Date post: | 13-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mimisabayton |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 39
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
1/39
[G.R. No. 116775. January 22, 1998.]
HEIRS OF PASCASIO RIAR!E, na"#$y, ROSE%&N RIAR!E, 'A(RI%&N an) %OR(ES RIAR!E,an) FE%O'INA *NIE% RIAR!E, an) HEIRS OF PRI'I!I+A ARNA%(O an) HEIRS OF GREGORIOARNA%(O, r#r#-#n#) /#r#0n y FE%ISA ARNA%(O S%%ANO an) %PECINO ARNA%(O,#00on#r-, -. COR! OF APPEA%S an) *ENE(IC!O ES!RA(A, r#-on)#n-.
SYNOPSIS
Private respondent brought in the Regional Trial Court an action for partition of the land left by JustaArnaldoSering !ho died intestate and !ithout issue" clai#ing to be the sole surviving heir of decedent$
Private respondent contended that petitioners could clai# only onehalf of the land !hich the decedent
had inherited fro# her parents$ %o!ever" the petitioners clai#ed that the land !as originally o!ned by
their great granduncle" A#brocio Arnaldo" !ho allegedly be&ueathed the land to his nephe!s 'o#ingo
Arnaldo" uncle of the decedent" and Juan Arnaldo" father of the decedent$ Petitioners contended that
private respondent did not have any right to the property because he !as not an heir of A#brocio Arnaldo$
The trial court sustained petitioners( contention$ On appeal" the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
the trial court$ The Court of Appeals held that private respondent is the nephe! of the decedent" being the
son of Agatonica Arre)a" halfsister of the decedent" and is therefore a third degree relative of the
decedent$ On the other hand" the petitioners are the sons and daughters of decedent(s cousins and are
therefore *fth degree relatives of the decedent$ Applying Article +,- of the Civil Code !hich provides that
the nearest e.cludes the farthest" the Court of Appeals held that the private respondent is the la!ful heir
of the decedent$ %ence" this petition$ Petitioners are &uestioning private respondent(s *liation contending
that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in holding that private respondent is the son of
Agatonica Arre)a" !ho !as the halfsister of the decedent$ Petitioners also #a/e #uch of the fact that
private respondent is not an Arnaldo" and is therefore not &uali*ed to share in the estate of the decedent$
The Supre#e Court found that petition to be !ithout #erit$ It is !ellsettled that &uestions not ta/en up
during the trial of a case cannot be raised for the *rst ti#e on appeal$ 0ith #ore reason should such a
&uestion be disallo!ed !hen raised for the *rst ti#e on appeal to the Supre#e Court$ The Court also held
that petitioners #isappreciate the relationship bet!een the decedent and private respondent$ A nephe! is
considered a collateral relative !ho #ay inherit if no descendant" ascendant" or spouse survive the
decedent$ That private respondent is only a halfblood relative is i##aterial$ This alone does not dis&ualifyhi# fro# being his aunt(s heir$ The deter#ination of !hether the relationship is of the full or halfblood is
i#portant only to deter#ine the e.tent of the share of the survivors$ %1T'Aa
SY22A34S
5$ R161'IA2 2A07 ACTIONS7 APP1A2S7 ISS41S NOT RAIS1' '4RIN8 T%1 TRIA2 CANNOT 31 RAIS1'
9OR T%1 9IRST TI61 ON APP1A2$ : It is !ellsettled" ho!ever" that &uestions not ta/en up during the trial
of a case cannot be raised for the *rst ti#e on appeal$ 0ith #ore reason" therefore" should such a &uestion
be disallo!ed !hen raised for the *rst ti#e on appeal to this Court$
-$ CI;I2 2A07 INT1STAT1 S4CC1SSION7 A N1P%10 IS A CO22AT1RA2 R12ATI;1 0%O 6AY IN%1RIT I9
NO '1SC1N'ANT" ASC1N'ANT" OR SPO4S1 S4R;I;1 T%1 '1C1'1NT$ : Petitioners #isappreciate therelationship bet!een Justa and private respondent$ As already stated" private respondent is the son of
Justa(s halfsister Agatonica$ %e is therefore Justa(s nephe!s$ A nephe! is considered a collateral relative
!ho #ay inherit if no descendant" ascendant" or spouse survive the decedent$
The deter#ination of
!hether the relationship is of the full or half blood is i#portant only to deter#ine the e.tent of the share of
the survivors$> 1'%CSI
' 1 C I S I O N
61N'O?A" J p@
This is a petition for revie! on certiorari of the decision 5 of the Court of Appeals" reversing the decision of
the Regional Trial Court" 3ranch -" of Tandag" Surigao del Sur" as !ell as the appellate court(s resolution
denying petitioners( #otion for reconsideration$ At issue is the right of the parties to a -$ hectare piece of
land in Sung/it" 6adrid" Surigao del Sur" !hich Justa ArnaldoSering left upon her death on 6arch
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
2/39
Private respondent 3enedicto 1strada is the son of Agatonica Arre)a" !hose parents !ere Pedro Arre)a and
4rsula Tubil$ 4pon the death of Pedro Arre)a" 4rsula #arried Juan Arnaldo by !ho# she had another
daughter" the decedent Justa$ - Private respondent 3enedicto 1strada is thus the nephe! of Justa by her
half sister Agatonica$
Petitioners" referred to in this case as the heirs of Pascasio 4riarte" are the !ido! and daughters of
Pascasio 4riarte$ Pascasio !as one of the sons of Pri#itiva Arnaldo and Conrado 4riarte$ %is #other"
Pri#itiva 4riarte" !as the daughter of 'o#ingo Arnaldo and Catalina A)arcon$ 'o#ingo Arnaldo and Justa(s
father" Juan Arnaldo" !ere brothers$ < Petitioners are thus grandchildren" the relatives !ithin the *fth
degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousin Pri#itiva Arnaldo 4riarte$ cdtai
The other petitioners are the children of Pri#itiva and those of her brother 8regorio$ The children of
Pri#itiva by Conrado 4riarte" aside fro# Pascasio" are Jose*na" 8audencio" Si#plicio" 'o#ingo and ;irgilio"
all surna#ed 4riarte$ The children of 8regorio Arnaldo" Pri#itiva(s brother" by Julieta Ilogon" are Jorencio"
1necia" Nicolas" 2upecino and 9elisa$ These other petitioners are thus grandchildren and relatives !ithin
the *fth degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousins 8regorio Arnaldo and Pri#itiva Arnaldo$
Private respondent 3enedicto 1strada brought this case in the Regional Trial Court for the partition of the
land left by Justa ArnaldoSering$ The land" consisting of -$ hectares" had been ac&uired by Justa as
follo!s@ D$E hectare by inheritance fro# her parents Juan Arnaldo and 4rsula Tubil" and -$- hectares by
purchase$ E Private respondent clai#ed to be the sole surviving heir of Justa" on the ground that the latter
died !ithout issue$ %e co#plained that Pascasio 4riarte !ho" he clai#ed" !or/ed the land as Justa(s
tenant" refused to give hi# Fprivate respondentG his share of the harvest$ , %e contended that Pascasio
had no right to the entire land of Justa but could clai# only onehalf of the D$E hectare land !hich Justa had
inherited fro# her parents Juan Arnaldo and 4rsula Tubil$
Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and !as substituted by his heirs$ B In their ans!er" the heirs
denied they !ere #ere tenants of Justa + but the latter(s heirs entitled to her entire land$ cdt
They clai#ed that the entire land" subHect of the case" !as originally o!ned by A#brocio Arnaldo" 5D their
great granduncle$ It !as alleged be&ueathed to 'o#ingo and Juan Arnaldo" A#brocio(s nephe!s" in a
holographic !ill e.ecuted by A#brocio in 5+DB$ 55 'o#ingo !as to receive t!othirds of the land and Juan"
onethird$ 5- The heirs clai#ed that the land had al!ays been in their possession and that in her lifeti#e
Justa never asserted e.clusive right over the property but only received her share of the harvest fro# it$ 5 of Pablo Santero" her son and father of thepetitioners( grandchildren Santero7
