IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF

LUCIA G. McDONALD.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA21-001

Superior Court Case No. SP0087-20

OPINION

Cite as: 2023 Guam 3

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam

Argued and submitted on December 16, 2022

Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Appellant Lucia G. McDonald:

Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Esq.

Law Office of Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, P.C. 

284 W. Chalan Santo Papa 

Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Appellee Claire Meno:

Jefferey A. Cook, Esq.

Cunliffe & Cook

A Professional Corporation

210 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 200

Hagåtña, GU 96910

Filed 

Supreme Court of Guam, Clerk of Court 

E R -. d - . ece1ve . 
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 2 of 8

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Presiding Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate 

Justice; and ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Justice Pro Tempore.

1

PER CURIAM:

[1] Among the many fundamental rights in our society is the right to control one’s person and 

decide for oneself, despite the wishes of others. It is one of the hallmarks of a free society. At the 

same time, not everyone can make proper decisions on one’s own behalf. Whether through age,

disease, or other cause, sometimes a person is unable to properly manage and take care of

themselves or their property. When a person is unwilling or incapable of admitting this, and is 

likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons, courts have the power to 

appoint a guardian. Court intervention should not come lightly, and there are important procedural 

protections in place to protect the fundamental liberty of potential wards. 

[2] Because these protections were not respected here, we vacate the Order of the trial court 

appointing the Public Guardian to serve as a temporary guardian for Lucia Garcia McDonald (“Tan 

Lula”)2and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this 

Opinion.3

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] This case began with an Ex Parte Petition for the Appointment of Guardians of the Person 

and Estate of an Incompetent Person (“Petition”) filed by Dolores M. Pangelinan and Claire M. 

Meno out of concern for their mother, Tan Lula. Dolores and Claire asserted that their mother 

1 The signatures in this Opinion reflect the titles of the justices when this matter was argued and submitted.

2 Counsel for Lucia Garcia McDonald refers to her client by the CHamoru term of respect for an elderly 

woman (“Tan”) followed by Mrs. McDonald’s “better known as” name (“Lula”). See Appellant’s Br. at 1 (July 9, 

2021). In deference to counsel’s preferred designation of her client as Tan Lula, and in recognition that referring to 

Mrs. McDonald as “Tan Lula” rather than simply by her first name is considered more culturally respectful, the court 

will refer to Lucia Garcia McDonald in this Opinion as Tan Lula.

3 This Opinion supersedes the Order issued by this court on December 22, 2022.
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 3 of 8

suffers from severe dementia and is unable to manage her own financial, legal, or medical affairs. 

The evidence for this assertion was a letter from a doctor stating that, in his view, Tan Lula suffers 

from severe dementia. At oral argument before this court, Tan Lula represented this doctor does 

not speak CHamoru—her preferred language. Oral Arg. at 10:15:11-10:15:18, 10:17:46-10:17:50

(Dec. 16, 2022). 

[4] Several of Tan Lula’s other children and Tan Lula herself objected to the Petition filed by 

Dolores and Claire. The trial court held a hearing to consider the viewpoints of the several parties. 

Though she was present, Tan Lula was not served the Petition that started these proceedings, nor 

a notice for the hearing. No testimony was taken at this hearing. Given the disagreement among 

the parties as to whether Tan Lula needed a guardian in the first place and who, if needed, that 

guardian should be, the Superior Court decided that Public Guardian Marcelene C. Santos would

serve temporarily as guardian of Tan Lula until completion of the ex parte proceedings.

[5] Tan Lula objected to this appointment. She pointed out that per Guam law, a guardian can 

be appointed over a ward in a hearing only where the prospective ward has at least five days’ notice 

of such a hearing. In response, the trial court said, “We’ll have a hearing on [February] 26th, and 

the result will still be the same. . . . [W]e’ll have a Zoom hearing and I would just tell you the 

same what I’m saying now. Okay?” Transcript (“Tr.”) at 20 (Ex Parte Appl., Feb. 17, 2021). Tan 

Lula was given notice of this hearing. At the hearing on February 26, the trial judge appointed the 

Public Guardian to be the guardian of Tan Lula pending the proceedings in the ex parte action. 

