Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 140975, Promulgated De em!

er ", #000 O$E%&' (ERN'NDO )'GUNU, Petitioner. vs. P'STOR' P&ED'D, Respondent. *&TUG, J.: On 2 !u"ust #$$%& herein petitioner Ofelia Hernando 'a"unu (oved to intervene in Special Proceedin"s No. )*%2& entitled +In the (atter of the Intestate Proceedin"s of the ,state of !u"usto H. Piedad&+ pendin" before the Re"ional Trial -ourt .+RT-+/& 'ranch ##0& of Pasa1 -it1. !ssertin" entitle(ent to a share of the estate of the late !u"usto H. Piedad& petitioner assailed the finalit1 of the order of the trial court a2ardin" the entire estate to respondent Pastora Piedad contendin" that the proceedin"s 2ere tainted 2ith procedural infir(ities& includin" an inco(plete publications of the notice of hearin"& lac3 of personal notice to the heirs and creditors& and irre"ularit1 in the disburse(ents of allo2ances and 2ithdra2als b1 the ad(inistrator of the estate. The trial court denied the (otion& pro(ptin" petitioners to raise her case to the -ourt of !ppeals. Respondent sou"ht the dis(issal of the appeal on the thesis that the issues brou"ht up on appeal onl1 involvin" nothin" else but 4uestions of la2 to be raised before the Supre(e -ourt b1 petition for revie2 on certiorari in accordance 2ith Rule 5% thereof and consistentl1 2ith -ircular 26$7 of the -ourt. In a 2ell62ritten resolution& the -ourt of !ppeals belabored the distinctions bet2een 4uestions of la2 and 4uestions of fact& thus8 +There is a 4uestion of la2 in a "iven case 2hen the doubt or difference arises as to 2hat the la2 is on a certain state of facts& and there is a 4uestion of fact 2hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alle"ed facts. There is 4uestion of fact 2hen the 4uer1 necessaril1 invites calibration of the 2hole evidence considerin" (ainl1 the credibilit1 of 2itnesses& e9istence and relevance of specific surroundin" circu(stances and their relation to each other and to the 2hole and the probabilities of the situation.+#

:ustice ,u"enio S. ;abitoria& spea3in" for the appellate court& ratiocinated that 2hether or not the RT- erred in den1in" the intervention considerin" .#/ that the intervenor6appellant had a prima facie interest over the case .2/ that the <urisdiction over the person of the proper parties 2as not ac4uired in vie2 of the deficient publication or notice of hearin"& and .)/ that the proceedin"s had 1et to be closed and ter(inated& 2ere issues 2hich did not 4ualif1 as +4uestions of fact+ as to place the appeal 2ithin the <urisdiction of the appellate court= thus= +The issues are evidentl1 pure 4uestions of la2 because their resolution are based on facts not in dispute. !d(itted are the facts that intervenor6appellant is a collateral relative 2ithin the fifth de"ree of !u"usto H. Piedad= the she is the dau"hter of the first cousin of !u"usto H. Piedad= that as such& intervenor6appellant see3 to inherit 2as published for three consecutive 2ee3s in a ne2spaper of "eneral circulation= that there 2as no order of closure of proceedin"s that has been issued b1 the intestate court= and that the intestate court has alread1 issued an order for the transfer of the re(ainin" estate of !u"usto H. Piedad to petitioner6appellee. +These facts are undisputed. +In this case& there is no doubt nor difference that arise as to the truth or falsehood on alle"ed facts. The 4uestion as to 2hether intevenor6appellants as a collateral relative 2ithin the fifth civil de"ree& has le"al interest in the intestate proceedin" 2hich 2ould <ustif1 her intervention= the 4uestion as to 2hether the publication of notice of hearin" (ade in this case is defective 2hich 2ould a(ount to lac3 of <urisdiction over the persons of the parties and the 4uestion as to 2hether the proceedin"s has alread1 been ter(inated 2hen the intestate court issued the order of transfer of the estate of !u"usto H. Piedad to petitioner6appellee& in spite the absence of an order of closure of the intestate court& all call for the application and interpretation of the proper la2 is applicable on a certain undisputed state of facts. +The resolution of the issues raised does not re4uire the revie2 of the evidence& nor the credibilit1 of 2itnesses presented& nor the e9istence and relevance of specific surroundin" circu(stances. Resolution on the issues (a1 be had even 2ithout "oin" to e9a(ination of facts on record.+2 Still unsatisfied& petitioner contested the resolution of the appellate court in the instant petition for revie2 oncertiorari. The -ourt finds no reversible error in the rulin" of the appellate court. 'ut let us set aside the alle"ed procedural decrepitude and ta3e on the basic substantive issue. Specificall1& can petitioner& a collateral relative of the fifth civil de"ree& inherit alon"side respondent& a collateral relative of the third civil de"ree> ,lse2ise stated does the rule of pro9i(it1 in intestate succession find application a(on" collateral relatives>

!u"usto H. Piedad 2ithout an1 direct descendants or ascendants. Respondent is the (aternal aunt of the decedent& a third6de"ree relative of the decedent& 2hile petitioner is the dau"hter of a first cousin of the deceased& or a fifth6de"ree relative of the decedent. The various provisions of the -ivil -ode on succession e(bod1 an al(ost co(plete set of la2 to "overn& either b1 2ill or b1 operation of la2& the trans(ission of propert1& ri"hts and obli"ations of a person upon his death. ,ach article is construed in con"ruit1 2ith& rather than in isolation of& the s1ste( set out b1 the -ode. The rule on pro9i(it1 is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in de"ree to the decedent and e9cludes the (ore distant ones e9cept 2hen and to the e9tent that the ri"ht of representation can appl1. Thus& !rticle $*2 of the -ivil -ode provides8 +!RT. $*2. In ever1 inheritance& the relative nearest in de"ree e9cludes the (ore distant ones& savin" the ri"ht of representation 2hen it properl1 ta3es place. +Relatives in the sa(e de"ree shall inherit in e4ual shares& sub<ect to the provisions of article #77* 2ith respect to relatives of the full and half blood& and of article $ 0& para"raph 2& concernin" division bet2een the paternal and (aternal lines.+ '1 ri"ht of representation& a (ore distant blood relative of a decedent is& b1 operation of la2& +raised to the sa(e place and de"ree+ of relationship as that of a closer blood relative of the sa(e decedent. The representative thereb1 steps into the shoes of the person he represents and succeeds& not fro( the latter& but fro( the person to 2hose estate the person represented 2ould have succeeded. +!RT. $07. Representation is a ri"ht created b1 fiction of la2& b1 virtue of 2hich the representative is raised to the place and the de"ree of the person represented& and ac4uires the ri"hts 2hich latter 2ould have if he 2ere livin" or if he could have inherited.+ +!RT. $0#. The representative is called to the succession b1 the la2 and not b1 the person represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented but the one 2ho( the person represented 2ould have succeeded.+ +!RT. $07. Representation is a ri"ht created b1 fiction of la2& b1 virtue of 2hich the representative is raised to the place and the de"ree of the person represented& and ac4uires the ri"hts 2hich latter 2ould have if he 2ere livin" or if he could have inherited.+

+!RT. $0#. The representative is called to the succession b1 the la2 and not b1 the person represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented but the one 2ho( the person represented 2ould have succeeded.+ In the direct line& ri"ht of representation is proper onl1 in the descendin"& never in the ascendin"& line. In the collateral line& the ri"ht of representation (a1 onl1 ta3e place in favor of the children of brothers or sisters of the decedent 2hen such children survive 2ith their uncles or aunts. +!RT. $02. The ri"ht of representation ta3es place in the direct descendin" line& but never in the ascendin". +In the collateral line& it ta3es place onl1 in favor of the children of brothers or sisters& 2hether the1 be of the full or half blood. +!RT. $05. ?henever there is succession b1 representation& the division of the estate shall be (ade per stripes& in such (anner that the representative or representatives shall not inherit (ore than 2hat the person the1 represent 2ould inherit& if he 2ere livin" or could inherit.+ +!RT. $0%. ?hen children of one or (ore brothers or sisters of the deceased survive& the1 shall inherit fro( the latter b1 representation& if the1 survive 2ith their uncles or aunts. 'ut if the1 alone survive& the1 shall inherit in e4ual portions.+ The ri"ht of representation does not appl1 to +others collateral relatives 2ithin the fifth civil de"ree+ .to 2hich "roup both petitioner and respondent belon"/ 2ho are si9th in the order of preference follo2in"& firstl1& the le"iti(ate children and descendants& secondl1& the le"iti(ate parents and ascendants& thirdl1& the ille"iti(ate children and descendants& fourthl1& the survivin" spouse& and fifthl1& the brothers and sisters@nephe2s and nieces& fourth decedent. !(on" collateral relatives& e9cept onl1 in the case of nephe2s and nieces of the decedent concurrin" 2ith their uncles or aunts& the rule of pro9i(it1& e9pressed in !rticle $*2& afore4uoted& of the -ode& is an absolute rule. In deter(inin" the de"ree of relationship of the collateral relatives to the decedent& !rticle $** of the -ivil -ode "ives direction. +!rticle $**. 999 +In the collateral line& ascent is (ade to the co((on ancestor and then descent is (ade ancestor and then descent is (ade to the person 2ith 2ho( the co(putation is to be (ade. Thus& a person is t2o de"rees re(oved fro( his brother& three fro( his uncle& 2ho is the brother of his father& four fro( his first cousin and so forth.+ !ccordin"l16666

Respondent& bein" a relative 2ithin the third civil de"ree& of the late !u"usto H. Piedad e9cludes petitioner& a relative of the fifth de"ree& fro( succeedin" an intestato to the estate of the decedent. The provisions of !rticle #77$ and !rticle #7#7 of the -ivil -ode +!rticle #77$& Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters& the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. +The latter shall succeed 2ithout distinction of lines or preference a(on" the( b1 reason of relationship b1 the 2hole blood.+ +!rticle #7#7. The ri"ht to inherit ab intestato shall not e9tend be1ond the fifth de"ree of relationship in the collateral line.+ Invo3ed b1 petitioner do not at all support her cause. The la2 (eans onl1 that a(on" the other collateral relatives .the si9th in the line of succession/& no preference or distinction shall be observed +b1 reason of relationship b1 the 2hole blood.+ In fine& a (aternal aunt can inherit e4uall1 2ith a first cousin of the half blood but an uncle or an aunt& bein" a third6de"ree relative& e9cludes the cousins of the decedent& bein" in the fourth de"ree of relationship= the latter& in turn& 2ould have priorit1 in succession to a fifth6de"ree relative.1wphi1.nt ?H,R,AOR,& the instant Petition is D,NI,D. No costs. SO ORD,R,D. Melo, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, ., concur.
# Rollo& p. )7.