I;$ The 'ecision erred in ruling that petitionerappellant 9elisa P$ Jardin !ho is a niece and therefore a
collateral relative of Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero e.cludes the natural children of her son Pablo Santero"
!ho are her direct descendants andMor grand children7
;$ The 'ecision erred in applying Art$ ++-" !hen Arts$ +BB" +B+ and ++D are the applicable provisions
of la! on intestate succession7 and
;I$ The 'ecision erred in considering the orders of 'ece#ber 5 and 'ece#ber +" 5+, !hich are
provisional and interlocutory as *nal and e.ecutory$
The real issue in this case #ay be briey stated as follo!s : !ho are the legal heirs of Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$
de Santero : her niece 9elisa Pa#uti Jardin or her grandchildren Fthe natural children of Pablo SanteroGQ
The dispute at bar refers only to the intestate estate of Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero and the issue here
is /#/#r oo-0or-a#$$##- :#00on#r- /#r#0n; a- 0$$#00"a#
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
7/39
>In the Spanish Civil Code of 5BB+ the right of representation !as ad#itted only !ithin the legiti#ate
fa#ily7 so #uch so that Article +< of that Code prescribed that an illegiti#ate child can not inherit ab
intestato fro# the legiti#ate children and relatives of his father and #other$ The Civil Code of the
Philippines apparently adhered to this principle since it reproduced Article +< of the Spanish Code in its
o!n Art$ ++-" but !ith *ne inconsistency" in subse&uent articles F++D" ++E and ++BG our Code allo!s the
hereditary portion of the illegiti#ate child to pass to his o!n descendants" !hether legiti#ate or
illegiti#ate$ So that !hile Art" ++- prevents the illegiti#ate issue of a legiti#ate child fro# representing
hi# in the intestate succession of the grandparent" the illegiti#ates of an illegiti#ate child can no! do so$
This diKerence being indefensible and un!arranted" in the future revision of the Civil Code !e shall have to#a/e a choice and decide either that the illegiti#ate issue enHoys in all cases the right of representation" in
!hich case Art$ ++- #ust be suppressed7 or contrari!ise #aintain said article and #odify Articles ++E and
++B$ The *rst solution !ould be #ore in accord !ith an enlightened attitude visavis illegiti#ate children$
FReections on the Refor# of %ereditary Succession" JO4RNA2 of the Integrated 3ar of the Philippines" 9irst
=uarter" 5+," ;olu#e " Nu#ber 5" pp$ D5G$
It is therefore clear fro# Article ++- of the Ne! Civil Code that the phrase >legiti#ate children and
relatives of his father or #other> includes Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero as the !ord >relative> includes
all the /indred of the person spo/en of$ The record sho!s that fro# the co##ence#ent of this case the
only parties !ho clai#ed to be the legiti#ate heirs of the late Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero are 9elisa
Pa#uti Jardin and the si. #inor natural or illegiti#ate children of Pablo Santero$ Since petitioners herein
are barred by the provisions of Article ++-" the respondent Inter#ediate Appellate Court did not co##itany error in holding 9elisa Pa#utiJardin to be the sole legiti#ate heir to the intestate estate of the late
Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero$ cdll
2astly" petitioners clai# that the respondent Inter#ediate Appellate Court erred in ruling that the Orders of
the Court a &uo dated 'ece#ber 5" 5+, and 'ece#ber +" 5+, are *nal and e.ecutory$ Such contention
is !ithout #erit$ The %on$ Judge Jose Raval in his order dated 'ece#ber 5" 5+, held that the oppositors
Fpetitioners hereinG are not entitled to intervene and hence not allo!ed to intervene in the proceedings for
the declaration of the heirship in the intestate estate of Si#ona Pa#uti ;da$ de Santero$ Subse&uently"
Judge Jose Raval issued an order" dated 'ece#ber +" 5+," !hich declared 9elisa Pa#utiJardin to be the
sole legiti#ate heir of Si#ona Pa#uti$ The said Orders !ere never #ade the subHects of either a #otion for
reconsideration or a perfected appeal$ %ence" said orders !hich long beca#e *nal and e.ecutory are
already re#oved fro# the po!er of Hurisdiction of the lo!er court to decide ane!$ The only po!er retained
by the lo!er court" after a Hudg#ent has beco#e *nal and e.ecutory is to order its e.ecution$ The
respondent Court did not err therefore in ruling that the Order of the Court a &uo dated 6ay
0%1R19OR1" this petition is hereby 'IS6ISS1'" and the assailed decision is hereby A99IR61'$
[G.R. No. %5126=. F#ruary 28, 198=.]
CRESENCIANO %EONAR(O, #00on#r, -. COR! OF APPEA%S, 'ARIA CAI%%ES, JA'ES*RACE>E%% an) RRA% *AN? OF PARA@AE, INC., r#-on)#n-.
SY22A34S
5$ R161'IA2 2A07 1;I'1NC17 9ACT4A2 9IN'IN8S O9 T%1 CO4RT O9 APP1A2S7 81N1RA22Y NOT
'IST4R31' ON R1;I107 1C1PTIONS$ : It is a !ellestablished rule laid do!n by this Court in nu#erous
cases that *ndings of facts by the Court of Appeals are" generally" *nal and conclusive upon this Court$
The e.ceptions are$ F5G !hen the conclusion is a *nding grounded entirely on speculation7 F-G !hen the
inference #ade is #anifestly #ista/en" absurd or i#possible7 F
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
8/39
' 1 C I S I O N
'1 CASTRO" J p@
Petition for revie! on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA8$R$ No$ FeG Ordering defendants 6aria Cailles and Ja#es 3race!ell" !ithin R1SPON'1NT CO4RT 1RR1' IN %O2'IN8 T%AT T%1 PROP1RTI1S IN =41STION AR1 T%1 1C24SI;1
PROP1RTI1S O9 PRI;AT1 R1SPON'1NTS$
II
>R1SPON'1NT CO4RT 1RR1' IN %O2'IN8 T%AT P1TITION1R %AS NOT 1STA32IS%1' %IS 9I2IATION$
III
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
9/39
>R1SPON'1NT CO4RT 1RR1' IN %O2'IN8 T%AT P1TITION1R" AS T%1 8R1AT 8RAN'SON O9 9RANCISCA
R1Y1S" %AS NO 218A2 RI8%T TO IN%1RIT 3Y R1PR1S1NTATION$>
To begin !ith" the Court of Appeals found the subHect properties to be the e.clusive properties of the
private respondents$
>There being t!o properties in this case both !ill be discussed separately" as each has its o!n distinct
factual setting$ The *rst !as bought in 5+DB by 6aria Cailles under a deed of sale F1.h$ (,D(G" !hich
describes it as follo!s@
($ $ $ radicada en la calle 'esposorio de este dicho 6unicipio dentro de los li#ites y linderos si&uientes@ Por
la derecha a la entrada el solar de Teodorico Reyes por la i)&uierda el solar de 6aria Calesa FCaillesG arriba
citada por la espalda la via ferrea del Railroad Co$" y la frente la dicha calle 'esposorio(
>After declaring it in her na#e" 6aria Cailles paid the realty ta.es starting fro# 5+5B up to 5+B$
Thereafter as she and her son Narciso 3race!ell" left for Nueva 1ciHa" 9rancisca Reyes #anaged the
property and paid the realty ta. of the land$ %o!ever" for une.plained reasons" she paid and declared the
sa#e in her o!n na#e$ 3ecause of this" plaintiK decided to run after this property" erroneously thin/ing
that as the great grandson of 9rancisca Reyes" he had so#e proprietary right over the sa#e$
>The second parcel on the other hand" !as purchased by 6aria Cailles in 5+5 under a deed of sale F1.h$
(As earlier stated" the court a &uo decided the case in favor of the plaintiK principally because defendants(
evidence do not suciently sho! that the - properties !hich they bought in 5+DB and 5+5" are the sa#e
as the properties sought by the plaintiK$
>Carefully going over the evidence" 0e believe that the trial Hudge #isinterpreted the evidence as to the