No testimony was taken at this hearing either. At oral argument before this court, Tan Lula claimed 

she was never personally served a copy of the ex parte Petition which commenced these 

proceedings. Oral Arg. at 10:18:47-10:19:11 (Dec. 16, 2022).
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 4 of 8

[6] Tan Lula timely appealed the appointment of the Public Guardian to this court. Her appeal 

was then delayed as Dolores and Claire filed a Notice that they were withdrawing their Petition in 

the Superior Court. The Superior Court could not rule on that notice, however, as the case was 

stayed because of Tan Lula’s pending appeal. This court remanded the case to the Superior Court 

to address the Notice of Withdrawal and determine what effect that withdrawal had upon the 

appointment of the Public Guardian for Tan Lula.

[7] After this remand, Claire announced that she wished to withdraw her Notice to Withdraw 

her Petition; in other words, she wished to continue to seek the appointment of a guardian for Tan 

Lula. Though Claire now asks for different relief, the trial court noted its “jurisdiction continues 

over Claire M. Meno’s reinstituted Petition for appointment of guardianship over [Tan Lula] based 

on the fact that [Tan Lula] is an incompetent person unable to care for herself.” Record on Appeal 

(“RA”), tab 95 at 4 (Dec. & Order, Aug. 29, 2022). In the meantime, Public Guardian Marcelene 

Santos remains the guardian for Tan Lula. This court was satisfied that it could proceed with the 

case. Order at 2 (Nov. 18, 2022).

II. JURISDICTION

[8] This court has jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or revoking letters of 

guardianship. 15 GCA § 4801 (2005); 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 117-

262 (2022)); 7 GCA § 3107 (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[9] “[T]he Superior Court’s power to appoint a guardian is an issue of statutory interpretation 

reviewed de novo.” In re Guardianship of Moylan (“Moylan V”), 2018 Guam 21 ¶ 7. 

//

//
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 5 of 8

IV. ANALYSIS

[10] Tan Lula raises three issues on appeal: (1) the refusal by the trial court to let her testify on 

her own behalf before appointing the Public Guardian violated 15 GCA §§ 3802 and 3803; (2) the 

failure to hold an evidentiary hearing deprived her of her constitutional right to due process; and 

(3) the appointment of the Public Guardian was not authorized as Tan Lula’s daughter, Lucilla 

McDonald, was willing to serve as guardian.4 See Appellant’s Br. at 3 (July 9, 2021). 

[11] We begin with the statutory argument. As Tan Lula correctly notes, Guam’s current 

guardianship statutes were modeled on historical California ones. See Moylan V, 2018 Guam 21 

¶ 13 (citing Guam Probate Code § 1461 (1953) (Foreword)). The 1930s version of California’s 

law is largely the same as Guam’s current code. Compare Cal. Prob. Code §§ 1460-62 (1931),

with 15 GCA §§ 3801-03 (2005). Thus, California decisions adjudicating the historical California 

code are persuasive authority in interpreting Guam’s current law. See In re Guardianship of

Moylan (“Moylan VI”), 2021 Guam 15 ¶ 21.

[12] Tan Lula is right to cite In re Waite’s Guardianship in analyzing the present 

situation. There, an elderly woman appealed a trial court decision granting letters of guardianship 

because she was incompetent. In re Waite’s Guardianship, 97 P.2d 238 (Cal. 1939) (in bank). The 

appellant in that case had wanted to testify on her own behalf but was refused by the trial court 

during a hearing to appoint a guardian. Id. at 238. The California Supreme Court reversed, 

4 Whether the issue of defective notice was properly raised on appeal is not clear. Tan Lula was never served

with a notice for the first hearing, but she does admit to getting a notice for the February 26 hearing. Appellant’s Br. 

at 7-8. Her brief does not explain if this second notice complied with our past holdings on notices for guardianship 

hearings. See In re Guardianship of Moylan (“Moylan VI”), 2021 Guam 15 ¶ 24. Because we resolve this case on 

other grounds, we need not spend too much time on this issue. Still, we want to reemphasize our holding that

notice must: be personally served on the potential ward at least five days before the hearing; detail 

the time, place, and location of the hearing; and be served in a form that can reasonably apprise the 

potential ward of the purpose of the hearing so that the potential ward can prepare objections.