DE%G'DO 'RESP'COC('G', TERES' DE%G'DO PER%'S, C'RO%&N' DE%G'DO1'RESP'COC('G', RODO%$O DE%G'DO, )EN,'M&N DE%G'DO, G%&CER&' DE%G'DO a-d C%EO$'S DE%G'DO2 a-d (E&RS O$ GORGON&O DE%G'DO, -amel., R'MON DE%G'DO C'MPO, C'R%OS DE%G'DO C'MPO, C%'R&T' DE%G'DO C'MPO1RE&3', 4O%'ND' DE%G'DO ENC&N'S, $E%&S' DE%G'DO C'MPO1ENC&N'S a-d ME%&ND' DE%G'DO C'MPO1 M'D'R'NG, Petitioners& vs. (E&RS O$ M'RC&'N' RUST&' *D'. DE D'M&'N, -amel., GU&%%ERMO R. D'M&'N a-d ,OSE R. D'M&'N2 (E&RS O$ (ORTENC&' RUST&' CRU3, -amel., TERES&T' CRU31S&SON, (OR'C&O R. CRU3, ,OSE$&N' CRU31ROD&%, 'ME%&' CRU31ENR&5UE3 a-d $&DE% R. CRU3, ,R.2 (E&RS O$ ROM'N RUST&', SR., -amel., ,OSE$&N' RUST&' '%)'NO, *&RG&N&' RUST&' P'R'&SO, ROM'N RUST&', ,R., SERG&O RUST&', $R'NC&SCO RUST&', %ET&C&' RUST&'1 M&R'ND'2 a-d GU&%%ERM&N' RUST&', a6 O77o68tor62# a-d GU&%%ERM' RUST&', a6 &-ter9e-or,2 Respondents.) D,-ISION CORON', J.: In this petition for revie2 on certiorari& petitioners see3 to reinstate the Ma1 ##& #$$7 decision of the Re"ional Trial -ourt .RT-/ of Manila& 'ranch %%&5 in SP -ase No. $0** & 2hich 2as reversed and set aside b1 the -ourt of !ppeals in its decision% dated October 25& 2772. FACTS OF THE CASE This case concerns the settle(ent of the intestate estates of Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado.* The (ain issue in this case is relativel1 si(ple8 2ho& bet2een petitioners and respondents& are the la2ful heirs of the decedents. Ho2ever& it is attended b1 several collateral issues that co(plicate its resolution.

2 Rollo& p. )#

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S,-OND DIVISION G.R. No. 1557++ ,a-uar. #7, #00/

The clai(ants to the estates of Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado (a1 be divided into t2o "roups8 .#/ the alle"ed heirs of :osefa Del"ado& consistin" of her half6 and full6blood siblin"s& nephe2s and nieces& and "randnephe2s and "randnieces& and .2/ the alle"ed heirs of Builler(o Rustia& particularl1& his sisters&0 his nephe2s and nieces& his ille"iti(ate child&$ and the de facto adopted child#7 .amp n-amp nan/ of the decedents. T0e alleged 0e8r6 o: ,o6e:a Delgado The deceased :osefa Del"ado 2as the dau"hter of Aelisa## Del"ado b1 one ;ucio -a(po. !side fro( :osefa& five other children 2ere born to the couple& na(el1&

&N T(E M'TTER O$ T(E &NTEST'TE EST'TES O$ T(E DECE'SED ,OSE$' DE%G'DO 'ND GU&%%ERMO RUST&' C'R%OT' DE%G'DO *D'. DE DE %' ROS' a-d ot0er (E&RS O$ %U&S DE%G'DO, -amel., (E&RS O$ CONC(' *D'. DE 'RE*'%O, (E&RS O$ %U&S' DE%G'DO *D'. DE D'N'O, 'NGE%'

NaCario& ,dilberta& :ose& :acoba& and Bor"onio& all surna(ed Del"ado. Aelisa Del"ado 2as never (arried to ;ucio -a(po& hence& :osefa and her full6blood siblin"s 2ere all natural children of Aelisa Del"ado. Ho2ever& ;ucio -a(po 2as not the first and onl1 (an in Aelisa Del"adoDs life. 'efore hi( 2as Ra(on Osorio#22ith 2ho( Aelisa had a son& ;uis Del"ado. 'ut& unli3e her relationship 2ith ;ucio -a(po 2hich 2as ad(ittedl1 one 2ithout the benefit of (arria"e& the le"al status of Ra(on OsorioDs and Aelisa Del"adoDs union is in dispute. The 4uestion of 2hether Aelisa Del"ado and Ra(on Osorio ever "ot (arried is crucial to the clai(ants because the ans2er 2ill deter(ine 2hether their successional ri"hts fall 2ithin the a(bit of the rule a"ainst reciprocal intestate succession bet2een le"iti(ate and ille"iti(ate relatives.#) If Ra(on Osorio and Aelisa Del"ado had been validl1 (arried& then their onl1 child ;uis Del"ado 2as a le"iti(ate half6blood brother of :osefa Del"ado and therefore e9cluded fro( the latterDs intestate estate. He and his heirs 2ould be barred b1 the principle of absolute separation bet2een the le"iti(ate and ille"iti(ate fa(ilies. -onversel1& if the couple 2ere never (arried& ;uis Del"ado and his heirs 2ould be entitled to inherit fro( :osefa Del"adoDs intestate estate& as the1 2ould all be 2ithin the ille"iti(ate line. Petitioners alle"e that Ra(on Osorio and Aelisa Del"ado 2ere never (arried. In support thereof& the1 assert that no evidence 2as ever presented to establish it& not even so (uch as an alle"ation of the date or place of the alle"ed (arria"e. ?hat is clear& ho2ever& is that Aelisa retained the surna(e Del"ado. So did ;uis& her son 2ith Ra(on Osorio. ;ater on& 2hen ;uis "ot (arried& his Partida de !asamiento#5 stated that he 2as +hi"o nat ral de #elisa $elgado% .the natural child of Aelisa Del"ado/&#% si"nificantl1 o(ittin" an1 (ention of the na(e and other circu(stances of his father.#* Nevertheless& oppositors .no2 respondents/ insist that the absence of a record of the alle"ed (arria"e did not necessaril1 (ean that no (arria"e ever too3 place. :osefa Del"ado died on Septe(ber & #$02 2ithout a 2ill. She 2as survived b1 Builler(o Rustia and so(e collateral relatives& the petitioners herein. Several (onths later& on :une #%& #$0)& Builler(o Rustia e9ecuted an affidavit of self6 ad<udication of the re(ainin" properties co(prisin" her estate. T0e marr8age o: Gu8llermo Ru6t8a a-d ,o6e:a Delgado So(eti(e in #$#0& Builler(o Rustia proposed (arria"e to :osefa Del"ado#0 but 2hether a (arria"e in fact too3 place is disputed. !ccordin" to petitioners& the t2o eventuall1 lived to"ether as husband and 2ife but 2ere never (arried. To prove their assertion& petitioners point out that no record of the contested (arria"e e9isted in the

civil re"istr1. Moreover& a baptis(al certificate na(in" :osefa Del"ado as one of the sponsors referred to her as +&e'orita% or un(arried 2o(an. The oppositors .respondents here/& on the other hand& insist that the absence of a (arria"e certificate did not of necessit1 (ean that no (arria"e transpired. The1 (aintain that Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado 2ere (arried on :une )& #$#$ and fro( then on lived to"ether as husband and 2ife until the death of :osefa on Septe(ber & #$02. Durin" this period spannin" (ore than half a centur1& the1 2ere 3no2n a(on" their relatives and friends to have in fact been (arried. To support their proposition& oppositors presented the follo2in" pieces of evidence8 #. -ertificate of Identit1 No. $%$2 dated EDece(ber #& #$55F issued to Mrs. Builler(o :. Rustia b1 -arlos P. Ro(ulo& then Resident -o((issioner to the Gnited States of the -o((on2ealth of the Philippines= 2. Philippine Passport No. 50*0 issued to :osefa D. Rustia on :une 2%& #$50= ). Veterans !pplication for Pension or -o(pensation for Disabilit1 Resultin" fro( Service in the !ctive Militar1 or Naval Aorces of the Gnited States6 -lai( No. -65& 775& %7) .V! Aor( %2*/ filed 2ith the Veterans !d(inistration of the Gnited States of !(erica b1 Dr. Builler(o :. Rustia 2herein Dr. Builler(o :. Rustia hi(self Es2oreF to his (arria"e to :osefa Del"ado in Manila on ) :une #$#$=# 5. Titles to real properties in the na(e of Builler(o Rustia indicated that he 2as (arried to :osefa Del"ado. T0e alleged 0e8r6 o: Gu8llermo Ru6t8a Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado never had an1 children. ?ith no children of their o2n& the1 too3 into their ho(e the 1oun"sters Builler(ina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These children& never le"all1 adopted b1 the couple& 2ere 2hat 2as 3no2n in the local dialect as amp n-amp nan. Durin" his life 2ith :osefa& ho2ever& Builler(o Rustia did (ana"e to father an ille"iti(ate child&#$ the intervenor6respondent Builler(a Rustia& 2ith one !(paro Sa"arbarria. !ccordin" to Builler(a& Builler(o Rustia treated her as his dau"hter& his o2n flesh and blood& and she en<o1ed open and continuous possession of that status fro( her birth in #$27 until her fatherDs de(ise. In fact& :osefa Del"adoDs obituar1 2hich 2as prepared b1 Builler(o Rustia& na(ed the intervenor6respondent as one of their children. !lso& her report card fro( the Gniversit1 of Santo To(as identified Builler(o Rustia as her parent@"uardian.27

Oppositors .respondents here/ nonetheless posit that Builler(a Rustia has no interest in the intestate estate of Builler(o Rustia as she 2as never dul1 ac3no2led"ed as an ille"iti(ate child. The1 contend that her ri"ht to co(pulsor1 ac3no2led"e(ent prescribed 2hen Builler(o died in #$05 and that she cannot clai( voluntar1 ac3no2led"e(ent since the docu(ents she presented 2ere not the authentic 2ritin"s prescribed b1 the ne2 -ivil -ode.2# On :anuar1 0& #$05& (ore than a 1ear after the death of :osefa Del"ado& Builler(o Rustia filed a petition for the adoption22 of their amp n-amp nan Builler(ina Rustia. He stated under oath +EtFhat he haEdF no le"iti(ate& le"iti(ated& ac3no2led"ed natural children or natural children b1 le"al fiction.+2) The petition 2as overta3en b1 his death on Aebruar1 2 & #$05. ;i3e :osefa Del"ado& Builler(o Rustia died 2ithout a 2ill. He 2as survived b1 his sisters Marciana Rustia (da. deDa(ian and Hortencia Rustia6-ruC& and b1 the children of his predeceased brother Ro(an Rustia Sr.& na(el1& :osefina Rustia !lbano& Vir"inia Rustia Paraiso& Ro(an Rustia& :r.& Ser"io Rustia& Arancisco Rustia and ;eticia Rustia Miranda.25 ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS On Ma1 & #$0%& ;uisa Del"ado (da. de Danao& the dau"hter of ;uis Del"ado& filed the ori"inal petition for letters of ad(inistration of the intestate estates of the +spouses :osefa Del"ado and Builler(o Rustia+ 2ith the RT- of Manila& 'ranch %%.2% This petition 2as opposed b1 the follo2in"8 .#/ the sisters of Builler(o Rustia& na(el1& Marciana Rustia (da. de Da(ian and Hortencia Rustia6-ruC=2* .2/ the heirs of Builler(o RustiaDs late brother& Ro(an Rustia& Sr.& and .)/ the amp namp nan Builler(ina Rustia Rustia. The opposition 2as "rounded on the theor1 that ;uisa Del"ado (da. de Danao and the other clai(ants 2ere barred under the la2 fro( inheritin" fro( their ille"iti(ate half6blood relative :osefa Del"ado. In Nove(ber of #$0%& Builler(a Rustia filed a (otion to intervene in the proceedin"s& clai(in" she 2as the onl1 survivin" descendant in the direct line of Builler(o Rustia. Despite the ob<ections of the oppositors .respondents herein/& the (otion 2as "ranted. On !pril )& #$0 & the ori"inal petition for letters of ad(inistration 2as a(ended to state that :osefa Del"ado and Builler(o Rustia 2ere ne(er (arried but had (erel1 lived to"ether as husband and 2ife. On :anuar1 25& #$ 7& oppositors .respondents herein/ filed a (otion to dis(iss the petition in the RT- insofar as the estate of Builler(o Rustia 2as concerned. The (otion 2as denied on the "round that the interests of the petitioners and the other