identi*cation of the lands in &uestion$
>To begin !ith" the deed of sale F1.h$ (,D(G of 5+DB clearly states that the land sold to 6aria Cailles is (en la
calle 'esposorio( in 2as Pias" Ri)al !hich !as bounded by adHoining lands o!ned by persons living at the
ti#e" including the railroad trac/ of the 6anila Railroad Co$ F(la via ferrea del Railroad Co$(G$
>0ith the e.ception of the area !hich !as not disclosed in the deed" the description *ts the land no!being sought by the plaintiK" as this property is also located in 'esposorio St$ and is bounded by the 6$R$R$
Co$
>0ith these natural boundaries" there is indeed an assurance that the property described in the deed and
in the ta. declaration is one and the sa#e property$
>The change of o!ners of the adHoining lands is i##aterial since several decades have already passed
bet!een the deed and the declaration and (during that period" #any changes of abode !ould li/ely have
occurred$(
>3esides" it is a fact that defendants have only one property in 'esposorio St$ and they have paid the
realty ta.es of this property fro# 6ay -+" 5+5 up to 6ay -B" 5+B$ %ence" there is no reason to doubt
that this property is the sa#e" if not identical to the property in 'esposorio St$ !hich is no! being sought
after by the plaintiK$
>0ith respect to the other parcel !hich 6aria Cailles bought fro# Tran&uilino 6ateo in 5+5" it is true that
there is no si#ilar boundaries to be relied upon$ It is ho!ever undeniable that after declaring it in her
na#e" 6aria Cailles began paying the realty ta.es thereon on July -" 5+5 until 5+B$> FReference to
1.hibits o#itted$G -
Petitioner ta/es issue !ith the appellate court on the above *ndings of fact" forgetting that since the
present petition is one for revie! on certiorari" only &uestions of la! #ay be raised$ It is a !ellestablished
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
10/39
rule laid do!n by this Court in nu#erous cases that *ndings of facts by the Court of Appeals are" generally"
*nal and conclusive upon this Court$ The e.ceptions are@ F5G !hen the conclusion is a *nding grounded
entirely on speculation7 F-G !hen the inference #ade is #anifestly #ista/en" absurd or i#possible7 FIn support of his clai#" plaintiK sub#itted in evidence his alleged birth certi*cate sho!ing that his father
is Sotero 2eonardo" #arried to Socorro Ti#bol" his alleged #other$
>Since his supposed right !ill either rise or fall on the proper evaluation of this vital evidence" 0e have
#inutely scrutini)ed the sa#e" loo/ing for that vital lin/ connecting hi# to the fa#ily tree of the deceased
9rancisca Reyes$ %o!ever" this piece of evidence does not in any !ay lend credence to his tale$
>This is because the na#e of the child described in the birth certi*cate is not that of the plaintiK but a
certain (Alfredo 2eonardo( !ho !as born on Septe#ber 5
That is li/e!ise a factual *nding !hich #ay not be disturbed in this petition for revie! in the absence of a
clear sho!ing that said *nding is not supported by substantial evidence" or that there !as a grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the court #a/ing the *nding of fact$ pr22
Referring to the third assign#ent of error" even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero 2eonardo"
still he cannot" by right of representation" clai# a share of the estate left by the deceased 9rancisca Reyes
considering that" as found again by the Court of Appeals" he !as born outside !edloc/ as sho!n by the
fact that !hen he !as born on Septe#ber 5
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
11/39
co##on" can not aKect the hereditary rights of the relatives of a deceased partner" nor alter the order of
inheritance prescribed by la!$
' 1 C I S I O N
TORR1S" J p@
On Nove#ber -+" 5+D" Jorgia 3arte and 'onato 6endo)a" in representation of their son" Nicolas 6endo)a"
*led a !ritten a#ended co#plaint in the Court of 9irst Instance of Cebu against 2uisa Ravillan" the
guardian of their daughters 6a.i#ina" Paulina" Pelagia" and 6a.i#a" all surna#ed 3arte$ The co#plaintrecites" a#ong other things" that #any years ago Javier 3arte and 1ulalia Seno died in the pueblo of
6andaue" leaving property and" as heirs" 1spiridion" 9eliciana" Telesfora" Juana" Car#elo" Casi#ira" Jorgia"
6atea" and Pedro" surna#ed 3arte" and that" although *ve of the# divided a#ong the#selves he said
property" consisting of lands situated in the said pueblo and several carabaos" the legal portions !hich
pertained to four of the#" 1spiridion" Jorgia" 6atea" and Pedro" re#ained undivided" and these latter
continued to possess" in associated in business separately fro# their other coheirs$
The property of the said four children" !hich re#ained undivided" consists of one parcel of agricultural land
in the pueblo of 6andaue" of an area such as is usually so!n !ith a ganta of seed corn" bounded on the
north by property of 'a#asa 6analili" on the south by that of Telesfora 3arte" on the east by that of 6aria
6endo)a" and on the !est by that of 9eliciana 3arte7 another parcel of agricultural land in the barrio of
3anilad of the sa#e pueblo" of an area usually covered in so!ing a ganta and a half of seed corn" boundedon the north by the street that leads to Tala#ban" on the south by the land of 'ionisio Cortes" and on the
east and !est by that of 'ionisio Cortes and 2ucio Ceni)a" respectively7 another parcel of land" situated in
the sa#e barrio and of an area re&uired for the so!ing of - gantas of seed corn" bounded on the north by
the street leading to Tala#ban" on the south by the land of 'ionisio Cortes" on the east by an alley" and on
the !est by the property of 6arcelo Oano$
That the said brothers and sisters purchased" out of the pro*ts obtained fro# these lands" other lands" to
!it" a parcel of land in the barrio of 2ibog and pueblo of 3ogo" of an area usually so!n !ith 5 gantas of
seed corn" bounded on the north" south" east" and !est by property of %er#enegildo Pelayo" 9eliciano
Cortes" 'o#ingo Nune)" and 9eliciano Cortes" respectively7 another parcel in the sa#e barrio" of an area
sucient for < gantas of seed corn" bounded on the north by the property of 3enito CabaHug" on the south
by the lands of 6ariano CabaHug" on the east by those of A#adeo 1lore" and on the !est by that of 6ariano
6endo)a7 another parcel in the sa#e barrio" of sucient area for 5D gantas of seed corn" bounded on the
north" south" east" and !est by the lands of Ciriaco 'aHuna" Crisanto ?urra" 9eliciano Cortes" and 6ariano
9ontanosa7 another parcel in the sa#e barrio" of an area ordinarily so!n !ith < gantas of seed corn"
bounded on the north" south" east" and !est by the lands of 3enito CabaHug" 6onico PaHuga" 6arianoa
CabaHug" and 6ariano 9ontanosa" respectively7 another parcel in the said barrio" bounded on the north"
south" east" and !est by lands of 'a#iano Pelagio and Crisanto ?urra7 another parcel of an area so!n by
gantas of seed corn" bounded on the north" south" east" and !est by lands of 6ariano CabaHug" Anacleto
2a#boHon" Ciriaco 'aHuna" and Anacleto 2a#boHon" respectively7 another parcel" situated in the barrio of
Tabayho of the aforesaid pueblo" of an area so!n by 5 gantas of seed corn" bounded on the north" south"
east and !est by lands of 6a.i#ino 9ernan" 'o#ingo 9ontanosa" ;icente Odian" and 6eliton 6endo)a7
another parcel in the barrio of Cadaohan of the pueblo of Tabugon" bounded on the north" south" east" and!est by lands of Santiago Ortelano" a cree/" and lands of Jose Arfon and Santiago Ortelano" respectively7
and another parcel in the barrio of 'ughoy" Tabugon" of an area so!n !ith -E gantas of seed" bounded on