Id. 
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 6 of 8

holding that the language of the law “seems to contemplate an examination.” Id. (quoting In re 

Coburn, 131 P. 352, 358 (Cal. 1913)). The court stated that “the right of a party to testify in h[er] 

own behalf is fundamental” and that “[i]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a party has 

a greater right to, or need for, h[er] own testimony than in the type of proceeding . . . . [where] 

[t]he right to control her own person and affairs was taken [away] . . . .” Id.

[13] Even setting the California case aside, an independent review of the statute supports Tan 

Lula’s position as well. Title 15 GCA § 3802 requires at least five days’ notice of the hearing 

before a guardian can be appointed. That provision also requires that the potential ward, “if able 

to attend, must be produced at the hearing.” 15 GCA § 3802 (emphasis added). Finally, 15 GCA 

§ 3803 provides, “If, upon the hearing, it appears to the court that the person in question is insane 

or incompetent, the court must appoint a guardian . . . .” 15 GCA § 3803 (emphasis added).

[14] “In cases involving statutory construction, the plain language of a statute must be the 

starting point.” Pangelinan v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 11 ¶ 23. We find it instructive that the statute 

requires the potential ward be at the hearing; the purpose of this requirement cannot only be to 

make the potential ward a mere observer. This is confirmed by looking at the appointment 

section. A trial court may appoint a guardian only if “it appears to the court” “upon [a] hearing” 

that a prospective ward is incompetent. 15 GCA § 3803. Taken together, these phrases require 

the trial court to hold some hearing before making its determination. Given that the statute requires 

a hearing and requires the prospective ward to be at the hearing, we conclude that—at minimum—

the prospective ward must be allowed the opportunity to testify at such a hearing, assuming the 

ward is capable of testifying. The trial court deprived Tan Lula of this opportunity, Oral Arg. at 

10:15:45-10:16:29, 10:28:55-10:29:46 (Dec. 16, 2022), and, in doing so, violated 15 GCA §§ 3802

and 3803.
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 7 of 8

[15] Because we find a violation of 15 GCA §§ 3802 and 3803, we decline to consider Tan 

Lula’s other arguments. See Hemlani v. Hemlani, 2015 Guam 16 ¶ 33 (“As a general appellate 

principle, a court will not address issues unnecessary to the resolution of the case before it.”). 

[16] Before concluding, we wish to note some restraint on the Opinion we issue today. 

Sometimes, a prospective ward cannot make it to a hearing. Yet, a decision on the appointment 

of a guardian could be critical. The statute requires the participation of the prospective ward “if 

able to attend.” 15 GCA § 3802 (emphasis added). Affidavits and other testimony from clinicians 

can create a—potentially rebuttable—presumption that a prospective ward cannot attend, and a 

hearing where a guardian can be appointed can still be held. See In re Andrews’ Guardianship, 

110 P.2d 399, 401-02 (Cal. 1941). This provides a limited exception when a guardian may be 

appointed without the prospective ward being given the opportunity to be heard at the hearing. 

[17] Still, in acting on behalf of prospective wards, courts must always keep in mind the wards’ 

best interests. See Moylan VI, 2021 Guam 15 ¶ 41 (citing In re Guardianship of Moylan (“Moylan 

I”), 2011 Guam 16 ¶ 17). Just because a prospective ward is not present at a hearing does not 

mean his or her perspective should be ignored by the court; the trial court must not be content to 

simply accept the views of whomever happens to be bringing a Petition for Guardianship. Another 

way this can be avoided is to ensure the prospective ward participates in the hearing in some form. 

Gone are the days when all court proceedings had to be conducted in a courtroom. With online 

video conferencing software like Zoom or even a telephone call, potentially immobile prospective 

wards can still participate in these proceedings. Conducting a contested guardianship hearing 

without the prospective ward’s involvement should be avoided if at all possible. 

//

//
In re Guardianship of McDonald, 2023 Guam 3, Opinion Page 8 of 8

V. CONCLUSION

[18] Tan Lula was not allowed to speak on her own behalf and explain her view as to why an 

invasion of her fundamental right to control her person was unwarranted. That was error. The 

Order appointing the Public Guardian to serve as Tan Lula’s temporary guardian is VACATED,

and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this 

Opinion. 

 /s/ /s/ 

 KATHERINE A. MARAMAN ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO

 Associate Justice Justice Pro Tempore

 /s/ 

ROBERT J. TORRES

Presiding Justice