clai(ants re(ained in issue and should be properl1 threshed out upon sub(ission of evidence. On March #5& #$ & -arlota Del"ado (da. de de la Rosa substituted for her sister& ;uisa Del"ado (da. de Danao& 2ho had died on Ma1 # & #$ 0. On Ma1 ##& #$$7& the RT- appointed -arlota Del"ado (da. de de la Rosa as ad(inistratri9 of both estates.20 The dispositive portion of the decision read8 ;(ERE$ORE& in vie2 of all the fore"oin"& petitioner and her co6clai(ants to the estate of the late :osefa Del"ado listed in the Petitions& and enu(erated else2here in this Decision& are hereb1 declared as the onl1 le"al heirs of the said :osefa Del"ado 2ho died intestate in the -it1 of Manila on Septe(ber & #$02& and entitled to partition the sa(e a(on" the(selves in accordance 2ith the proportions referred to in this Decision. Si(ilarl1& the intervenor Builler(a S. Rustia is hereb1 declared as the sole and onl1 survivin" heir of the late Dr. Builler(o Rustia& and thus& entitled to the entire estate of the said decedent& to the e9clusion of the oppositors and the other parties hereto. The !ffidavit of Self6!d<udication of the estate of :osefa Del"ado e9ecuted b1 the late Builler(o :. Rustia on :une #%& #$0) is hereb1 S,T !SID, and declared of no force and effect. !s the estates of both deceEdFents have not as 1et been settled& and their settle(ent EisF considered consolidated in this proceedin" in accordance 2ith la2& a sin"le ad(inistrator therefor is both proper and necessar1& and& as the petitioner -arlota Del"ado Vda. de dela Rosa has established her ri"ht to the appoint(ent as ad(inistratri9 of the estates& the -ourt hereb1 !PPOINTS her as the !DMINISTR!TRIH of the intestate estate of the decedent :OS,A! D,;B!DO in relation to the estate of DR. BGI;;,RMO :. RGSTI!. !ccordin"l1& let the correspondin" ;,TT,RS OA !DMINISTR!TION issue to the petitioner -!R;OT! D,;B!DO VD!. D, D, ;! ROS! upon her filin" of the re4uisite bond in the su( of AIV, HGNDR,D THOGS!ND P,SOS .P%77&777.77/. Ainall1& oppositor BGI;;,RMIN! RGSTI! RGSTI! is hereb1 ordered to cease and desist fro( her acts of ad(inistration of the sub<ect estates& and is li3e2ise ordered to turn over to the appointed ad(inistrati9 all her collections of the rentals and inco(e due on the assets of the estates in 4uestion& includin" all docu(ents& papers& records and titles pertainin" to such estates to the petitioner and appointed ad(inistrati9 -!R;OT! D,;B!DO VD!. D, D, ;! ROS!& i((ediatel1 upon receipt of this Decision. The sa(e oppositor is hereb1 re4uired to render an accountin" of her

actual ad(inistration of the estates in controvers1 2ithin a period of si9t1 .*7/ da1s fro( receipt hereof. SO ORD,R,D.2 On Ma1 27& #$$7& oppositors filed an appeal 2hich 2as denied on the "round that the record on appeal 2as not filed on ti(e.2$ The1 then filed a petition for certiorari and (anda(us)7 2hich 2as dis(issed b1 the -ourt of !ppeals.)# Ho2ever& on (otion for reconsideration and after hearin" the partiesD oral ar"u(ents& the -ourt of !ppeals reversed itself and "ave due course to oppositorsD appeal in the interest of substantial <ustice.)2 In a petition for revie2 to this -ourt& petitioners assailed the resolution of the -ourt of !ppeals& on the "round that oppositorsD failure to file the record on appeal 2ithin the re"le(entar1 period 2as a <urisdictional defect 2hich nullified the appeal. On October #7& #$$0& this -ourt allo2ed the continuance of the appeal. The pertinent portion of our decision)) read8 !s a rule& periods prescribed to do certain acts (ust be follo2ed. Ho2ever& under e9ceptional circu(stances& a dela1 in the filin" of an appeal (a1 be e9cused on "rounds of substantial <ustice. 999 999 999 The respondent court li3e2ise pointed out the trial courtDs pronounce(ents as to certain (atters of substance& relatin" to the deter(ination of the heirs of the decedents and the part1 entitled to the ad(inistration of their estate& 2hich 2ere to be raised in the appeal& but 2ere barred absolutel1 b1 the denial of the record on appeal upon too technical "round of late filin". 999 999 999 In this instance& private respondentsD intention to raise valid issues in the appeal is apparent and should not have been construed as an atte(pt to dela1 or prolon" the ad(inistration proceedin"s. 999 999 999 ! revie2 of the trial courtDs decision is needed. 999 999 999

;(ERE$ORE& in vie2 of the fore"oin" considerations& the -ourt hereb1 '$$&RMS the Resolution dated Nove(ber 20& #$$# of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. SP No. 2)5#%& for the 'PPRO*'% of the private respondentsD Record on !ppeal and the CONT&NU'NCE of the appeal fro( the Manila& 'ranch ;V Re"ional Trial -ourtDs Ma1 ##& #$$7 decision. SO ORD,R,D. !ctin" on the appeal& the -ourt of !ppeals)5 partiall1 set aside the trial courtDs decision. Gpon (otion for reconsideration&)% the -ourt of !ppeals a(ended its earlier decision.)* The dispositive portion of the a(ended decision read8 ?ith the further (odification& our assailed decision is RECONS&DERED and *'C'TED. -onse4uentl1& the decision of the trial court is RE*ERSED and SET 'S&DE. ! ne2 one is hereb1 RENDERED declarin"8 #./ Dr. Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado Rustia to have been le"all1 (arried= 2./ the intestate estate of Dr. Builler(o Rustia& :acoba Del"ado6,ncinas and the children of Bor"onio Del"ado .-a(po/ entitled to partition a(on" the(selves the intestate estate of :osefa D. Rustia in accordance 2ith the proportion referred to in this decision= )./ the oppositors6appellants as the le"al heirs of the late Dr. Builler(o Rustia and thereb1 entitled to partition his estate in accordance 2ith the proportion referred to herein= and 5./ the intervenor6appellee Builler(a S. Rustia as ineli"ible to inherit fro( the late Dr. Builler(o Rustia= thus revo3in" her appoint(ent as ad(inistratri9 of his estate. The letters of ad(inistration of the intestate estate of Dr. Builler(o Rustia in relation to the intestate estate of :osefa Del"ado shall issue to the no(inee of the oppositors6 appellants upon his or her 4ualification and filin" of the re4uisite bond in the su( of AIV, HGNDR,D THOGS!ND P,SOS .P%77&777.77/. Oppositor6appellant Builler(ina Rustia Rustia is hereb1 ordered to cease and desist fro( her acts of ad(inistration of the sub<ect estates and to turn over to the appointed ad(inistrator all her collections of the rentals and inco(es due on the assets of the estates in 4uestion& includin" all docu(ents& papers& records and titles pertainin" to such estates to the appointed ad(inistrator& i((ediatel1 upon notice of his 4ualification and postin" of the re4uisite bond& and to render an accountin" of her .Builler(ina Rustia Rustia/ actual ad(inistration of the estates in controvers1 2ithin a period of si9t1 .*7/ da1s fro( notice of the ad(inistratorDs 4ualification and postin" of the bond. The issue of the validit1 of the affidavit of self6ad<udication e9ecuted b1 Dr. Builler(o Rustia on :une #%& #$0) isREM'NDED to the trial court for further proceedin"s to deter(ine the e9tent of the shares of :acoba Del"ado6,ncinas and the children of Bor"onio Del"ado .-a(po/ affected b1 the said ad<udication.

Hence& this recourse. The issues for our resolution are8 #. 2hether there 2as a valid (arria"e bet2een Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado= 2. 2ho the le"al heirs of the decedents Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado are= ). 2ho should be issued letters of ad(inistration. The (arria"e of Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado ! presu(ption is an inference of the e9istence or non6e9istence of a fact 2hich courts are per(itted to dra2 fro( proof of other facts. Presu(ptions are classified into presu(ptions of la2 and presu(ptions of fact. Presu(ptions of la2 are& in turn& either conclusive or disputable.)0 Rule #)#& Section ) of the Rules of -ourt provides8 Sec. ). $isp table pres mptions. I The follo2in" presu(ptions are satisfactor1 if uncontradicted& but (a1 be contradicted and overco(e b1 other evidence8 999 999 999 .aa/ That a (an and a 2o(an deportin" the(selves as husband and 2ife have entered into a la2ful contract of (arria"e= 999 999 999 In this case& several circu(stances "ive rise to the presu(ption that a valid (arria"e e9isted bet2een Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado. Their cohabitation of (ore than %7 1ears cannot be doubted. Their fa(il1 and friends 3ne2 the( to be (arried. Their reputed status as husband and 2ife 2as such that even the ori"inal petition for letters of ad(inistration filed b1 ;uisa Del"ado (da. de Danao in #$0% referred to the( as +spouses.+ Jet& petitioners (aintain that :osefa Del"ado and Builler(o Rustia had si(pl1 lived to"ether as husband and 2ife 2ithout the benefit of (arria"e. The1 (a3e (uch of the absence of a record of the contested (arria"e& the testi(on1 of a 2itness) attestin" that the1 2ere not (arried& and a baptis(al certificate 2hich referred to :osefa Del"ado as +&e'orita% or un(arried 2o(an.)$