the north" south" east" and !est by property of 9eliciano Cortes" 9eli. 6analili" Santiago Ortelano" and
'onato 6endo)a7 eleven plo! carabaos" three carabao co!s !ith four calves" and four head of cattle"
ac&uired by the co##unity7 a #ortgage credit of 5
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
12/39
not agree to the partition" on the prete.t that" as the ad#inistratri. of that property" she had to pay debts
of the deceased$
That three years having elapsed" up to the ti#e of the co#plaint" and the debts having been settled" as
ad#itted by the defendant herself" the latter !as re&uested to present the accounts" !hich she absolutely
refused to do" and that she continued in the possession and to enHoy the usufruct of the said property"
!ithout the consent or intervention of the plaintiKs7 that Jorgia 3arte" Nicolas 6endo)a" the heir of 6atea
3arte" and the heirs of Pedro 3arte" na#ed 6a.i#ina" Paulina" Pelagia" and 6a.i#a 3arte" !ere then
entitled to the property in &uestion" !hich should be divided a#ong the# in three e&ual parts" one to be
allotted to Jorgia 3arte" another to Nicolas 6endo)a" and the other to the heirs of Pedro 3arte$
The de#and further recites that the plaintiKs desire that a division be #ade and therefore pray that a
partition of the property" both real and personal" be decreed and also of the pro*ts that #ay have accrued
thereto during the ti#e that it !as in the possession of and usufruct enHoyed by the defendant" in
accordance !ith the respective rights of the parties" and that" in case that the distribution can not be
#ade !ithout detri#ent to such rights" the property be ordered sold and the proceeds divided a#ong the
parties$ The plaintiKs re&uested also that the costs of the suit be assessed against the defendant$
A de#urrer to the co#plaint !as interposed" although the record does not sho! ho! it !as decided$ The
defendants in their ans!er denied all the allegations of the a#ended co#plaint$
The case ca#e to trial and" the testi#ony having been adduced by both parties" the e.hibits beingattached to the record" the Hudge" in vie! of the conclusions reached therefro# and on the date of
Nove#ber " 5+D" rendered Hudg#ent in favor of the plaintiKs" by ordering the partition of the property
#entioned" in the #anner and portions e.pressed in the Hudg#ent" and decreeing that such partition #ust
be #ade in accordance !ith sections 5BE to 5+E of the Code of Civil Procedure" !ith respect to the real
property" and that the *ve carabaos should be distributed in three e&ual allot#ents in the #anner
deter#ined for the real property$ The costs !ere charged to the plaintiKs and assessed against the
divisible property$
Counsel for the defendant e.cepted to this Hudg#ent and prayed for its annul#ent and a ne! trial$ The
#otion !as overruled" to !hich e.ception !as ta/en" and the appellant duly presented his bill of
e.ceptions" !hich !as approved and for!arded to this court$
A de#and is #ade in the co#plaint for the partition of the co##on property held undividedly by four
brothers and sisters !ho for#ed a partnership for the use and enHoy#ent of the sa#e$
In relating the origin of a part of the property of the four brothers and sisters Hoined in partnership" the
plaintiKs stated that their deceased parents" Javier 3arte and 1ulalia Seno" left at their death nine children"
above #entioned" and property consisting of carabaos" a credit" and lands situated in the pueblo of
6andaue" and that" their property having been divided a#ong their nine children" that portion thereof
!hich corresponded to the brothers and sisters 1spiridion" Jorgia" 6atea" and Pedro re#ained undivided
and its o!ners" associated together" continued undivided and its o!ners" associated together" continued to
enHoy it and #anage it in co##on" separately fro# their other brothers and sisters$
Although it be decided that it !as not necessary to prove that the said nine brothers and sisters !ere
un&uestionably the children of the deceased Javier 3arte and 1ulalia" and are therefore their only heirs" it
should at least have been sho!n that a la!ful partition !as #ade a#ong their nine children" of the
property left by both spouses at their death" and that the three parcels of land situated in the pueblo of
6andaue" and said to be possessed by the said four brothers and sisters associated together" !ere
a!arded to the sa#e$ Such a partition" !ere it #ade" should appear in an authentic docu#ent" !hich !as
not e.hibited !ith the co#plaint" since article 5D,B of the civil Code provides >A division legally #ade
confers upon each heir the e.clusive o!nership of the property !hich #ay have been a!arded to hi#$>
1ven though titles of o!nership of the said property !ere not e.hibited" if it had been sho!n that the
6andaue lands had been a!arded by partition to the fourth brothers and sisters afore#entioned" there
!ould have been pri#a facie proof that they !ere and certainly are the o!ners thereof$
Section 5B5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads@ >A person having or holding real estate !ith others" in
any for# of Hoint tenancy or tenancy in co##on" #ay co#pel partition thereof in the #anner hereinafter
prescribed$>
Section 5B< of the sa#e code also prescribes@ >The co#plaint in an action for partition shall set forth the
nature and e.tent of the plaintiK(s title and contain an ade&uate description of the real estate of !hich
partition is de#anded" and na#e each tenant in co##on" coparcener" or other person interested therein"
as defendants$>
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
13/39
So that he !ho de#ands or clai#s a partition of the property #ust have the status of a coproprietor or
coo!ner of the property the partition of !hich is as/ed for7 and not!ithstanding the fact that Jorgia 3arte
and the son of 6atea 3arte" through his representative" aver that they are the coo!ners of the said
6andaue lands and of others situated in the #unicipalities of 3ogo and Tabogon" they have not proved
their aver#ent by titles !hich establish the co##on o!nership alleged$ A #ere ar#ation !ithout proofs
is insucient" since the defendant party" representing the four daughters of the deceased Pedro 3arte"
absolutely denied all the allegations of the co#plaint$
It is true that the defendant 2uisa Ravilan stated in her s!orn testi#ony that" as the guardian of her
children" she had an interest in the lands situated in 6andaue and that the parcels of land situated in
Tabogon did not belong to her" nor to her deceased husband" Pedro 3arte7 but she positively ar#ed that
the seven parcels of land situated in 3ogo !ere ac&uired by her said husband during his lifeti#e and
during his #arriage !ith her" and she e.hibited *ve docu#ents" one of the# the original of a possessory
infor#ation" as titles proving the o!nership of her said husband$
Against the aver#ent of the plaintiKs appears that of the defendant in the na#e of her four daughters" the
heirs if Pedro 3arte" and !hile the plaintiK party e.hibited no title of o!nership !hatever" not even of the
lands situated in the pueblo of 3ogo and !hich the defendant ar#ed !ere ac&uired by her deceased
husband" Pedro 3arte" during his lifeti#e" it is an indisputable fact that the latter(s !ido!" !ho in her o!n
behalf and in the na#e of her four daughters clai#s the e.clusive o!nership of the lands in 3ogo" is at the
present ti#e in possession thereof" and #oreover sho!ed docu#ents !hich prove the ac&uisition of so#eof the#$ The testi#ony of the defendant to the eKect that she only had a share in the lands of 6andaue"
