“We find that the court’s judgment upholding the gift…is supported by competent and substantial evidence,” the Supreme Court said.
Associate Judge David A. Wiseman’s application of the law does not constitute reversible error, the Supreme Court added.
Although the Supreme Court agreed with guardian ad litem Vicente T. Salas that Joaquin’s wife and children had a cognizable interest in the settlement proceeds, “we disagree with the contention that the gift…infringed upon that interest,” the Supreme Court further ruled.
As guardian ad litem for Joaquin Mafnas’ two minor children, Salas sued Ramon Mafnas over the $650,000 gift, saying it was a product of self-dealing.
Ramon Mafnas presented a copy of an attorney-in-fact contract agreement, wherein Joaquin Mafnas granted authority to his brother Ramon “to receive, disburse, spend and use at his own discretion 15 percent” of the total amount from the total $4.4 million settlement agreement.
The 15 percent was withdrawn from the balance of the up-front cash payment of $1.5 million, court records showed.
In Nov. 2001, Joaquin Mafnas sustained severe injuries to his spinal cord while using the swimming pool at Mariana Resort & Spa.
Two days after the incident, he executed a general power of attorney which authorized his brother Ramon to act as Joaquin’s attorney-in-fact.
On Jan. 28, 2002, a settlement agreement amounting to $4.4 million was reached, with $1.5 million initial lump sum payment and the remaining amount to be paid as $9,808.15 for a fixed period of 25 years.
Joaquin Mafnas died on Feb. 2, 2003.
His wife Kiyomi claimed that her husband never told her about the attorney-in-fact agreement with Ramon Mafnas. She stated that she didn’t think that her husband would have knowingly given $650,000 to Ramon.
She acknowledged that she signed the check cashed for $650,000, but said she didn’t know what the check was for and that she signed it before Ramon Mafnas wrote in the amount.
But the high court noted that “five other people testified to having personal knowledge either through witnessing the execution of the…agreement itself or by Joaquin personally telling them about the gift.”
The high court added, “The trial court specifically considered the fact that Joaquin did not tell his wife about the gift, but held that this alone did not exhibit secrecy on the part of Ramon or the lack of transparency in the execution of the gift.”
The justices said they are “convinced that the totality of the circumstances in this case support the trial court’s finding that the gift was not procured through undue influence.”
The slip opinion was signed by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro and Associate Justice John A. Manglona.
Danilo T. Aguilar was the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant while Victorino DLG. Torres represented the defendant.
//