?e are not persuaded. #irst& althou"h a (arria"e contract is considered a pri(ar1 evidence of (arria"e& its absence is not al2a1s proof that no (arria"e in fact too3 place.57 Once the presu(ption of (arria"e arises& other evidence (a1 be presented in support thereof. The evidence need not necessaril1 or directl1 establish the (arria"e but (ust at least be enou"h to stren"then the presu(ption of (arria"e. Here& the certificate of identit1 issued to :osefa Del"ado as Mrs. Builler(o Rustia&5# the passport issued to her as :osefa D. Rustia&52 the declaration under oath of no less than Builler(o Rustia that he 2as (arried to :osefa Del"ado5) and the titles to the properties in the na(e of +Builler(o Rustia (arried to :osefa Del"ado&+ (ore than ade4uatel1 support the presu(ption of (arria"e. These are public docu(ents 2hich are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.55 No clear and convincin" evidence sufficient to overco(e the presu(ption of the truth of the recitals therein 2as presented b1 petitioners. &econd& ,lisa (da. de !nson& petitionersD o2n 2itness 2hose testi(on1 the1 pri(aril1 relied upon to support their position& confir(ed that Builler(o Rustia had proposed (arria"e to :osefa Del"ado and that eventuall1& the t2o had +lived to"ether as husband and 2ife.+ This a"ain could not but stren"then the presu(ption of (arria"e. )hird& the baptis(al certificate5% 2as conclusive proof onl1 of the baptis( ad(inistered b1 the priest 2ho baptiCed the child. It 2as no proof of the veracit1 of the declarations and state(ents contained therein&5* such as the alle"ed sin"le or un(arried .+&e'orita+/ civil status of :osefa Del"ado 2ho had no hand in its preparation. Petitioners failed to rebut the presu(ption of (arria"e of Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado. In this <urisdiction& ever1 intend(ent of the la2 leans to2ard le"iti(iCin" (atri(on1. Persons d2ellin" to"ether apparentl1 in (arria"e are presu(ed to be in fact (arried. This is the usual order of thin"s in societ1 and& if the parties are not 2hat the1 hold the(selves out to be& the1 2ould be livin" in constant violation of the co((on rules of la2 and propriet1.&emper praes mit r pro matrimonio. !l2a1s presu(e (arria"e.50 The ;a2ful Heirs Of :osefa Del"ado To deter(ine 2ho the la2ful heirs of :osefa Del"ado are& the 4uestioned status of the cohabitation of her (other Aelisa Del"ado 2ith Ra(on Osorio (ust first be addressed. !s (entioned earlier& presu(ptions of la2 are either conclusive or disputable. -onclusive presu(ptions are inferences 2hich the la2 (a3es so pere(ptor1 that no contrar1 proof& no (atter ho2 stron"& (a1 overturn the(.5 On the other hand&

disputable presu(ptions& one of 2hich is the presu(ption of (arria"e& can be relied on onl1 in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrar1. ;ittle 2as said of the cohabitation or alle"ed (arria"e of Aelisa Del"ado and Ra(on Osorio. The oppositors .no2 respondents/ chose (erel1 to rel1 on the disputable presu(ption of (arria"e even in the face of such countervailin" evidence as .#/ the continued use b1 Aelisa and ;uis .her son 2ith Ra(on Osorio/ of the surna(e Del"ado and .2/ ;uis Del"adoDs and -aridad -oncepcionDs Partida de !asamiento5$ identif1in" ;uis as +hi"o nat ral de #elisa $elgado+ .the natural child of Aelisa Del"ado/.%7 !ll thin"s considered& 2e rule that these factors sufficientl1 overca(e the rebuttable presu(ption of (arria"e. Aelisa Del"ado and Ra(on Osorio 2ere never (arried. Hence& all the children born to Aelisa Del"ado out of her relations 2ith Ra(on Osorio and ;ucio -a(po& na(el1& ;uis and his half6blood siblin"s NaCario& ,dilberta& :ose& :acoba& Bor"onio and the decedent :osefa& all surna(ed Del"ado&%# 2ere her natural children.%2 Pertinent to this (atter is the follo2in" observation8 Suppose& ho2ever& that ! be"ets H 2ith '& and J 2ith another 2o(an& -= then H and J 2ould be natural brothers and sisters& but of half6blood relationship. -an the1 succeed each other reciprocall1> The la2 prohibits reciprocal succession bet2een ille"iti(ate children and le"iti(ate children of the sa(e parent& even thou"h there is un4uestionabl1 a tie of blood bet2een the(. It see(s that to allo2 an ille"iti(ate child to succeed ab intestato .fro(/ another ille"iti(ate child be"otten 2ith a parent different fro( that of the for(er& 2ould be allo2in" the ille"iti(ate child "reater ri"hts than a le"iti(ate child. Not2ithstandin" this& ho2ever& 2e sub(it that succession should be allo2ed& even 2hen the ille"iti(ate brothers and sisters are onl1 of the half6blood. The reason i(pellin" the prohibition on reciprocal successions bet2een le"iti(ate and ille"iti(ate fa(ilies does not appl1 to the case under consideration. That prohibition has for its basis the difference in cate"or1 bet2een ille"iti(ate and le"iti(ate relatives. There is no such difference 2hen all the children are ille"iti(ate children of the sa(e parent& even if be"otten 2ith different persons. The1 all stand on the sa(e footin" before the la2& <ust li3e le"iti(ate children of half6 blood relation. ?e sub(it& therefore& that the rules re"ardin" succession of le"iti(ate brothers and sisters should be applicable to the(. Aull blood ille"iti(ate brothers and sisters should receive double the portion of half6blood brothers and sisters= and if all are either of the full blood or of the half6blood& the1 shall share e4uall1.%)

Here& the above6na(ed siblin"s of :osefa Del"ado 2ere related to her b1 full6blood& e9cept ;uis Del"ado& her half6brother. Nonetheless& since the1 2ere all ille"iti(ate& the1 (a1 inherit fro( each other. !ccordin"l1& all of the( are entitled to inherit fro( :osefa Del"ado. ?e note& ho2ever& that the petitioners before us are alread1 the nephe2s& nieces& "randnephe2s and "randnieces of :osefa Del"ado. Gnder !rticle $02 of the ne2 -ivil -ode& the ri"ht of representation in the collateral line ta3es place onl1 in favor of the children of brothers and sisters .nephe2s and nieces/. -onse4uentl1& it cannot be e9ercised b1 "randnephe2s and "randnieces.%5 Therefore& the onl1 collateral relatives of :osefa Del"ado 2ho are entitled to parta3e of her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters, or their children who were still ali(e at the time of her death on &eptember *, 1+,-. The1 have a vested ri"ht to participate in the inheritance.%% The records not bein" clear on this (atter& it is no2 for the trial court to deter(ine 2ho 2ere the survivin" brothers and sisters .or their children/ of :osefa Del"ado at the ti(e of her death. To"ether 2ith Builler(o Rustia&%* the1 are entitled to inherit fro( :osefa Del"ado in accordance 2ith !rticle #77# of the ne2 -ivil -ode8%0 !rt. #77#. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive 2ith the 2ido2 or 2ido2er& the latter shall be entitled to one6half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other one6half. Since :osefa Del"ado had heirs other than Builler(o Rustia& Builler(o could not have validl1 ad<udicated :osefaDs estate all to hi(self. Rule 05& Section # of the Rules of -ourt is clear. !d<udication b1 an heir of the decedentDs entire estate to hi(self b1 (eans of an affidavit is allo2ed onl1 if he is the 6ole heir to the estate8 S,-TION #. ./tra" dicial settlement by agreement between heirs. K If the decedent left no 2ill and no debts and the heirs are all of a"e& or the (inors are represented b1 their <udicial or le"al representatives dul1 authoriCed for the purpose& the parties (a1& 2ithout securin" letters of ad(inistration& divide the estate a(on" the(selves as the1 see fit b1 (eans of a public instru(ent filed in the office of the re"ister of deeds& and should the1 disa"ree& the1 (a1 do so in an ordinar1 action of partition. &: t0ere 86 o-l. o-e 0e8r, 0e ma. ad<ud8 ate to 08m6el: t0e e6tate !. mea-6 o: a- a::8da98t :8led 8- t0e o::8 e o: t0e reg86ter o: deed6. 9 9 9 .e(phasis supplied/ The ;a2ful Heirs Of Builler(o Rustia Intervenor .no2 co6respondent/ Builler(a Rustia is an ille"iti(ate child% of Builler(o Rustia. !s such& she (a1 be entitled to successional ri"hts onl1 upon proof of an ad(ission or reco"nition of paternit1.%$ She& ho2ever& clai(ed the status of an ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate child of Builler(o Rustia onl1 a:ter the death of the latter

on Aebruar1 2 & #$05 at 2hich ti(e it 2as alread1 the ne2 -ivil -ode that 2as in effect. Gnder the old -ivil -ode .2hich 2as in force till !u"ust 2$& #$%7/& ille"iti(ate children absolutel1 had no hereditar1 ri"hts. This draconian edict 2as& ho2ever& later rela9ed in the ne2 -ivil -ode 2hich "ranted certain successional ri"hts to ille"iti(ate children but onl1 on condition that the1 2ere first reco"niCed or ac3no2led"ed b1 the parent. Gnder the ne2 la2& reco"nition (a1 be co(pulsor1 or voluntar1.*7 Reco"nition is co(pulsor1 in an1 of the follo2in" cases8 .#/ in cases of rape& abduction or seduction& 2hen the period of the offense coincides (ore or less 2ith that of the conception= .2/ 2hen the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alle"ed father .or (other/*# b1 the direct acts of the latter or of his fa(il1= .)/ 2hen the child 2as conceived durin" the ti(e 2hen the (other cohabited 2ith the supposed father= .5/ 2hen the child has in his favor an1 evidence or proof that the defendant is his father. *2 On the other hand& voluntar1 reco"nition (a1 be (ade in the record of birth& a 2ill& a state(ent before a court of record or in an1 authentic 2ritin".*) Intervenor Builler(a sou"ht reco"nition on t2o "rounds8 first& co(pulsor1 reco"nition throu"h the open and continuous possession of the status of an ille"iti(ate child and second& voluntar1 reco"nition throu"h authentic 2ritin". There 2as apparentl1 no doubt that she possessed the status of an ille"iti(ate child fro( her birth until the death of her putative father Builler(o Rustia. Ho2ever& this did not constitute ac3no2led"(ent but a mere gro nd by which she co ld ha(e compelled ac0nowledgment thro gh the co rts.*5 Aurther(ore& an1 .<udicial/ action for co(pulsor1 ac3no2led"(ent has a dual li(itation8 the lifeti(e of the child and the lifeti(e of the putative parent.*%On the death of either& the action for co(pulsor1 reco"nition can no lon"er be filed.** In this case& intervenor Builler(aDs ri"ht to clai( co(pulsor1 ac3no2led"(ent prescribed upon the death of Builler(o Rustia on Aebruar1 2 & #$05. The clai( of voluntar1 reco"nition .Builler(aDs second "round/ (ust li3e2ise fail. !n authentic 2ritin"& for purposes of voluntar1 reco"nition& is understood as a "enuine or indubitable 2ritin" of the parent .in this case& Builler(o Rustia/. This includes a public

instru(ent or a private 2ritin" ad(itted b1 the father to be his.*0 Did intervenorDs report card fro( the Gniversit1 of Santo To(as and :osefa Del"adoDs obituar1 prepared b1 Builler(o Rustia 4ualif1 as authentic 2ritin"s under the ne2 -ivil -ode> Gnfortunatel1 not. The report card of intervenor Builler(a did not bear the si"nature of Builler(o Rustia. The fact that his na(e appears there as intervenorDs parent@"uardian holds no 2ei"ht since he had no participation in its preparation. Si(ilarl1& 2hile 2itnesses testified that it 2as Builler(o Rustia hi(self 2ho drafted the notice of death of :osefa Del"ado 2hich 2as published in the Sunda1 Ti(es on Septe(ber #7& #$02& that published obituar1 2as not the authentic 2ritin" conte(plated b1 the la2. ?hat could have been ad(itted as an authentic 2ritin" 2as the ori"inal (anuscript of the notice& in the hand2ritin" of Builler(o Rustia hi(self and si"ned b1 hi(& not the ne2spaper clippin" of the obituar1. The failure to present the ori"inal si"ned (anuscript 2as fatal to intervenorDs clai(. The sa(e (isfortune befalls the amp n-amp nan& Builler(ina Rustia Rustia& 2ho 2as never adopted in accordance 2ith la2. !lthou"h a petition for her adoption 2as filed b1 Builler(o Rustia& it never ca(e to fruition and 2as dis(issed upon the latterDs death. ?e affir( the rulin" of both the trial court and the -ourt of !ppeals holdin" her a le"al stran"er to the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit fro( the( ab intestato. ?e 4uote8 !doption is a <uridical act& a proceedin" in re(& 2hich EcreatedF bet2een t2o persons a relationship si(ilar to that 2hich results fro( le"iti(ate paternit1 and filiation. Onl1 an adoption (ade throu"h the court& or in pursuance 2ith the procedure laid do2n under Rule $$ of the Rules of -ourt is valid in this <urisdiction. It is not of natural la2 at all& but is 2holl1 and entirel1 artificial. To establish the relation& the statutor1 re4uire(ents (ust be strictl1 carried out& other2ise& the adoption is an absolute nullit1. The fact of adoption is never presu(ed& but (ust be affir(ativel1 EprovenF b1 the person clai(in" its e9istence.* Pre(ises considered& 2e rule that t2o of the clai(ants to the estate of Builler(o Rustia& na(el1& intervenor Builler(a Rustia and the amp n-amp nan Builler(ina Rustia Rustia& are not la2ful heirs of the decedent. Gnder !rticle #772 of the ne2 -ivil -ode& if there are no descendants& ascendants& ille"iti(ate children& or survivin" spouse& the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore& the la2ful heirs of Builler(o Rustia are the re(ainin" clai(ants& consistin" of his sisters&*$ nieces and nephe2s.07 ,ntitle(ent To ;etters Of !d(inistration !n ad(inistrator is a person appointed b1 the court to ad(inister the intestate estate of the decedent. Rule 0 & Section * of the Rules of -ourt prescribes an order of preference in the appoint(ent of an ad(inistrator8