but not in those situated in Tabogon" is !orthy of serious consideration" although she positively ar#ed
that those situated in Tabogon" is !orthy of serious consideration" although she positively ar#ed that
those situated in 3ogo belonged to her husband and to herself$ As she is in possession of these lands" and
as the record of the trial sho!s no proof that they belonged to the Hoint association or partnership e.isting
bet!een the said four brothers and sisters" there are no legal provisions that !ould support the issuance of
the issuance of an order for the partition of the said lands in 3ogo" of !hich the !ido! of their alleged
for#er o!ner is no! in possession$
In actions for the partition of property held in co##on it is assu#ed that the parties are all coo!ners or
coproprietors of the undivided property to be partitioned$ The &uestion of co##on o!nership need not be
gone into at the ti#e of the trial" but only ho!" in !hat #anner" and in !hat proportion the said property ofco##on o!nership shall be distributed a#ong the interested parties by order of court$
6oreover" for the purposes of the partition de#anded" it #ust be re#e#bered that the hereditary
succession of the deceased 1spiridion 3arte" !ho it is said left no legiti#ate descendants at his death"
should be divided a#ong his eight brothers and sisters !ho #ay have survived hi#" and in case any of
these have died" the children of his deceased brother or sister" that is" his nephe!s and nieces per stripes"
are entitled to share in his inheritance" according to the provisions of articles +,$ +" +B of the Civil
Code" the last cited of !hich prescribes@ >Should brothers survive !ith nephe!s" children of brothers of the
!hole blood" the for#er shall inherit per capita and the latter per stripes"> representing their respective
fathers or #others" brothers or sisters of the deceased$
The record does not sho! !hether Jorgia 3arte left any legiti#ate heir at her death" and if she did not" hercollateral relatives succeed her in the #anner provided by la!$
It is to be noted that the partnership contract entered into by the fourth brothers and sisters can not aKect
the hereditary rights !hich belong to the relatives of the deceased predecessor in interest nor alter the
order prescribed by la! for testate or intestate successions$ FArts$ " ,
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
14/39
vs$
HEIRS OF 'ARCIANA RS!IA +(A. (E (A'IAN, na"#$y, GI%%ER'O R. (A'IAN an) JOSE R.(A'IAND HEIRS OF HOR!ENCIA RS!IA CR4, na"#$y, !ERESI!A CR4SISON, HORACIO R.CR4, JOSEFINA CR4RO(I%, A'E%IA CR4ENRIE4 an) FI(E% R. CR4, JR.D HEIRS OFRO'AN RS!IA, SR., na"#$y, JOSEFINA RS!IA A%*ANO, +IRGINIA RS!IA PARAISO, RO'ANRS!IA, JR., SERGIO RS!IA, FRANCISCO RS!IA, %E!ICIA RS!IA'IRAN(AD an) GI%%ER'INARS!IA, a- Oo-0or-D5an) GI%%ER'A RS!IA, a- In#r#nor,-Respondents$ Fthe natural child of 9elisa 'elgadoG" 5E signi*cantly o#itting
any #ention of the na#e and other circu#stances of his father$ 5, Nevertheless" oppositors Fno!
respondentsG insist that the absence of a record of the alleged #arriage did not necessarily #ean that no
#arriage ever too/ place$
Josefa 'elgado died on Septe#ber B" 5+- !ithout a !ill$ She !as survived by 8uiller#o Rustia and so#e
collateral relatives" the petitioners herein$ Several #onths later" on June 5E" 5+Seorita> or un#arried !o#an$
The oppositors Frespondents hereG" on the other hand" insist that the absence of a #arriage certi*cate didnot of necessity #ean that no #arriage transpired$ They #aintain that 8uiller#o Rustia and Josefa
'elgado !ere #arried on June
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
25/39
8uiller#o Rustia and Josefa 'elgado never had any children$ 0ith no children of their o!n" they too/ into
their ho#e the youngsters 8uiller#ina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia$ These children" never legally
adopted by the couple" !ere !hat !as /no!n in the local dialect as a#puna#punan$
'uring his life !ith Josefa" ho!ever" 8uiller#o Rustia did #anage to father an illegiti#ate child" 5+ the
intervenorrespondent 8uiller#a Rustia" !ith one A#paro Sagarbarria$ According to 8uiller#a" 8uiller#o
Rustia treated her as his daughter" his o!n esh and blood" and she enHoyed open and continuous
possession of that status fro# her birth in 5+-D until her father(s de#ise$ In fact" Josefa 'elgado(s obituary
!hich !as prepared by 8uiller#o Rustia" na#ed the intervenorrespondent as one of their children$ Also"
her report card fro# the 4niversity of Santo To#as identi*ed 8uiller#o Rustia as her parentMguardian$ -D
Oppositors Frespondents hereG nonetheless posit that 8uiller#a Rustia has no interest in the intestate
estate of 8uiller#o Rustia as she !as never duly ac/no!ledged as an illegiti#ate child$ They contend that
her right to co#pulsory ac/no!ledge#ent prescribed !hen 8uiller#o died in 5+ and that she cannot
clai# voluntary ac/no!ledge#ent since the docu#ents she presented !ere not the authentic !ritings
prescribed by the ne! Civil Code$ -5
On January " 5+" #ore than a year after the death of Josefa 'elgado" 8uiller#o Rustia *led a petition
for the adoption -- of their a#puna#punan 8uiller#ina Rustia$ %e stated under oath >that he had no
legiti#ate" legiti#ated" ac/no!ledged natural children or natural children by legal *ction$> -< The petition
!as overta/en by his death on 9ebruary -B" 5+$
2i/e Josefa 'elgado" 8uiller#o Rustia died !ithout a !ill$ %e !as survived by his sisters 6arciana Rustia
vda$ de 'a#ian and %ortencia RustiaCru)" and by the children of his predeceased brother Ro#an Rustia
Sr$" na#ely" Jose*na Rustia Albano" ;irginia Rustia Paraiso" Ro#an Rustia" Jr$" Sergio Rustia" 9rancisco
Rustia and 2eticia Rustia 6iranda$ -
ANT1C1'1NT PROC11'IN8S
On 6ay B" 5+E" 2uisa 'elgado vda$ de 'anao" the daughter of 2uis 'elgado" *led the original petition for
letters of ad#inistration of the intestate estates of the >spouses Josefa 'elgado and 8uiller#o Rustia> !ith
the RTC of 6anila" 3ranch EE$ -E This petition !as opposed by the follo!ing@ F5G the sisters of 8uiller#o
Rustia" na#ely" 6arciana Rustia vda$ de 'a#ian and %ortencia RustiaCru)7 -, F-G the heirs of 8uiller#o
Rustia(s late brother" Ro#an Rustia" Sr$" and F
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
26/39
As the estates of both decedents have not as yet been settled" and their settle#ent is considered
consolidated in this proceeding in accordance !ith la!" a single ad#inistrator therefor is both proper and
necessary" and" as the petitioner Carlota 'elgado ;da$ de dela Rosa has established her right to the
appoint#ent as ad#inistratri. of the estates" the Court hereby APPOINTS her as the A'6INISTRATRI of
the intestate estate of the decedent JOS19A '128A'O in relation to the estate of 'R$ 84I221R6O J$
R4STIA$
Accordingly" let the corresponding 21TT1RS O9 A'6INISTRATION issue to the petitioner CAR2OTA '128A'O
;'A$ '1 '1 2A ROSA upon her *ling of the re&uisite bond in the su# of 9I;1 %4N'R1' T%O4SAN' P1SOS
FPEDD"DDD$DDG$
9inally" oppositor 84I221R6INA R4STIA R4STIA is hereby ordered to cease and desist fro# her acts of
ad#inistration of the subHect estates" and is li/e!ise ordered to turn over to the appointed ad#inistrati. all
her collections of the rentals and inco#e due on the assets of the estates in &uestion" including all
docu#ents" papers" records and titles pertaining to such estates to the petitioner and appointed
ad#inistrati. CAR2OTA '128A'O ;'A$ '1 '1 2A ROSA" i##ediately upon receipt of this 'ecision$ The
