HERNANDEZ Vs SAN JUAN

HERNANDEZ vs.
SAN JUAN - SANTOS
FACTS:
Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (or Lulu) was born on February 14, 1947 to the spouses Felix Hernandez and
Maria San Juan Hernandez. Unfortunately, the latter died due to complications during childbirth. After Maria's death,
Felix left Lulu in the care of her maternal uncle, Sotero C. San Juan. On December 16, 1951, Felix married Natividad
Cruz. The union produced three children, herein petitioners. Meanwhile, as the only child of Maria and the sole testate
heir of Sotero, Lulu inherited valuable real properties from the San Juan family. In 1968, upon reaching the age of
majority, Lulu was given full control of her estate. Nevertheless, because Lulu did not even finish her elementary
education, Felix continued to exercise actual administration of Lulu’s properties. Upon Felix's death in 1993, petitioners
took over the task of administering Lulu's properties.
During the period of their informal administration (from 1968 until 1993), Felix and petitioners undertook various
“projects” involving Lulu’s real properties. In 1974, Felix allegedly purchased one of Lulu’s properties for an undisclosed
amount to develop the Marilou Subdivision. Thus, Lulu signed a special power of attorney (SPA) believing that she was
authorizing Ma. Victoria to appear in court on her behalf when she was in fact unknowingly authorizing her half-sister
to sell the said property to the Manila Electric Company for P18,206,400. In September 1998, Lulu sought the
assistance of her maternal first cousin, respondent Jovita San Juan-Santos, after learning that petitioners had been
dissipating her estate. She confided to Jovita that she was made to live in the basement of petitioners’ home and was
receiving a measly daily allowance of P400 for her food and medication.
Respondent was appalled as Lulu was severely overweight, unkempt and smelled of urine. She later found out that
Lulu was occupying a cramped room lit by a single fluorescent lamp without running water. Due to Lulu's poor hygiene,
respondent brought her to several physicians for medical examination. Lulu was found to be afflicted with tuberculosis,
rheumatism and diabetes from which she was suffering several complications.
On October 2, 1998, respondent filed a petition for guardianship in the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76. She
alleged that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and managing her estate because she was of weak mind.
Subsequently, petitioners moved to intervene in the proceedings to oppose the same. Cecilio, Teresa and Ma. Victoria,
for their part, claimed that the issue of Lulu’s competency had been settled in 1968 (upon her emancipation) when the
court ordered her legal guardian and maternal uncle, Ciriaco San Juan, to deliver the properties for her to manage.
They likewise asserted that Lulu was literate and, for that reason, aware of the consequences of executing an SPA.
During the hearing, Lulu was presented and asked to testify on her genealogy and experiences with the San Juan and
Hernandez families. Lulu identified and described her parents, stepmother, half-siblings and maternal relatives. Medical
specialists testified to explain the results of Lulu’s examinations which revealed the alarming state of her health.
Furthermore, they unanimously opined that in view of Lulu’s intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile
mental state, she would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her medications.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lulu is an incompetent and the appointment of a judicial guardian over her person and property is
necessary.
HELD:
YES. 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. Petitioners are furthermore ordered to render
to respondent, Lulu’s 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 Hernandez’s estate and her unlawful abduction from the
custody of her legal guardian.

HERNANDEZ Vs SAN JUAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HERNANDEZ Vs SAN JUAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HERNANDEZ Vs SAN JUAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HERNANDEZ vs.

SAN JUAN - SANTOS

You might also like