Sec. *. 1hen and to whom letters of administration granted. K If no e9ecutor is na(ed in the 2ill& or the e9ecutor or e9ecutors are inco(petent& refuse the trust& or fail to "ive a bond& or a person dies intestate& ad(inistration shall be "ranted8 .a/ To the survivin" husband or 2ife& as the case (a1 be& or ne9t of 3in& or both& in the discretion of the court& or to such person as such survivin" husband or 2ife& or ne9t of 3in& re4uests to have appointed& if co(petent and 2illin" to serve= .b/ If such survivin" husband or 2ife& as the case (a1 be& or ne9t of 3in& or the person selected b1 the(& be inco(petent or un2illin"& or if the husband or 2ido2 or ne9t of 3in& ne"lects for thirt1 .)7/ da1s after the death of the person to appl1 for ad(inistration or to re4uest that the ad(inistration be "ranted to so(e other person& it (a1 be "ranted to one or (ore of the principal creditors& if co(petent and 2illin" to serve= .c/ If there is no such creditor co(petent and 2illin" to serve& it (a1 be "ranted to such other person as the court (a1 select. In the appoint(ent of an ad(inistrator& the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed.0# The order of preference does not rule out the appoint(ent of co6ad(inistrators& speciall1 in cases 2here <ustice and e4uit1 de(and that opposin" parties or factions be represented in the (ana"e(ent of the estates&02 a situation 2hich obtains here. It is in this li"ht that 2e see fit to appoint <oint ad(inistrators& in the persons of -arlota Del"ado (da. de de la Rosa and a no(inee of the nephe2s and nieces of Builler(o Rustia. The1 are the ne9t of 3in of the deceased spouses :osefa Del"ado and Builler(o Rustia& respectivel1. ;(ERE$ORE& the petition .2hich see3s to reinstate the Ma1 ##& #$$7 decision of the RT- Manila& 'ranch %%/ is hereb1 DEN&ED. The assailed October 25& 2772 decision of the -ourt of !ppeals is '$$&RMED 2ith the follo2in" (odifications8 #. Builler(o RustiaDs :une #%& #$0) affidavit of self6ad<udication is hereb1 'NNU%%ED. 2. the intestate estate of Builler(o Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of :osefa Del"ado. The re(ainin" half shall pertain to .a/ the full and half6siblin"s of :osefa Del"ado 2ho survived her and .b/ the children of an1 of :osefa Del"adoDs full6 or half6siblin"s 2ho (a1 have predeceased her& also survivin" at the ti(e of her death. :osefa Del"adoDs "randnephe2s and

"randnieces are e9cluded fro( her estate. In this connection& the trial court is hereb1 ordered to deter(ine the identities of the relatives of :osefa Del"ado 2ho are entitled to share in her estate. ). Builler(o RustiaDs estate .includin" its one6half share of :osefa Del"adoDs estate/ shall be inherited b1 Marciana Rustia (da. de Da(ian and Hortencia Rustia -ruC .2hose respective shares shall be per capita/ and the children of the late Ro(an Rustia& Sr. .2ho survived Builler(o Rustia and 2hose respective shares shall be per stirpes/. -onsiderin" that Marciana Rustia (da. de Da(ian and Hortencia Rustia -ruC are no2 deceased& their respective shares shall pertain to their estates. 5. ;etters of ad(inistration over the still unsettled intestate estates of Builler(o Rustia and :osefa Del"ado shall issue to -arlota Del"ado (da. de de la Rosa and to a no(inee fro( a(on" the heirs of Builler(o Rustia& as <oint ad(inistrators& upon their 4ualification and filin" of the re4uisite bond in such a(ount as (a1 be deter(ined b1 the trial court. No pronounce(ent as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S,-OND DIVISION

G.R. No. "4#40 Mar 0 #5, 199# O%&*&' S. P'SCU'% a-d (ERMES S. P'SCU'%, petitioners& vs. ESPER'N3' C. P'SCU'%1)'UT&ST', M'NUE% C. P'SCU'%, ,OSE C. P'SCU'%, SUS'N' C. P'SCU'%1)'UT&ST', ER%&ND' C. P'SCU'%, ;ENCES%'O C. P'SCU'%, ,R., &NTEST'TE EST'TE O$ E%EUTER&O T. P'SCU'%, '*E%&NO P'SCU'%, &SOCE%ES P'SCU'%, %E&D' P'SCU'%1 M'RT&NES, *&RG&N&' P'SCU'%1NER, NON' P'SCU'%1$ERN'NDO, OCT'*&O P'SCU'%, GER'N'&' P'SCU'%1DU)ERT, a-d T(E (ONOR')%E PRES&D&NG

,UDGE M'NUE% S. P'DO%&N' o: )r. 1/#, RTC, Pa68g, Metro Ma-8la, respondents.

Vir"inia Pascual6Ner Nona Pascual6Aernando Octavio Pascual Beranaia Pascual6Dubert= .d/ !c3no2led"ed natural children of ,li"io Pascual& brother of the full blood of the deceased& to 2it8 Olivia S. Pascual Her(es S. Pascual .e/ Intestate of ,leuterio T. Pascual& a brother of the half blood of the deceased and represented b1 the follo2in"8 Do(in"a M. Pascual Ma(erta P. Au"oso !braha( S. Sar(iento& III Re"ina Sar(iento6Macaiba1 ,leuterio P. Sar(iento Do(i"a P. San Die"o Nelia P. Mar4ueC Silvestre M. Pascual ,leuterio M. Pascual .Rollo& pp. 5*650/ !dela Soldevilla de Pascual& the survivin" spouse of the late Don !ndres Pascual& filed 2ith the Re"ional Trial -ourt .RT-/& 'ranch #*2 .-AI of RiCal& 'r. HHIII/& a Special Proceedin"& -ase No. 0%%5& for ad(inistration of the intestate estate of her late husband .Rollo& p. 50/. On Dece(ber # & #$0)& !dela soldevilla de Pascual filed a Supple(ental Petition to the Petition for letters of !d(inistration& 2here she e9pressl1 stated that Olivia Pascual and Her(es Pascual& are a(on" the heirs of Don !ndres Pascual .Rollo& pp. $$6#7#/. On Aebruar1 20& #$05& a"ain !dela Soldevilla de Pascual e9ecuted an affidavit& to the effect that of her o2n 3no2led"e& ,li"io Pascual is the 1oun"er full blood brother of her late husband Don !ndres Pascual& to belie the state(ent (ade b1 the oppositors& that the1 2ere are not a(on" the 3no2n heirs of the deceased Don !ndres Pascual .Rollo& p. #72/. On October #*& #$ %& all the above6(entioned heirs entered into a -OMPROMIS, !BR,,M,NT& over the vehe(ent ob<ections of the herein petitioners Olivia S.

P'R'S, J.: This is a petition for revie2 on certiorari 2hich see3s to reverse and set aside8 .a/ the decision of the -ourt of !ppeals 1 dated !pril 2$& #$ in -!6B.R. SP. No. #57#7 entitled +Olivia S. Pascual and Her(es S. Pascual v. ,speranCa -. Pascual6'autista& Manuel -. Pascual& :ose Pascual& Susana -. Pascual6'autista& ,rlinda -. Pascual& ?enceslao -. Pascual& :r.& et al.+ 2hich dis(issed the petition and in effect affir(ed the decision of the trial court and .b/ the resolution dated :ul1 #5& #$ den1in" petitionersL (otion for reconsideration. The undisputed facts of the case are as follo2s8 Petitioners Olivia and Her(es both surna(ed Pascual are the ac3no2led"ed natural children of the late ,li"io Pascual& the latter bein" the full blood brother of the decedent Don !ndres Pascual .Rollo& petition& p. #0/. Don !ndres Pascual died intestate on October #2& #$0) 2ithout an1 issue& le"iti(ate& ac3no2led"ed natural& adopted or spurious children and 2as survived b1 the follo2in"8 .a/ !dela Soldevilla de Pascual& survivin" spouses= .b/ -hildren of ?enceslao Pascual& Sr.& a brother of the full blood of the deceased& to 2it8 ,speranCa -. Pascual6'autista Manuel -. Pascual :ose -. Pascual Susana -. Pascual6'autista ,rlinda -. Pascual ?enceslao -. Pascual& :r. .c/ -hildren of Pedro6'autista& brother of the half blood of the deceased& to 2it8 !velino Pascual Isoceles Pascual ;oida Pascual6MartineC

Pascual and Her(es S. Pascual& althou"h para"raph V of such co(pro(ise a"ree(ent provides& to 2it8 This -o(pro(ise !"ree(ent shall be 2ithout pre<udice to the continuation of the above6entitled proceedin"s until the final deter(ination thereof b1 the court& or b1 another co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& as re"ards the clai(s of Olivia Pascual and Her(es Pascual as le"al heirs of the deceased& Don !ndres Pascual. .Rollo& p. #7 / The said -o(pro(ise !"ree(ent had been entered into despite the Manifestation@Motion of the petitioners Olivia Pascual and Her(es Pascual& (anifestin" their hereditar1 ri"hts in the intestate estate of Don !ndres Pascual& their uncle .Rollo& pp. ###6##2/. On Septe(ber )7& #$ 0& petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditar1 Ri"hts .Rollo& pp. ##)6##5/ and the Me(orandu( in Support of Motion to reiterate Hereditar1 Ri"hts .Rollo& pp. ##*6#)7/. On Dece(ber # & #$ 0& the Re"ional Trial -ourt& presided over b1 :ud"e Manuel S. Padolina issued an order& the dispositive portion of 2hich reads8 ?H,R,AOR,& pre(ises considered& this -ourt resolves as it is hereb1 resolved to Den1 this (otion reiteratin" the hereditar1 ri"hts of Olivia and Her(es Pascual .Rollo& p. #)*/. On :anuar1 #)& #$ & petitioners filed their (otion for reconsideration .Rollo& pp. %#%6 %2*/. and such (otion 2as denied. Petitioner appealed their case to the -ourt of !ppeals doc3eted as -!6B.R. No. #57#7 .Rollo& p. #%./. On !ril 2$& #$ & the respondent -ourt of !ppeals rendered its decision the decision the dispositive part of 2hich reads8 ?H,R,AOR,& the petition is DISMISS,D. -osts a"ainst the petitioners. SO ORD,R,D. .Rollo& p. ) / Petitioners filed their (otion for reconsideration of said decision and on :ul1 #5& #$ the -ourt of !ppeals issued its resolution den1in" the (otion for reconsideration .Rollo& p. 52/. &