sa#e oppositor is hereby re&uired to render an accounting of her actual ad#inistration of the estates in
controversy !ithin a period of si.ty F,DG days fro# receipt hereof$ ATcaI'
SO OR'1R1'$ -B
On 6ay -D" 5++D" oppositors *led an appeal !hich !as denied on the ground that the record on appeal!as not *led on ti#e$ -+ They then *led a petition for certiorari and #anda#us
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
27/39
partition a#ong the#selves the intestate estate of Josefa '$ Rustia in accordance !ith the proportion
referred to in this decision7
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
28/39
to Josefa 'elgado as 6rs$ 8uiller#o Rustia" 5 the passport issued to her as Josefa '$ Rustia" - the
declaration under oath of no less than 8uiller#o Rustia that he !as #arried to Josefa 'elgado < and the
titles to the properties in the na#e of >8uiller#o Rustia #arried to Josefa 'elgado"> #ore than ade&uately
support the presu#ption of #arriage$ These are public docu#ents !hich are pri#a facie evidence of the
facts stated therein$ No clear and convincing evidence sucient to overco#e the presu#ption of the
truth of the recitals therein !as presented by petitioners$
Second" 1lisa vda$ de Anson" petitioners( o!n !itness !hose testi#ony they pri#arily relied upon to
support their position" con*r#ed that 8uiller#o Rustia had proposed #arriage to Josefa 'elgado and that
eventually" the t!o had >lived together as husband and !ife$> This again could not but strengthen the
presu#ption of #arriage$
Third" the baptis#al certi*cate E !as conclusive proof only of the baptis# ad#inistered by the priest !ho
bapti)ed the child$ It !as no proof of the veracity of the declarations and state#ents contained therein" ,
such as the alleged single or un#arried F>Seorita>G civil status of Josefa 'elgado !ho had no hand in its
preparation$
Petitioners failed to rebut the presu#ption of #arriage of 8uiller#o Rustia and Josefa 'elgado$ In this
Hurisdiction" every intend#ent of the la! leans to!ard legiti#i)ing #atri#ony$ Persons d!elling together
apparently in #arriage are presu#ed to be in fact #arried$ This is the usual order of things in society and"
if the parties are not !hat they hold the#selves out to be" they !ould be living in constant violation of the
co##on rules of la! and propriety$ Se#per praesu#itur pro #atri#onio$ Al!ays presu#e #arriage$
T%1 2A0942 %1IRS O9 JOS19A '128A'O
To deter#ine !ho the la!ful heirs of Josefa 'elgado are" the &uestioned status of the cohabitation of her
#other 9elisa 'elgado !ith Ra#on Osorio #ust *rst be addressed$ %cTS'a
As #entioned earlier" presu#ptions of la! are either conclusive or disputable$ Conclusive presu#ptions
are inferences !hich the la! #a/es so pere#ptory that no contrary proof" no #atter ho! strong" #ay
overturn the#$ B On the other hand" disputable presu#ptions" one of !hich is the presu#ption of
#arriage" can be relied on only in the absence of sucient evidence to the contrary$
2ittle !as said of the cohabitation or alleged #arriage of 9elisa 'elgado and Ra#on Osorio$ The oppositorsFno! respondentsG chose #erely to rely on the disputable presu#ption of #arriage even in the face of
such countervailing evidence as F5G the continued use by 9elisa and 2uis Fher son !ith Ra#on OsorioG of
the surna#e 'elgado and F-G 2uis 'elgado(s and Caridad Concepcion(s Partida de Casa#iento +
identifying 2uis as >hiHo natural de 9elisa 'elgado> Fthe natural child of 9elisa 'elgadoG$ ED
All things considered" !e rule that these factors suciently overca#e the rebuttable presu#ption of
#arriage$ 9elisa 'elgado and Ra#on Osorio !ere never #arried$ %ence" all the children born to 9elisa
'elgado out of her relations !ith Ra#on Osorio and 2ucio Ca#po" na#ely" 2uis and his halfblood siblings
Na)ario" 1dilberta" Jose" Jacoba" 8orgonio and the decedent Josefa" all surna#ed 'elgado" E5 !ere her
natural children$ E-
Pertinent to this #atter is the follo!ing observation@
Suppose" ho!ever" that A begets !ith 3" and Y !ith another !o#an" C7 then and Y !ould be natural
brothers and sisters" but of halfblood relationship$ Can they succeed each other reciprocallyQ
The la! prohibits reciprocal succession bet!een illegiti#ate children and legiti#ate children of the sa#e
parent" even though there is un&uestionably a tie of blood bet!een the#$ It see#s that to allo! an
illegiti#ate child to succeed ab intestato Ffro#G another illegiti#ate child begotten !ith a parent diKerent
fro# that of the for#er" !ould be allo!ing the illegiti#ate child greater rights than a legiti#ate child$
Not!ithstanding this" ho!ever" !e sub#it that succession should be allo!ed" even !hen the illegiti#ate
brothers and sisters are only of the halfblood$ The reason i#pelling the prohibition on reciprocal
successions bet!een legiti#ate and illegiti#ate fa#ilies does not apply to the case under consideration$
That prohibition has for its basis the diKerence in category bet!een illegiti#ate and legiti#ate relatives$There is no such diKerence !hen all the children are illegiti#ate children of the sa#e parent" even if
begotten !ith diKerent persons$ They all stand on the sa#e footing before the la!" Hust li/e legiti#ate
children of halfblood relation$ 0e sub#it" therefore" that the rules regarding succession of legiti#ate
brothers and sisters should be applicable to the#$ 9ull blood illegiti#ate brothers and sisters should
receive double the portion of halfblood brothers and sisters7 and if all are either of the full blood or of the
halfblood" they shall share e&ually$ E
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
29/39
%ere" the abovena#ed siblings of Josefa 'elgado !ere related to her by fullblood" e.cept 2uis 'elgado"
her halfbrother$ Nonetheless" since they !ere all illegiti#ate" they #ay inherit fro# each other$
Accordingly" all of the# are entitled to inherit fro# Josefa 'elgado$
0e note" ho!ever" that the petitioners before us are already the nephe!s" nieces" grandnephe!s and
grandnieces of Josefa 'elgado$ 4nder Article +- of the ne! Civil Code" the right of representation in the
collateral line ta/es place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters Fnephe!s and niecesG$
Conse&uently" it cannot be e.ercised by grandnephe!s and grandnieces$ E Therefore" the only collateral
relatives of Josefa 'elgado !ho are entitled to parta/e of her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters"
or their children !ho !ere still alive at the ti#e of her death on Septe#ber B" 5+-$ They have a vested
right to participate in the inheritance$ EE The records not being clear on this #atter" it is no! for the trial
court to deter#ine !ho !ere the surviving brothers and sisters For their childrenG of Josefa 'elgado at the
ti#e of her death$ Together !ith 8uiller#o Rustia" E, they are entitled to inherit fro# Josefa 'elgado in
accordance !ith Article 5DD5 of the ne! Civil Code@ E
Art$ 5DD5$ Should brothers and sisters or their children survive !ith the !ido! or !ido!er" the latter
shall be entitled to onehalf of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other
onehalf$
Since Josefa 'elgado had heirs other than 8uiller#o Rustia" 8uiller#o could not have validly adHudicated
Josefa(s estate all to hi#self$ Rule " Section 5 of the Rules of Court is clear$ AdHudication by an heir of the
decedent(s entire estate to hi#self by #eans of an adavit is allo!ed only if he is the sole heir to the
estate@
S1CTION 5$ 1.traHudicial settle#ent by agree#ent bet!een heirs$ : If the decedent left no !ill and no
