[] GOYENA v.

LEDESMA-Gustilo nearest kin of Julieta (3 sisters of the full-blood) all gave their consent to the
| | filing of this petition, and that Amparo has extensive experience in business
management of commercial, agricultural and corporate enterprises similar
SUMMARY to the interests of Julieta.
` The lower courts granted Amparo Ledesma Gustilo as guardian over the person  Pilar Y. Goyena, Julieta’s close friend and companion for more than 60
and property of her sister Julieta Ledesma. Goyena appealed citing that she was a years, filed an OPPOSITION to the petition for letters of guardianship
friend for than 60 years. In respondent's application for guardianship, she mentioned  Julieta is competent and sane and hence, no need for a guardian.
that her sister suffered a stroke and needed outside assistance. Her sister also owns According to her, this is proven by several letters which Julieta gave
a real estate and in controlling such she needs an assistance of a guardian and the Amparo before.
nearest kin was respondent. Petitioner filed an opposition citing that Julieta can take  In the remote event that the RTC should find Julieta incompetent, the
care of herself and that the siblings had antagonistic interests. Petitioner even gave guardian to be appointed should be: Oppositor Goyena, Bart Lacson, Fely
other names the court may appoint if she was not herself appointed. The trial court Montelibano, Jose T. Revilla, or a qualified and reputable person as may be
ruled that indeed Julieta needed assistance; that Goyena even though she has a deemed fit by the court
special bond with Julieta, at 90, is not physically fit to do such chores; that Goyena's  Ampara should not be appointed as guardian because Julieta dislikes her
reason that Julieta dislikes her sister is not sufficient to make prevent her from being (even showed letters showing her sentiments on certain matters)
a guardian. The trial court appointed Gustilo. Goyena filed a motion for  RTC found Julieta incompetent and incapable of taking care of herself and
reconsideration which was also denied. The trial court adds that the court found her properties. It appointed Amparo as her guardian.
Amparo to be the most qualified after they considered Goyena and the other names,  RTC ruled that:
given that the next of kin would not oppose. Goyena the appealed with the CA which
 Amparo is 72 years old, the youngest sister of Julieta. Goyena on the other
they also denied. The CA cites that there are no antagonistic interests between the
hand is 90 years old, a companion of Julieta for 61 years.
siblings because they are co-owners. There is also no showing that petitioner’s
 When Julieta first suffered stroke in 1991, it was Goyena who was with her.
business decisions in the past had resulted in the prejudice of Julieta. There is no
When she suffered stroke for the second time, still, it was Goyena who was
enough proof of Amparo's hostile interests against Julieta as she was the one who
with her. Hence, the bond existing between Julieta and Amparo cannot be
petitioned for the guardianship. The CA even pointed that Goyena initially concealed
denied.
the deteriorating state of mind of Julieta from the court. Lastly, that even if Goyena
 Nof Julieta’s nearest kin opposed the petition. The sisters of Amparo even
declared her disinterest as guardian, the names she mentioned have not acted, nor
agreed thereto. Goyena’s conjecture that Amparo dislikes her is not a
even indicated, their desire to act as such.
reason to deny the petition.
 Such fact also does not make Amparo not suited and unfit to perform the
DOCTRINE:
duties of a guardian.
` The issues raised before the Court are questions of fact and findings of the lower
courts with respect to guardianship should not be disturbed unless there is grievous  The qualification of Amparo to act as guardian over the person and property
error. of Julieta has been duly established
 Goyena’s MR was denied.
FACTS:  CA affirmed lower court. It ruled that the letters of Julieta to Goyena which
 ` During 1995 and 1996, Julieta Ledesma has been a patient in the Makati show the existence of rift between Julieta and her family was not proven to
Medical Center for old age, general debility and a mini-stroke be authentic and duly executed. There really is a prohibition against
 Julieta was confined to her bed and could not get up from bed without antagonistic interest but such does not exist between the 2 in this case,
assistance they being co-owners.
 Julieta owns real estate and personal properties in Metro Manila and  Hence, this petition (Rule 45).
Western Visayas with an aggregate value of 1M 
 Amparo Ledesma-Gustilo filed with the RTC of Makati a petition for letters
of guardianship over the person and properties of her sister Julieta. She ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO
alleges that: Julieta is not in the position to care for herself and that she 1. ` Whether or not Amparo Ledesma is suitable for appointment as guardian—
needs a guardian to manage her corporate and agricultural interests, all the YES. [Preliminary Consideration]
 ` The case presents a review of evidence as to the suitability of Ledesma to  In this case, there are two undisputed facts.
become Julieta’s guardian. o FIRST is that Goyena opposed the petition for appointment of
 The court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties respondent as guardian because she felt she was disliked by
and analyze, assess and weigh them to know if the lower court’s decision is Amparo; and
correct. o SECOND is that Goyena concealed the deteriorating state of mind
 The test to determine whether a question is of law of fact is whether the of Julieta before the trial court. This shows lack of good faith.
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence. RULING:
 If yes, it is a question of law. Otherwise, it is a question of fact. ` Petition DISMISSED
 This case was a question of fact, not of law. Therefore, Rule 45 does not
apply.
 [Topic] In the selection of a guardian, the judge must be given a large
discretion. When it appears that the judge exercised care and diligence in
selecting the guardian, his action should not be disturbed unless it is made
very clear that he has fallen into grievous error.
o Here, there is no evidence that lower court committed the error.
 Goyena cannot rely on the case of Garchitorena v. Sotelo.
o In that case, the interest of Perfecto Gabriel as creditor and
mortgagee of the minor-wards’ properties is antagonistic to the
interest of the wards (as he is a mortgagor).
o Hence, his appointment as guardian is erroneous. Further,
Perfecto Gabriel did not inform the court of the existing mortgage
in his favor. Furthermore, he deliberately misinformed the court
that the first mortgagee was another person when it was really
him. None of these circumstances obtain in the present case.
 Goyena cannot rely on the letters of Julieta to establish her claim that there
was a rift between Julieta and Amparo.
o The first letter merely shows Julieta’s lack of interest in future
investment, not per se amounting to antagonistic interest that
would render Amparo an unsuitable guardian.
o The second letter merely shows that when Julieta got hospitalized,
Amparo did not visit her. It also shows that there was a
disagreement as to who should run the hacienda such that Julieta
designated a certain Cheling Zabaljajaurigue but instead, Amparo
took over.
o The third and fourth letter are not at all relevant to the case.
 Goyena’s claim that Amparo’s intent in instituting the guardianship
proceedings is to take control of Julieta’s property and use the same for her
own benefit is purely speculative.
 The fact that Amparo removed Julieta from the Makati Medical Center
where she was confined after stroke does not necessarily show hostility as
Julieta was still placed under the care of the doctors and was even returned
to the hospital when she suffered another stroke.