Hence& this petition for revie2 on certiorari. !fter all the re4uire(ents had been filed& the case 2as "iven due course. The (ain issue to be resolved in the case at bar is 2hether or not !rticle $$2 of the -ivil -ode of the Philippines& can be interpreted to e9clude reco"niCed natural children fro( the inheritance of the deceased. Petitioners contend that the1 do not fall s4uarel1 2ithin the purvie2 of !rticle $$2 of the -ivil -ode of the Philippines& can be interpreted to e9clude reco"niCed and of the doctrine laid do2n in $iaz (. 23! .#%7 S-R! *5% E#$ 0F/ because bein" ac3no2led"ed natural children& their ille"iti(ac1 is not due to the subsistence of a prior (arria"e 2hen such children 2ere under conception .Rollo& p. 5# /. Other2ise stated the1 sa1 the ter( +ille"iti(ate+ children as pro(ided in !rticle $$2 (ust be strictl1 construed to refer onl1 to spurious children .Rollo& p. 5#$/. On the other hand& private respondents (aintain that herein petitioners are 2ithin the prohibition of !rticle $$2 of the -ivil -ode and the doctrine laid do2n in $iaz (. 23! is applicable to the(. The petition is devoid of (erit. Pertinent thereto& !rticle $$2 of the civil -ode& provides8 !n ille"iti(ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro( the le"iti(ate children and relatives of his father or (other= nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the sa(e (anner fro( the ille"iti(ate child. The issue in the case at bar& had alread1 been laid to rest in $iaz (. 23!, s pra, 2here this -ourt ruled that8 !rticle $$2 of the -ivil -ode provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutel1 a succession ab intestato bet2een the ille"iti(ate child and the le"iti(ate children and relatives of the father or (other of said le"iti(ate child. The1 (a1 have a natural tie of blood& but this is not reco"niCed b1 la2 for the purposes of !rticle $$2. 'et2een the le"iti(ate fa(il1 and ille"iti(ate fa(il1 there is presu(ed to be an intervenin" anta"onis( and inco(patibilit1. The ille"iti(ate child is dis"racefull1 loo3ed do2n upon b1 the le"iti(ate fa(il1= the fa(il1 is in turn hated b1 the ille"iti(ate child= the latter considers the privile"ed condition of the

for(er& and the resources of 2hich it is thereb1 deprived= the for(er& in turn& sees in the ille"iti(ate child nothin" but the product of sin& palpable evidence of a ble(ish bro3en in life= the la2 does no (ore than reco"niCe this truth& b1 avoidin" further "rounds of resent(ent. ,li"io Pascual is a le"iti(ate child but petitioners are his ille"iti(ate children. !ppl1in" the above doctrine to the case at bar& respondent I!- did not err in holdin" that petitioners herein cannot represent their father ,li"io Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent !ndres Pascual& full blood brother of their father. In their (e(orandu(& petitioners insisted that !rticle $$2 in the li"ht of !rticles $72 and $ $ of the -ivil -ode allo2s the( .Olivia and Her(es/ to represent ,li"io Pascual in the intestate estate of Don !ndres Pascual. On (otion for reconsideration of the decision in $iaz (. 23!, this -ourt further elucidated the successional ri"hts of ille"iti(ate children& 2hich s4uarel1 ans2ers the 4uestions raised b1 the petitioner on this point. The -ourt held8 !rticle $72& $ $& and $$7 clearl1 spea3s of successional ri"hts of ille"iti(ate children& 2hich ri"hts are trans(itted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants .of these ille"iti(ate children/ 2ho (a1 inherit b1 virtue of the ri"ht of representation (a1 be le"iti(ate or ille"iti(ate. In 2hatever (anner& one should not overloo3 the fact that the persons to be represented are the(selvesillegitimate. The three na(ed provisions are ver1 clear on this (atter. The ri"ht of representation is not available to ille"iti(ate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a le"iti(ate "randparent. It (a1 be ar"ued& as done b1 petitioners& that the ille"iti(ate descendant of a le"iti(ate child is entitled to represent b1 virtue of the provisions of !rticle $ 2& 2hich provides that +the "randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b1 ri"ht of representation.+ Such a conclusion is erroneous. It 2ould allo2 intestate succession b1 an ille"iti(ate child to the le"iti(ate parent of his father or (other& a situation 2hich 2ould set at nau"ht the provisions of !rticle $$2. !rticle $ 2 is inapplicable to the instant case because !rticle $$2 prohibits absolutel1 a succession ab intestatobet2een the ille"iti(ate child and the le"iti(ate children and relatives of the father or (other. It

(a1 not be a(iss to state !rticle $ 2 is the "eneral rule and !rticle $$2 the e9ception. The rules laid do2n in !rticle $ 2 that +"randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b1 ri"ht of representation+ and in !rticle $72 that the ri"hts of ille"iti(ate children . . . are trans(itted upon their death to their descendants& 2hether le"iti(ate or ille"iti(ate are s b"ect to the limitation prescribed b1 !rticle $$2 to the end that an ille"iti(ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro( the le"iti(ate children and relatives of his father or (other. .!(icus -uriaeLs Opinion b1 for(er :ustice Minister Ricardo -. Puno& p. #2/. DiaC v. Inter(ediate !ppellate -ourt& # 2 S-R! 520= pp. 5)#6 5)2= E#$$7F/. Veril1& the interpretation of the la2 desired b1 the petitioner (a1 be (ore hu(ane but it is also an ele(entar1 rule in statutor1 construction that 2hen the 2ords and phrases of the statute are clear and une4uivocal& their (eanin" (ust be deter(ined fro( the lan"ua"e e(plo1ed and the statute (ust be ta3en to (ean e9actl1 2hat is sa1s. .'aranda v. Bustilo& #*% S-R! 0% 60%$ E#$ F/. The courts (a1 not speculate as to the probable intent of the le"islature apart fro( the 2ords .!parri v. -!& #20 S-R! 2)) E#$ 5F/. ?hen the la2 is clear& it is not susceptible of interpretation. It (ust be applied re"ardless of 2ho (a1 be affected& even if the la2 (a1 be harsh or onerous. .Nepo(uceno& et al. v. A-& ##7 Phil. 52/. !nd even "rantin" that e9ceptions (a1 be conceded& the sa(e as a "eneral rule& should be strictl1 but reasonabl1 construed= the1 e9tend onl1 so far as their lan"ua"e fairl1 2arrants& and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the "eneral provisions rather than the e9ception. Thus& 2here a "eneral rule is established b1 statute& the court 2ill not curtail the for(er nor add to the latter b1 i(plication .Sa(son v. -.!.& #5% S-R! *%5 E#$ *F/. -learl1 the ter( +ille"iti(ate+ refers to both natural and spurious. Ainall1 under !rticle #0* of the Aa(il1 -ode& all ille"iti(ate children are "enerall1 placed under one cate"or1& 2hich undoubtedl1 settles the issue as to 2hether or not ac3no2led"ed natural children should be treated differentl1& in the ne"ative. It (a1 be said that the la2 (a1 be harsh but that is the la2 .DGR! ;,H S,D ;,H/. PR,MIS,S -ONSID,R,D& the petition is DISMISS,D for lac3 of (erit and the assailed decision of the respondent -ourt of !ppeals dated !pril 2$& #$ is !AAIRM,D. SO ORD,R,D. Melencio-4errera, Padilla, Regalado and 5ocon, 66., conc r.

ta3e private respondent Modesta Manuel6'altaCar into their fold and so raised her as their o2n +dau"hter+. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION On 7) :une #$ 7& :uan Manuel e9ecuted in favor of ,stanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Sale !on Pacto de Retro .2ith a #761ear period of rede(ption/ over a one6half .#@2/ portion of his land covered b1 T-T No. 5##)5. :uan Manuel died intestate on 2# Aebruar1 #$$7. T2o 1ears later& or on 75 Aebruar1 #$$2& ,speranCa Ba(ba also passed a2a1. On 7% March #$$2& a (onth after the death of ,speranCa& Modesta e9ecuted an !ffidavit of Self6!d<udication clai(in" for herself the three parcels of land covered b1 O-T P627%$5& O-T P6#$$72 and T-T No. 5##)5 .all still in the na(e of :uan Manuel/. Aollo2in" the re"istration of the docu(ent of ad<udication 2ith the Office of the Re"ister of Deeds& the three titles .O-T P627%$5& O-T P6#$$72 and T-T No. 5##)5/ in the na(e of :uan Manuel 2ere canceled and ne2 titles& T-T No. # 522)& T-T No. # 5225 and T-T No. # 522%& 2ere issued in the na(e of Modesta Manuel6'altaCar. On #$ October #$$2& Modesta e9ecuted in favor of her co6respondent ,stanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Muitclai( over the unredee(ed one6half .#@2/ portion of the land .no2 covered b1 T-T No. # 522%/ that 2as sold to the latter b1 :uan Manuel under the #$ 7 Deed of Sale !on Pacto de Retro. These acts of Modesta apparentl1 did not sit 2ell 2ith petitioners. In a co(plaint filed before the Re"ional Trial -ourt of ;in"a1en& Pan"asinan& the petitioners sou"ht the declaration of nullit1 of the aforesaid instru(ents. The case& there bein" no (aterial dispute on the facts& 2as sub(itted to the court a 7 o for su((ar1 <ud"(ent. The trial court& in its no2 assailed #%th !u"ust #$$5 decision& dis(issed the co(plaint holdin" that petitioners& not bein" heirs ab intestato of their ille"iti(ate brother :uan Manuel& 2ere not the real parties6in6interest to institute the suit. Petitioners 2ere also ordered to <ointl1 and severall1 .solidaril1/ pa1 .a/ respondent Modesta Manuel6'altaCar the su( of P%&777.77 for (oral da(a"es& P%&777.77 for e9e(plar1 da(a"es& P%&777.77 for attorne1Ls fees and P%77.77 for liti"ation e9penses and .b/ ,stanislaoa Manuel the su( of P%&777.77 for (oral da(a"es& P%&777.77 for e9e(plar1 da(a"es and P%77.77 for attorne1Ls fees. PetitionersL (otion for reconsideration 2as denied b1 the trial court. The petition before us raises the follo2in" contentions8 That I #. TH, ;O?,R -OGRT .H!S/ A!I;,D TO -ONSID,R TH, ;!ST P!R!BR!PH OA !RTI-;, $$5 OA TH, N,? -IVI; -OD,& !S TH,

G.R. No. 117#4/ 'ugu6t #1, 1995 )EN&GNO M'NUE%, %&)ER'TO M'NUE%, %OREN3O M'NUE%, P%'C&D' M'NUE%, M'DRON' M'NUE%, ESPER'N3' M'NUE%, 'G'P&T' M'NUE%, )'S&%&S' M'NUE%, EM&%&' M'NUE% a-d NUMER&'N' M'NUE%,petitioners& vs. (ON. N&CODEMO T. $ERRER, Pre68d8-g ,udge, Reg8o-al Tr8al Court, )ra- 0 +7, %8-ga.e-, Pa-ga68-a-, MODEST' )'%T'3'R a-d EST'N&S%'O' M'NUE%, respondents.