debts and the heirs are all of age" or the #inors are represented by their Hudicial or legal representatives
duly authori)ed for the purpose" the parties #ay" !ithout securing letters of ad#inistration" divide the
estate a#ong the#selves as they see *t by #eans of a public instru#ent *led in the oce of the register
of deeds" and should they disagree" they #ay do so in an ordinary action of partition$ If there is only one
heir" he #ay adHudicate to hi#self the estate by #eans of an adavit *led in the oce of the register of
deeds$ $ $ $ Fe#phasis suppliedG
T%1 2A0942 %1IRS O9 84I221R6O R4STIA
Intervenor Fno! corespondentG 8uiller#a Rustia is an illegiti#ate child EB of 8uiller#o Rustia$ As such"
she #ay be entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an ad#ission or recognition of paternity$ E+
She" ho!ever" clai#ed the status of an ac/no!ledged illegiti#ate child of 8uiller#o Rustia only after the
death of the latter on 9ebruary -B" 5+ at !hich ti#e it !as already the ne! Civil Code that !as in eKect$
T1'A%I
4nder the old Civil Code F!hich !as in force till August -+" 5+EDG" illegiti#ate children absolutely had no
hereditary rights$ This draconian edict !as" ho!ever" later rela.ed in the ne! Civil Code !hich granted
certain successional rights to illegiti#ate children but only on condition that they !ere *rst recogni)ed or
ac/no!ledged by the parent$
4nder the ne! la!" recognition #ay be co#pulsory or voluntary$ ,D Recognition is co#pulsory in any of
the follo!ing cases@
F5G in cases of rape" abduction or seduction" !hen the period of the oKense coincides #ore or less !ith
that of the conception7
F-G !hen the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father For #otherG ,5
by the direct acts of the latter or of his fa#ily7
F
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
30/39
#ere ground by !hich she could have co#pelled ac/no!ledg#ent through the courts$ , 9urther#ore"
any FHudicialG action for co#pulsory ac/no!ledg#ent has a dual li#itation@ the lifeti#e of the child and the
lifeti#e of the putative parent$ ,E On the death of either" the action for co#pulsory recognition can no
longer be *led$ ,, In this case" intervenor 8uiller#a(s right to clai# co#pulsory ac/no!ledg#ent
prescribed upon the death of 8uiller#o Rustia on 9ebruary -B" 5+$
The clai# of voluntary recognition F8uiller#a(s second groundG #ust li/e!ise fail$ An authentic !riting" for
purposes of voluntary recognition" is understood as a genuine or indubitable !riting of the parent Fin this
case" 8uiller#o RustiaG$ This includes a public instru#ent or a private !riting ad#itted by the father to be
his$ , 'id intervenor(s report card fro# the 4niversity of Santo To#as and Josefa 'elgado(s obituary
prepared by 8uiller#o Rustia &ualify as authentic !ritings under the ne! Civil CodeQ 4nfortunately not$
The report card of intervenor 8uiller#a did not bear the signature of 8uiller#o Rustia$ The fact that his
na#e appears there as intervenor(s parentMguardian holds no !eight since he had no participation in its
preparation$ Si#ilarly" !hile !itnesses testi*ed that it !as 8uiller#o Rustia hi#self !ho drafted the notice
of death of Josefa 'elgado !hich !as published in the S4N'AY TI61S on Septe#ber 5D" 5+-" that
published obituary !as not the authentic !riting conte#plated by the la!$ 0hat could have been ad#itted
as an authentic !riting !as the original #anuscript of the notice" in the hand!riting of 8uiller#o Rustia
hi#self and signed by hi#" not the ne!spaper clipping of the obituary$ The failure to present the original
signed #anuscript !as fatal to intervenor(s clai#$ CSAa'1
The sa#e #isfortune befalls the a#puna#punan" 8uiller#ina Rustia Rustia" !ho !as never adopted inaccordance !ith la!$ Although a petition for her adoption !as *led by 8uiller#o Rustia" it never ca#e to
fruition and !as dis#issed upon the latter(s death$ 0e ar# the ruling of both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals holding her a legal stranger to the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit
fro# the# ab intestato$ 0e &uote@
Adoption is a Huridical act" a proceeding in re#" !hich created bet!een t!o persons a relationship si#ilar
to that !hich results fro# legiti#ate paternity and *liation$ Only an adoption #ade through the court" or in
pursuance !ith the procedure laid do!n under Rule ++ of the Rules of Court is valid in this Hurisdiction$ It is
not of natural la! at all" but is !holly and entirely arti*cial$ To establish the relation" the statutory
re&uire#ents #ust be strictly carried out" other!ise" the adoption is an absolute nullity$ The fact of
adoption is never presu#ed" but #ust be ar#atively proven by the person clai#ing its e.istence$ ,B
Pre#ises considered" !e rule that t!o of the clai#ants to the estate of 8uiller#o Rustia" na#ely"
intervenor 8uiller#a Rustia and the a#puna#punan 8uiller#ina Rustia Rustia" are not la!ful heirs of the
decedent$ 4nder Article 5DD- of the ne! Civil Code" if there are no descendants" ascendants" illegiti#ate
children" or surviving spouse" the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased$
Therefore" the la!ful heirs of 8uiller#o Rustia are the re#aining clai#ants" consisting of his sisters" ,+
nieces and nephe!s$ D
1NTIT2161NT TO 21TT1RS O9 A'6INISTRATION
An ad#inistrator is a person appointed by the court to ad#inister the intestate estate of the decedent$
Rule B" Section , of the Rules of Court prescribes an order of preference in the appoint#ent of an
ad#inistrator@
Sec$ ,$ 0hen and to !ho# letters of ad#inistration granted$ : If no e.ecutor is na#ed in the !ill" or the
e.ecutor or e.ecutors are inco#petent" refuse the trust" or fail to give a bond" or a person dies intestate"
ad#inistration shall be granted@
FaG To the surviving husband or !ife" as the case #ay be" or ne.t of /in" or both" in the discretion of the
court" or to such person as such surviving husband or !ife" or ne.t of /in" re&uests to have appointed" if
co#petent and !illing to serve7 I'S1A%
FbG If such surviving husband or !ife" as the case #ay be" or ne.t of /in" or the person selected by
the#" be inco#petent or un!illing" or if the husband or !ido! or ne.t of /in" neglects for thirty F
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
31/39
It is in this light that !e see *t to appoint Hoint ad#inistrators" in the persons of Carlota 'elgado vda$ de de
la Rosa and a no#inee of the nephe!s and nieces of 8uiller#o Rustia$ They are the ne.t of /in of the
deceased spouses Josefa 'elgado and 8uiller#o Rustia" respectively$
0%1R19OR1" the petition F!hich see/s to reinstate the 6ay 55" 5++D decision of the RTC 6anila" 3ranch
EEG is hereby '1NI1'$ The assailed October -" -DD- decision of the Court of Appeals is A99IR61' !ith the
follo!ing #odi*cations@
5$ 8uiller#o Rustia(s June 5E" 5+< adavit of selfadHudication is hereby ANN4221'$
-$ the intestate estate of 8uiller#o Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of Josefa 'elgado$
The re#aining half shall pertain to FaG the full and halfsiblings of Josefa 'elgado !ho survived her and FbG
the children of any of Josefa 'elgado(s full or halfsiblings !ho #ay have predeceased her" also surviving
at the ti#e of her death$ Josefa 'elgado(s grandnephe!s and grandnieces are e.cluded fro# her estate$ In
this connection" the trial court is hereby ordered to deter#ine the identities of the relatives of Josefa
'elgado !ho are entitled to share in her estate$
The Court" too" has had occasions to
e.plain this >iron curtain"> *rstly" in the early case of 8rey v$ 9abie FD O$8$ 9irst S No$ Article ++- of the Ne!
