Hernandez v.

Juan-Santos, 595 SCRA 464 (2009)

Guardianship; Insanity; Witnesses; An ordinary witness may give his opinion on the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.Under Section
50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary witness may give his opinion on the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. Lulus attending
physicians spoke and interacted with her. Such occasions allowed them to
thoroughly observe her behavior and conclude that her intelligence level was
below average and her mental stage below normal. Their opinions were admissible
in evidence.

Same; Same; Same; Persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age,
disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of
themselves and their property without outside aid, are considered as
incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship.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 persons state of mental sanity will
suffice. Here, the trial judge was given ample opportunity to observe Lulu
personally when she testified before the RTC. Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules
of Court, persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak
mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their
property without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly
be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was
incapable of taking care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to
her ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact
an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the
courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact. Hernandez vs. SanJuan-
Santos, 595 SCRA 464, G.R. No. 166470 August 7, 2009
Guardianship: Where The Sanity Of A Person Is An Issue, Expert Opinion Is Not Necessary

1. Lulu was born to spouses Felix and Maria, who died while giving birth to her.
2. After the death of her mother, Lulu was left in the care of her maternal uncle, Sotero.
3. As the only child of Maria and sole testate heir of Sotero, she inherited substantial real properties
from the San Juan family.
4. In the meantime, Felix married Natividad, which union produced three offspring, Cecilio, Ma.
Victoria, and Teresa.
5. In 1957, Lulu went to live with her father and his family, and started studying at La Consolaction
College, where she only lasted up to Grade due to her violent personality.
6. In 1968, she was given full control of her estate; however, her father continued to manage her
property.
7. Felix died in 1993, hence, the siblings Cecilio, Ma. Victoria, and Teresa took over the management
of the estate.
8. While the family were managing the estate, they dissipated Lulus properties: one property was
allegedly purchased by Felix and developed into a subdivision; another was sold to the Manila
Electric Company when Lulu was made to sign a special power of attorney by her half-sister;
Cecilio also asked Lulu to authorise him to lease one lot so he can allegedly buy a car for her.
9. In September, 1998, Lulu sought the assistance of her maternal first cousin, Jovita, who
discovered that Lulu was made to live in the basement of the siblings home and given a measly
P400 daily allowance for food and medicines.
10. She was unkempt, grossly overweight; and smelled of urine; medical tests conducted on her
revealed that she had rheumatism, diabetes and tuberculosis. Despite demand from the San Juan
family for an inventory of Lulus estate, the siblings ignored it, hence Jovita filed a petition for
guardianship before the RTC.
11. The siblings moved to intervene in the case.
12. They denied dissipating Lulus property.
13. If anything, Lulu was literate and competent at the time the questioned transactions were
executed, and the any question as to the sale of the property had long prescribed.
14. During the trial, Lulu testified as to the fact of her genealogy, and testified that her properties
were dissipated by the siblings.
15. The RTC, finding Lulu to be mentally and physically weak, declared her an incompetent, and
appointed Lulu as guardian on a P1 Million bond, which the siblings in their appeal to the Court
of Appeals cited as insufficient.
16. The CA denied the appeal. Hence, they elevated their case to the Supreme Court.
17. On the other hand, Lulu, who has moved into an apartment in Marikina, was abducted at her
apartment.
18. It was later found out that the siblings took her to their house in Montalban City, allegingg that
Lulu voluntarily left the house because their guardian was maltreating her.
19. Jovita, as guardian, filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals, which the CA
granted, holding that as guardian, Jovita is entitled to custody of Lulu.
20. The siblings against elevated their case to the Supreme Court.
21. In their petitions, the siblings allege that the medical experts who examined Lulu were not experts
in psychiatry, thus her insanity was not duly proved, and she must be presumed to be competent
and in possession of full mental capacity.
22. Furthermore, under the Family Code, legitimate sisters and brothers whether full or half-blood
should support each other, hence Lulu whould live with them.
The Supreme Court:

We find the petition to be without merit.

Under Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary witness may give his opinion on the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. Lulus attending physicians
spoke and interacted with her. Such occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe her behavior
and conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her mental stage below normal.
Their opinions were admissible in evidence.

Furthermore, 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 persons state of mental sanity will suffice. Here,
the trial judge was given ample opportunity to observe Lulu personally when she testified before the RTC.
Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age,
disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property
without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship.
The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and her properties without
outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an
incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly
involves questions of fact.
As a general rule, this Court only resolves questions of law in a petition for review. We only take
cognizance of questions of fact in exceptional circumstances, none of which is present in this case. We
thus adopt the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
Similarly, we see no compelling reason to reverse the trial and appellate courts finding as to the propriety
of respondents appointment as the judicial guardian of Lulu. We therefore affirm her appointment as
such. Consequently, respondent is tasked to care for and take full custody of Lulu, and manage her estate
as well.
Inasmuch as respondents appointment as the judicial guardian of Lulu was proper, the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus in her favor was also in order.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention or by which the rightful
custody of person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. Respondent, as the judicial guardian of Lulu,
was duty-bound to care for and protect her ward. For her to perform her obligation, respondent must
have custody of Lulu. Thus, she was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus after she was unduly deprived of
the custody of her ward.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DENIED.
Petitioners are furthermore ordered to render to respondent, Lulus legal guardian, an accurate and
faithful accounting of all the properties and funds they unlawfully appropriated for themselves from the
estate of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision. If
warranted, the proper complaints should also be filed against them for any criminal liability in connection
with the dissipation of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandezs estate and her unlawful abduction from the
custody of her legal guardian.
Treble costs against petitioners.
FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 166470, August 07, 2009, CECILIO C. HERNANDEZ, MA. VICTORIA C. HERNANDEZ-
SAGUN, TERESA C. HERNANDEZ- VILLA ABRILLE AND NATIVIDAD CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS.
JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 169217, CECILIO C. HERNANDEZ, MA. VICTORIA C. HERNANDEZ- SAGUN AND TERESA C.
HERNANDEZ-VILLA ABRILLE, PETITIONERS, VS. JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS, RESPONDENT.