta favoring a certain Cheling Zabaljaurigue,
and
3) respondent took over management of the hacienda with their brother
Carlos
(Ledesma) supporting her. No inference as to the existence of
antagonistic
interests between respondent and Julieta can thus be made. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The third letter[19]
which reads:
x x x Carlos went to
the house before I left and asked from me twenty thousand (20,000)
shares
of San Carlos Milling which you gave because I wanted to sell all.xxx
If
he does not sell or cannot sell, just arrange to send them back to me.
Amparing since I came here to America and Vancouver my requests have
been
ignored. Everyone is suspecting that Pilar is the one ordering or
commanding
me that is not true. What I asked from Julio is just to report to me or
send me reports so I can follow up from here. But up to now he has
ignored
my requests x x x. (Letter to appellee Exhibit '4') chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
has no relevance to
the issue of whether or not the lower courts erred in finding that
respondent
is not unsuitable for appointment as guardian. The letter in fact
discloses,
that it was Julieta’s nephew Julio Ledesma, and not respondent, who
ignored
the "request."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the fourth letter[20]
which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I want all of you to
know that whatever decision now and in the future I want to do nobody
can
stop me especially regarding my properties, money, etc. I will be the
only
one to dispose of it because it is mine. You said to Raul you are going
to court, you are most welcome x x x. (Letter to Connie, Exhibit '5')
it
has also no relevance to the issue in the case at bar. The letter is
not
even addressed to respondent but to a certain Connie (a sister-in-law
of
Julieta).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s assertion
that respondent’s intent in instituting the guardianship proceedings is
to take control of Julieta’s properties and use them for her own benefit[21]
is purely speculative and finds no support form the records.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The claim that respondent
is hostile to the best interests of Julieta also lacks merit. That
respondent
removed Julieta from the Makati Medical Center where she was confined
after
she suffered a stroke does not necessarily show her hostility towards
Julieta,
given the observation by the trial court, cited in the present
petition,
that Julieta was still placed under the care of doctors[22]
after she checked out and was returned to the hospital when she
suffered
another stroke.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, this Court
notes two undisputed facts in the case at bar, to wit: 1) Petitioner
opposed
the petition for the appointment of respondent as guardian before the
trial
court because, among other reasons, she felt she was disliked by
respondent,[23]
a ground which does not render respondent unsuitable for appointment as
guardian, and 2) Petitioner concealed the deteriorating state of mind
of
Julieta before the trial court,[24]
which is reflective of a lack of good faith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discussion of the third
argument is unnecessary, the suitability of Amparo for appointment as
guardian
not having been successfully contested.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, for lack
of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J.,
(Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, pp. 1-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 303-308.
[3]
Records at 321.
[4]
CA Rollo, pp. 197 - 201.
[5]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1; See Perez v. Court of Appeals, 316
SCRA 43, 61 (1999) (citation omitted); Chan Sui Bi v. Court of Appeals,
341 SCRA 364, 372 (2000).
[6]
China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 401,
411
(2000) (citation omitted).
[7]
Rollo ,p. 20.
[8]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Chan Sui Bi v. Court of Appeals, 341 SCRA 364, 372 - 373 (2000)
(citation
omitted).
[11]
Rollo at 350-351.
[12]
Id. at 351.
[13]
Feliciano v. Camahort, 22 Phil. 235, 235-236 (1912).
[14]
Id. mphasis supplied).
[15]
74 Phil. 25, 29-30 (1942).
[16]
Rollo at 22.
[17]
Id. at 20 - 21.
[18]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Rollo at 23; See also at 53.
[22]
Rollo at 31.
[23]
Records at 307.
[24]
CA Rollo, pp. 200-201. |