*&TUG, J.: The propert1 involved in this petition for revie2 on certiorari is the inheritance left b1 an ille"iti(ate child 2ho died intestate 2ithout an1 survivin" descendant or ascendant. Petitioners& the le"iti(ate children of spouses !ntonio Manuel and 'eatriC Builin"& initiated this suit. Durin" his (arria"e 2ith 'eatriC& !ntonio had an e9tra6(arital affair 2ith one Grsula 'autista. Aro( this relationship& :uan Manuel 2as born. Several 1ears passed before !ntonio Manuel& his 2ife 'eatriC& and his (istress Grsula finall1 crossed the bar on& respectivel1& 7* !u"ust #$*7& 7% Aebruar1 #$ # and 75 Nove(ber #$0*. :uan Manuel& the ille"iti(ate son of !ntonio& (arried ,speranCa Ba(ba. In consideration of the (arria"e& a donation propter n ptias over a parcel of land& 2ith an area of 2&077 s4uare (eters& covered b1 Ori"inal -ertificate of Title .+O-T+/ No. P627%$5 2as e9ecuted in favor of :uan Manuel b1 ;aurenciana Manuel. T2o other parcels of land& covered b1 O-T P6#$$72 and Transfer -ertificate of Title .+T-T+/ No. 5##)5& 2ere later bou"ht b1 :uan and re"istered in his na(e. The couple 2ere not blessed 2ith a child of their o2n. Their desire to have one i(pelled the spouses to

-ONTRO;;INB ;!? !PP;I-!';, 'J VIRTG, OA TH, !DMITT,D A!-TS& !ND NOT !RTI-;, $$2 OA TH, S!M, -OD,. 2. TH, ;O?,R -OGRT& IN NOT !NNG;;INB !;; TH, !-TS OA& !ND VOIDINB !;; DO-GM,NTS ,H,-GT,D 'J& R,SPOND,NT MOD,ST! '!;T!N!R& ?HO !RROB!T,D GNTO H,RS,;A TH, RIBHTS OA !N H,IR TO TH, ,ST!T, OA D,-,D,NT :G!N M!NG,;& .H!S/ VIRTG!;;J BR!NT,D S!ID R,SPOND,NT TH, ST!TGS OA !N H,IR M!NIA,ST;J -ONTR!RJ TO ;!?& MOR!;S !ND PG';I- PO;I-J. ). TO ,NAOR-, ON,LS RIBHT ?H,N TH,J !R, VIO;!T,D IS N,V,R ! ;,B!; ?RONB. 1 Petitioners ar"ue that the1 are the le"al heirs over one6half of :uanLs intestate estate .2hile the other half 2ould pertain to :uanLs survivin" spouse/ under the provision of the last para"raph of !rticle $$5 of the -ivil -ode& providin" thusl18 !rt. $$5. In default of the father or (other& an ille"iti(ate child shall be succeeded b1 his or her survivin" spouse& 2ho shall be entitled to the entire estate. If the 2ido2 or 2ido2er should survive 2ith brothers and sisters& nephe2s and nieces& she or he shall inherit one6half of the estate& and the latter the other half. .,(phasis supplied/ Respondents& in turn& sub(it that !rticle $$5 should be read in con<unction 2ith !rticle $$2 of the -ivil -ode& 2hich reads8 !rt. $$2. !n ille"iti(ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro( the le"iti(ate children and relatives of his father or (other= nor shall s ch children or relati(e inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. .,(phasis supplied/ !rticle $$2& a basic postulate& enunciates 2hat is so co((onl1 referred to in the rules on succession as the +principle of absolute separation bet2een the le"iti(ate fa(il1 and the ille"iti(ate fa(il1.+ The doctrine re<ects succession ab intestato in the collateral line bet2een le"iti(ate relatives& on the one hand& and ille"iti(ate relatives& on other hand& althou"h it does not totall1 disavo2 such succession in the direct line. Since the rule is predicated on the presu(ed 2ill of the decedent& it has no application& ho2ever& on testa(entar1 dispositions. This +barrier+ bet2een the (e(bers of the le"iti(ate and ille"iti(ate fa(il1 in intestac1 is e9plained b1 a noted civilist. # His thesis8

?hat is (eant b1 the la2 2hen it spea3s of brothers and sisters& nephe2s and nieces& as le"al or intestate heirs of an ille"iti(ate child> It (ust be noted that under !rt. $$2 of the -ode& there is a barrier dividin" (e(bers of the ille"iti(ate fa(il1 fro( (e(bers of the le"iti(ate fa(il1. It is clear that b1 virtue of this barrier& the le"iti(ate brothers and sisters as 2ell as the children& 2hether le"iti(ate or ille"iti(ate& of such brothers and sisters& cannot inherit fro( the ille"iti(ate child. !onse7 ently, when the law spea0s of+brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces+ as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of s ch brothers and sisters. .,(phasis supplied/ The -ourt& too& has had occasions to e9plain this +iron curtain+& firstl1& in the earl1 case of Grey (. #abie + and& then& in the relativel1 recent cases of $iaz (. 2ntermediate 3ppellate !o rt 4 and $e la P erta (. !o rt of 3ppeals.5 In $iaz, 2e have said8 !rticle $$2 of the Ne2 -ivil -ode . . . prohibits absolutel1 a succession ab intestato bet2een the ille"iti(ate child and the le"iti(ate children and relatives of the father or (other of said le"iti(ate child. The1 (a1 have a natural tie of blood& but this is not reco"niCed b1 la2 for the purposes of !rticle $$2. 'et2een the le"iti(ate fa(il1 and the ille"iti(ate fa(il1 there is presu(ed to be an intervenin" anta"onis( and inco(patibilit1. The ille"iti(ate child is dis"racefull1 loo3ed do2n upon b1 the le"iti(ate fa(il1= the le"iti(ate fa(il1 is& in turn& hated b1 the ille"iti(ate child= the latter considers the privile"ed condition of the for(er& and the resources of 2hich it is thereb1 deprived= the for(er& in turn& sees in the ille"iti(ate child nothin" but the product of sin& palpable evidence of a ble(ish bro3en in life= the la2 does no (ore than reco"niCe this truth& b1 avoidin" further "rounds of resent(ent. The rule in !rticle $$2 has consistentl1 been applied b1 the -ourt in several other cases. Thus& it has ruled that 2here the ille"iti(ate child had half6brothers 2ho 2ere le"iti(ate& the latter had no ri"ht to the for(erLs inheritance= / that the le"iti(ate collateral relatives of the (other cannot succeed fro( her ille"iti(ate child= 7 that a natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the le"iti(ate "randparent= " that the natural dau"hter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle 2ho is a le"iti(ate brother of her natural father= 9 and that an ille"iti(ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro( the le"iti(ate children and relatives of his father. 10Indeed& the la2 on succession is ani(ated b1 a unifor( "eneral intent& and thus no part should be rendered inoperative 11 b1& but (ust al2a1s be construed in relation to& an1 other part as to produce a har(onious 2hole.1#

In passin"& 2e (i"ht& in eas1 "raphic presentation& collate the order of preference and concurrence in intestac1 e9pressed in !rticle $0 throu"h !rticle #7#5& inclusive& of the -ivil -ode= (iz.8 8rder of Preference .a/ ;e"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants 8rder of !onc rrence .a/ ;e"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants& Ille"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants& and Survivin" Spouse .b/ ;e"iti(ate Parents and !scendants Ille"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants& and Survivin" Spouse .c/ Ille"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants and Survivin" Spouse .d/ Survivin" Spouse and Ille"iti(ate Parents .e/ 'rothers and Sisters@ Nephe2s and Nieces and Survivin" Spouse .f/ !lone ."/ !lone

is necessaril1 so 2ron"ful as to <ustif1 an assess(ent of da(a"es a"ainst the actor. 15 ?H,R,AOR,& the appealed decision of the Re"ional Trial -ourt of Pan"asinan .'ranch )0/ is !AAIRM,D& e9cept insofar as it has a2arded (oral and e9e(plar1 da(a"es& as 2ell as attorne1Ls fees and liti"ation e9penses& in favor of private respondents& 2hich portion is hereb1 D,;,T,D. No special pronounce(ent on costs. SO ORD,R,D. #eliciano, Romero and Melo, 66., conc r.

.b/ ;e"iti(ate Parents and !scendants

.c/ Ille"iti(ate -hildren and Descendants .in the absence of I-Ds and ;P!s& the Ille"iti(ate Parents/ .d/ Survivin" Spouse .e/ 'rothers and Sisters@ Nephe2s and Nieces .f/ Other -ollateral Relatives .2ithin the fifth civil de"ree/ ."/ State

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S,-OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1#10#7 ,ul. +1, 1997 COR'3ON DE3O%%ER T&SON a-d RENE R. DE3O%%ER, petitioners& vs. COURT O$ 'PPE'%S a-d TEODOR' DOM&NGO, respondents.

In her ans2er to the co(plaint& Modesta candidl1 ad(itted that she herself is not an intestate heir of :uan Manuel. She is ri"ht. ! 2ard .ampon/& 2ithout the benefit of for(al .<udicial/ adoption& is neither a co(pulsor1 nor a le"al heir. 1+ ?e (ust hold& nevertheless& that the co(plaint of petitioners see3in" the nullit1 of the !ffidavit of Self6!d<udication e9ecuted b1 Modesta& the three .)/ T-TLs issued to her favor& as 2ell as the Deed of Renunciation and Muitclai( in favor of ,stanislaoa Manuel& 2as properl1 dis(issed b1 the trial court. Petitioners& not bein" the real +parties6in6interest+ 14 in the case& had neither the standin" nor the cause of action to initiate the co(plaint. The -ourt& ho2ever& sees no sufficient reason to sustain the a2ard of a(ounts for (oral and e9e(plar1 da(a"es& attorne1Ls fees and liti"ation e9penses. !n adverse result of a suit in la2 does not (ean that its advocac1

REG'%'DO, J.: The present appeal b1 certiorari see3s the reversal of the <ud"(ent rendered b1 respondent -ourt of !ppeals on :une )7& #$$% 1 2hich affir(ed the Order of Dece(ber )& #$$2 issued b1 the Re"ional Trial -ourt of MueCon -it1& 'ranch $ & "rantin" herein private respondentLs De(urrer to PlaintiffLs ,vidence filed in -ivil -ase No. M6 6#7%5 pendin" therein. The present appellate revie2 involves an action for reconve1ance filed b1 herein petitioners a"ainst herein private respondent before the Re"ional Trial -ourt of MueCon -it1& 'ranch $ & doc3eted as the aforesaid -ivil -ase No. M6 6#7%5& over a parcel of land 2ith a house and apart(ent thereon located at San Arancisco del

