2018 Specpro Cases
2018 Specpro Cases
2018 Specpro Cases
Pilar Y. Goyena, Julieta„s close friend for more than In the selection of a guardian, a large discretion must
six decades, opposed the petition. She claims that be allowed the judge who deals directly with the
Julieta is competent and sane enough to manage her parties. As the Court said in Feliciano v. Comahort:
person and property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) “As a rule, when it appears that the judge has
declared Julieta to be “incompetent and incapable of exercised care and diligence in selecting the guardian,
taking care of herself and her property” and Gustilo and has given due consideration to the reasons for
was appointed to be her guardian. The RTC decision and against his action which are urged by the
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Hence, interested parties, his action should not be disturbed
this petition for review on certiorari. unless it is made very clear that he has fallen into
grievous error.”
ISSUE:
In the case at bar, Goyena has not shown that the
Whether or not the court erred in finding Julieta to be lower courts committed any error. Goyena„s assertion
incompetent and incapable of taking care of herself that Amparo„s intent in instituting
the guardianship proceedings is to take control of
HELD: Julieta„s properties and use them for her own benefit
is purely speculative and finds no support from the
records.
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. The test of whether
the question is one of law or of fact is whether ADOPTION
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 LAHOM vs. SIBULO
question of fact.
FACTS:
In support of an affirmative answer, Goyena posits as
follows: A childless couple adopted the wife‟s nephew and
brought him up as their own.
1. The Court of Appeals„ basis for its decision that
Inn1972 the trial court granted the petition for
there are no antagonistic interests between Julieta
adoption and ordered the Civil Registrar to change
and Amparo is contrary to the evidence on record,
the name of Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin Lahom.
Jose Melvin refused to use the surname Lahom and
2. The Court of Appeals„ erred in holding that there is continued to use Sibulo in all his transactions despite
no showing that Amparo is hostile to the best pleas from the Lahom spouses leading to Mrs Lahom
interest of Julieta, and commencing a petition to rescind the decree of
adoption.
3. Julieta Ledesma„s appointed representatives are
most suitable to be appointed as her guardian. Prior to the institution of the case, in 1998, RA 8552
(Domestic Adoption Act) went into effect, this law
deleted the right of adopters rescind a decree of
adoption; where it was provided that: “Adoption
being in the interest of the child, shall not be subject
to rescission by the adopter(s). However the
adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes
provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
WON the adoption maybe revoked after the effectivity
of RA 8552
RULING: NO
Prescription