Civil Code $ $ $ prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato bet!een the illegiti#ate child and the
legiti#ate children and relatives of the father or #other of said legiti#ate child$ They #ay have a natural
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
32/39
tie of blood" but this is not recogni)ed by la! for the purposes of Article ++-$ 3et!een the legiti#ate fa#ily
and the illegiti#ate fa#ily there is presu#ed to be an intervening antagonis# and inco#patibility$ The
illegiti#ate child is disgracefully loo/ed do!n upon by the legiti#ate fa#ily7 the legiti#ate fa#ily is" in
turn" hated by the illegiti#ate child7 the latter considers the privileged condition of the for#er" and the
resources of !hich it is thereby deprived7 the for#er" in turn" sees in the illegiti#ate child nothing but the
product of sin" palpable evidence of a ble#ish bro/en in life7 the la! does no #ore than recogni)e this
truth" by avoiding further grounds of resent#ent$> The rule in Article ++- has consistently been applied by
the Court in several other cases$ Thus" it has ruled that !here the illegiti#ate child had halfbrothers !ho
!ere legiti#ate" the latter had no right to the for#er(s inheritance7 FCorpus v$ Corpus" BE SCRA E,G thatthe legiti#ate collateral relatives of the #other cannot succeed fro# her illegiti#ate child7 FCacho v$ 4dan"
5< SCRA ,+
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
33/39
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
34/39
%1IR TO T%1 1STAT1 O9 '1C1'1NT J4AN 6AN412" F%ASG ;IRT4A22Y 8RANT1' SAI' R1SPON'1NT T%1
STAT4S O9 AN %1IR 6ANI91ST2Y CONTRARY TO 2A0" 6ORA2S AN' P432IC PO2ICY$
>
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
35/39
Order of Preference Order of Concurrence
FaG 2egiti#ate Children FaG 2egiti#ate Children and
and 'escendants 'escendants" Illegiti#ate
Children and 'escendants"
and Surviving Spouse
FbG 2egiti#ate Parents FbG 2egiti#ate Parents and
and Ascendants Ascendants" Illegiti#ate
Children and 'escendants"
and Surviving Spouse
FcG Illegiti#ate Children and FcG Illegiti#ate Children
'escendants Fin the and 'escendants and
absence of IC's and Surviving Spouse
2PAs" the Illegiti#ate ParentsG
FdG Surviving Spouse FdG Surviving Spouse and
Illegiti#ate Parents
FeG 3rothers and FeG 3rothers and
SistersMNephe!s and SistersMNephe!s and
Nieces Nieces and Surviving
Spouse
FfG Other Collateral Relatives FfG Alone
F!ithin the *fth civil degreeG
FgG State FgG Alone
In her ans!er to the co#plaint" 6odesta candidly ad#itted that she herself is not an intestate heir of Juan
6anuel$ She is right$ A !ard Fa#ponG" !ithout the bene*t of for#al FHudicialG adoption" is neither a
co#pulsory nor a legal heir$ 5co#pulsory heirs in the direct line">
and does not apply to private respondents !ho are not co#pulsory heirs in the direct line7 their o#ission
shall not annul the institution of heirs7
F'G 'ICAT T1STATOR 1T 1RIT 21$ 0hat the testator says !ill be the la!7
F1G There #ay be nothing in Article BE of the Ne! Civil Code that suggests that #ere institution of a
universal heir in the !ill !ould give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance but there is a de*nite
distinct intention of the testator in the case at bar" e.plicitly e.pressed in his !ill$ This is !hat #atters andshould be inviolable$
F9G As an instituted heir" petitioner has the legal interest and standing to *le the petition in Sp$ Proc$
No$ E+5AC13 for probate of the !ill of Ne#esio Acain7 and
F8G Article BE of the Ne! Civil Code is a bill of attainder$ It is therefore unconstitutional and ineKectual$
The pivotal issue in this case is !hether or not private respondents have been preterited$ llcd
Article BE of the Civil Code provides@
>Art$ BE$ The preterition or o#ission of one" so#e" or all of the co#pulsory heirs in the direct line"
!hether living at the ti#e of the e.ecution of the !ill or born after the death of the testator" shall annul the
institution of heir7 but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inocious$
If the o#itted co#pulsory heirs should die before the testator" the institution shall be eKectual" !ithout
preHudice to the right of representation$>
Preterition consists in the o#ission in the testator(s !ill of the forced heirs or anyone of the# either
because they are not #entioned therein" or" though #entioned" they are neither instituted as heirs nor are
e.pressly disinherited FNuguid v$ Nuguid" 5 SCRA ED 5+,,7 6aninang v$ Court of Appeals" 55 SCRA
B 5+B-G$ Insofar as the !ido! is concerned" Article BE of the Civil Code #ay not apply as she does not
ascend or descend fro# the testator" although she is a co#pulsory heir$ Stated other!ise" even if the
surviving spouse is a co#pulsory heir" there is no preterition even if she is o#itted fro# the inheritance"
for she is not in the direct line$ FArt$ BE" Civil CodeG %o!ever" the sa#e thing cannot be said of the other
respondent ;irginia A$ 9ernande)" !hose legal adoption by the testator has not been &uestioned by
petitioner F6e#orandu# for the Petitioner" pp$ B+G$ 4nder Article
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
38/39
provision of a !ill or by operation of la!$ %o!ever" intestacy having resulted fro# the preterition of
respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs" petitioner is in eKect not an heir of the
testator$ %e has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the !ill left by the deceased and Special
Proceedings No$ E+5AC13 #ust be dis#issed$ Cdpr
As a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal" e.cept !hen the &uestioned order is an
oppressive e.ercise of Hudicial authority FPeople v$ ;illanueva" 55D SCRA ,E 5+B57 ;da$ de Caldito v$
Segundo" 55 SCRA E< 5+B-7 Co Chuan Seng v$ Court of Appeals" 5-B SCRA 0e pause to reect$ If the case !ere to be re#anded for probate of the !ill" nothing !ill be gained$ On the
contrary" this litigation !ill be protracted$ And for aught that appears in the record" in the event of probateor if the court reHects the !ill" probability e.ists that the case !ill co#e up once again before us on the
sa#e issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the !ill$ Result@ !aste of ti#e" eKort" e.pense" plus added
an.iety$ These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that !e #ight as !ell #eet head
on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the !ill in &uestion$ After all there e.ists a Husticiable
controversy crying for solution$>
In Sagui#si# v$ 2indayag F, SCRA B 5+,-G the #otion to dis#iss the petition by the surviving spouse
!as grounded on petitioner(s lac/ of legal capacity to institute the proceedings !hich !as fully
substantiated by the evidence during the hearing held in connection !ith said #otion$ The Court upheld
the probate court(s order of dis#issal$ 22pr
In Cayetano v$ 2eonidas" supra one of the issues raised in the #otion to dis#iss the petition deals !ith thevalidity of the provisions of the !ill$ Respondent Judge allo!ed the probate of the !ill$ The Court held that
as on its face the !ill appeared to have preterited the petitioner the respondent Hudge should have denied
its probate outright$ 0here circu#stances de#and that intrinsic validity of testa#entary provisions be
passed upon even before the e.trinsic validity of the !ill is resolved" the probate court should #eet the
issue$ FNepo#uceno v$ Court of Appeals" supra7 Nuguid v$ Nuguid" supraG$
In the instant case private respondents *led a #otion to dis#iss the petition in Sp$ Proceedings No$ E+5
C13 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the follo!ing grounds@ F5G petitioner has no legal capacity to
institute the proceedings7 F-G he is #erely a universal heir7 and Fthe grounds for the #otion to dis#iss are #atters properly to be resolved after a hearing
on the issues in the course of the trial on the #erits of the case FRollo" p$
7/23/2019 Finals Succession
39/39
2eonidas" supra7 Nuguid v$ Nuguid" supraG$ The re#edies of certiorari and prohibition !ere properly availed
of by private respondents$
Thus" this Court ruled that !here the grounds for dis#issal are indubitable" the defendants had the right to
resort to the #ore speedy" and ade&uate re#edies of certiorari and prohibition to correct a grave abuse of
discretion" a#ounting to lac/ of Hurisdiction" co##itted by the trial court in not dis#issing the case" F;da$
de 3acang v$ Court of Appeals" supraG and even assu#ing the e.istence of the re#edy of appeal" the Court
har/ens to the rule that in the broader interests of Hustice" a petition for certiorari #ay be entertained"
particularly !here appeal !ould not aKord speedy and ade&uate relief$ F6aninang v$ Court of Appeals"
supraG$ prcd
PR16IS1S CONSI'1R1'" the petition is hereby '1NI1' for lac/ of #erit and the &uestioned decision of
respondent Court of Appeals pro#ulgated on August