Monte& MueCon -it1 and 2hich 2as ori"inall1 o2ned b1 the spouses Martin Buerrero and Teodora DeColler Buerrero. It appears that petitioners -oraCon Tison and Rene DeColler are the niece and nephe2& respectivel1& of the deceased Teodora DeColler Buerrero 2ho is the sister of petitionerLs father& Her(o"enes DeColler. Teodora DeColler Buerrero died on March %& #$ ) 2ithout an1 ascendant or descendant& and 2as survived onl1 b1 her husband& Martin Buerrero& and herein petitioners. PetitionersL father& Her(o"enes& died on October )& #$0)& hence the1 see3 to inherit fro( Teodora DeColler Buerrero b1 ri"ht of representation. The records reveal that upon the death of Teodora DeColler Buerrero& her survivin" spouse& Martin& e9ecuted on Septe(ber #%& #$ * an !ffidavit of ,9tra<udicial Settle(ent # ad<udicatin" unto hi(self& alle"edl1 as sole heir& the land in dispute 2hich is covered b1 Transfer -ertificate of Title No. ** *& as a conse4uence of 2hich Transfer -ertificate of Title No. )% 705 2as issued in the na(e of Martin Buerrero. On :anuar1 2& #$ & Martin Buerrero sold the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Do(in"o and thereafter& Transfer -ertificate of Title No. )057#2 2as issued in the latterLs na(e. Martin Buerrero died on October 2%& #$ . Subse4uentl1& herein petitioners filed an action for reconve1ance on Nove(ber 2& #$ & clai(in" that the1 are entitled to inherit one6half of the propert1 in 4uestion b1 ri"ht of representation. !t the pre6trial conference& the follo2in" issues 2ere presented b1 both parties for resolution8 .#/ 2hether or not the plaintiffs .herein petitioners/ are the nephe2 and niece of the late Teodora DeColler= .2/ 2hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit b1 ri"ht of representation fro( the estate of the late Teodora DeColler= .)/ 2hether or not defendant .herein private respondent/ (ust reconve1 the reserved participation of the plaintiffs to the estate of the late Teodora DeColler under Section 5& Rule 05 of the Rules of -ourt 2hich 2as dul1 annotated on the title of the defendant= .5/ 2hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to da(a"es& (oral and e9e(plar1& plus attorne1Ls fees for the 2illful and (alicious refusal of defendant to reconve1 the participation of plaintiffs in the estate of Teodora DeColler& despite de(ands and 3no2in" full1 2ell that plaintiffs are the niece and nephe2 of said deceased= and

.%/ 2hether or not the sub<ect propert1 no2 in liti"ation can be considered as con<u"al propert1 of the spouses Martin Buerrero and Teodora DeColler Buerrero. + Durin" the hearin"& petitioner -oraCon DeColler Tison 2as presented as the lone 2itness& 2ith the follo2in" docu(entar1 evidence offered to prove petitionersL filiation to their father and their aunt& to 2it8 a fa(il1 picture= baptis(al certificates of Teodora and Her(o"enes DeColler= certificates of destro1ed records of birth of Teodora DeColler and Her(o"enes DeColler= death certificates of Her(o"enes DeColler and Teodora DeColler Buerrero= certification of destro1ed records of live birth of -oraCon and Rene DeColler= <oint affidavits of Pablo VerCosa and Meliton Sit<ar attestin" to the parents& date and place of birth of -oraCon and Rene DeColler= <oint affidavit of :uliana -aria"a and Manuela -aria"a attestin" to the fact of (arria"e bet2een Martin Buerrero and Teodora DeColler= and the (arria"e certificate of Martin and Teodora Buerrero. 4 Petitioners thereafter rested their case and sub(itted a 2ritten offer of these e9hibits to 2hich a -o((ent 5 2as filed b1 herein private respondent. Subse4uentl1& private respondent filed a De(urrer to PlaintiffLs ,vidence on the "round that petitioners failed to prove their le"iti(ate filiation 2ith the deceased Teodora Buerrero in accordance 2ith !rticle #02 of the Aa(il1 -ode. It is further averred that the testi(on1 of petitioner -oraCon DeColler Tison re"ardin" her relationship 2ith her alle"ed father and aunt is self6servin"& uncorroborated and inco(petent& and that it falls short of the 4uantu( of proof re4uired under !rticle #02 of the Aa(il1 -ode to establish filiation. !lso& the certification issued b1 the Office of the ;ocal -ivil Re"istrar of Hi(a(a1lan& Ne"ros Occidental is (erel1 proof of the alle"ed destruction of the records referred to therein& and the <oint affidavit e9ecuted b1 Pablo VerCosa and Meliton Sit<ar certif1in" to the date& place of birth and parenta"e of herein petitioners is inad(issible for bein" hearsa1 since the affiants 2ere never presented for cross6e9a(ination. / On Dece(ber )& #$$2& the trial court issued an order "rantin" the de(urrer to evidence and dis(issin" the co(plaint for reconve1ance. 7 In upholdin" the dis(issal& respondent -ourt of !ppeals declared that the docu(entar1 evidence presented b1 herein petitioners& such as the baptis(al certificates& fa(il1 picture& and <oint affidavits are all inad(issible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation. Hence& this appeal. ?e find for petitioners. The bone of contention in private respondentLs de(urrer to evidence is 2hether or not herein petitioners failed to (eet the 4uantu( of proof re4uired b1 !rticle #02 of the Aa(il1 -ode to establish le"iti(ac1 and filiation. There are t2o points for

consideration before us8 first is the issue on petitionerLs le"iti(ac1& and second is the 4uestion re"ardin" their filiation 2ith Teodora DeColler Buerrero. I. It is not debatable that the docu(entar1 evidence adduced b1 petitioners& ta3en separatel1 and independentl1 of each other& are not per se sufficient proof of le"iti(ac1 nor even of pedi"ree. It is i(portant to note& ho2ever& that the rulin"s of both lo2er courts in the case are basicall1 pre(ised on the erroneous assu(ption that& in the first place& the issue of le"iti(ac1 (a1 be validl1 controverted in an action for reconve1ance& and& in the second place& that herein petitioners have the on s probandi to prove their le"iti(ac1 and& corollaril1& their filiation. ?e disa"ree on both counts. It see(s that both the court a 7 o and respondent appellate court have re"rettabl1 overloo3ed the universall1 reco"niCed presu(ption on le"iti(ac1. There is no presu(ption of the la2 (ore fir(l1 established and founded on sounder (oralit1 and (ore convincin" reason than the presu(ption that children born in 2edloc3 are le"iti(ate. "!nd 2ell settled is the rule that the issue of le"iti(ac1 cannot be attac3ed collaterall1. The rationale for these rules has been e9plained in this 2ise8 The presu(ption of le"iti(ac1 in the Aa(il1 -ode . . . actuall1 fi9es a civil status for the child born in 2edloc3& and that civil status cannot be attac3ed collaterall1. The le"iti(ac1 of the child can be i(pu"ned onl1 in a direct action brou"ht for that purpose& b1 the proper parties& and 2ithin the period li(ited b1 la2. The le"iti(ac1 of the child cannot be contested b1 2a1 of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. The necessit1 of an independent action directl1 i(pu"nin" the le"iti(ac1 is (ore clearl1 e9pressed in the Me9ican -ode .!rticle ))%/ 2hich provides8 +The contest of the le"iti(ac1 of a child b1 the husband or his heirs (ust be (ade b1 proper co(plaint before the co(petent court= an1 contest (ade in an1 other 2a1 is void.+ This principle applies under our Aa(il1 -ode. !rticles #07 and #0# of the code confir( this vie2& because the1 refer to +the action to i(pu"n the le"iti(ac1.+ This action can be brou"ht onl1 b1 the husband or his heirs and 2ithin the periods fi9ed in the present articles. Gpon the e9piration of the periods provided in !rticle #07& the action to i(pu"n the le"iti(ac1 of a child can no lon"er be brou"ht. The status conferred b1 the presu(ption& therefore& beco(es fi9ed& and can no lon"er be 4uestioned. The obvious intention of the la2

is to prevent the status of a child born in 2edloc3 fro( bein" in a state of uncertaint1 for a lon" ti(e. It also ai(s to force earl1 action to settle an1 doubt as to the paternit1 of such child& so that the evidence (aterial to the (atter& 2hich (ust necessaril1 be facts occurrin" durin" the period of the conception of the child& (a1 still be easil1 available. 999 999 999 Onl1 the husband can contest the le"iti(ac1 of a child born to his 2ife. He is the one directl1 confronted 2ith the scandal and ridicule 2hich the infidelit1 of his 2ife produces= and he should decide 2hether to conceal that infidelit1 or e9pose it& in vie2 of the (oral and econo(ic interest involved. It is onl1 in e9ceptional cases that his heir are allo2ed to contest such le"iti(ac1. Outside of these cases& none I even his heirs I can i(pu"n le"iti(ac1= that 2ould a(ount to an insult to his (e(or1. 9 The issue& therefore& as to 2hether petitioners are the le"iti(ate children of Her(o"enes DeColler cannot be properl1 controverted in the present action for reconve1ance. This is aside& of course& fro( the further consideration that private respondent is not the proper part1 to i(pu"n the le"iti(ac1 of herein petitioners. The presu(ption conse4uentl1 continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted. ,ven assu(in" that the issue is allo2ed to be resolved in this case& the burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners 2ho have the benefit of the presu(ption in their favor& but on private respondent 2ho is disputin" the sa(e. This fact alone should have been sufficient cause for the trial court to e9ercise appropriate caution before actin"& as it did& on the de(urrer to evidence. It 2ould have deli(ited the issues for resolution& as 2ell as the ti(e and effort necessitated thereb1. Ordinaril1& 2hen a fact is presu(ed& it i(plies that the part1 in 2hose favor the presu(ption e9ists does not have to introduce evidence to establish that fact& and in an1 liti"ation 2here that fact is put in issue& the part1 den1in" it (ust bear the burden of proof to overthro2 the presu(ption. 10 The presu(ption of le"iti(ac1 is so stron" that it is clear that its effect is to shift the burden of persuasion to the part1 clai(in" ille"iti(ac1. 11 !nd in order to destro1 the presu(ption& the part1 a"ainst 2ho( it operates (ust adduce substantial and credible evidence to the contrar1. 1# ?here there is an entire lac3 of co(petent evidence to the contrar1& 1+ and unless or until it is rebutted& it has been held that a presu(ption (a1 stand in lieu of evidence and support a findin" or decision. 14 Perforce& a presu(ption (ust be follo2ed if it is uncontroverted. This is based on the theor1 that a presu(ption is prima facieproof of

the fact presu(ed& and unless the fact thus established prima facie b1 the le"al presu(ption of its truth is disproved& it (ust stand as proved. 15 Indubitabl1& 2hen private respondent opted not to present countervailin" evidence to overco(e the presu(ption& b1 (erel1 filin" a de(urrer to evidence instead& she in effect i(pliedl1 ad(itted the truth of such fact. Indeed& she overloo3ed or disre"arded the evidential rule that presu(ptions li3e <udicial notice and ad(issions& relieve the proponent fro( presentin" evidence on the facts he alle"ed and such facts are thereb1 considered as dul1 proved. II. The 2ei"ht and sufficienc1 of the evidence re"ardin" petitionerLs relationship 2ith Teodora DeColler Buerrero& 2hose estate is the sub<ect of the present controvers1& re4uires a (ore intensive and e9tensive e9a(ination. PetitionersL evidence& as earlier e9plained& consists (ainl1 of the testi(on1 of -oraCon DeColler Tison& the baptis(al& death and (arria"e certificates& the various certifications fro( the civil re"istrar& a fa(il1 picture& and several <oint affidavits e9ecuted b1 third persons all of 2hich she identified and e9plained in the course and as part of her testi(on1. The pri(ar1 proof to be considered in ascertainin" the relationship bet2een the parties concerned is the testi(on1 of -oraCon DeColler Tison to the effect that Teodora DeColler Buerrero in her lifeti(e& or so(eti(e in #$5*& cate"oricall1 declared that the for(er is TeodoraLs niece. 1/ Such a state(ent is considered a declaration about pedi"ree 2hich is ad(issible& as an e9ception to the hearsa1 rule& under Section )$& Rule #)7 of the Rules of -ourt& sub<ect to the follo2in" conditions8 .#/ that the declarant is dead or unable to testif1= .2/ that the declarant be related to the person 2hose pedi"ree is the sub<ect of in4uir1= .)/ that such relationship be sho2n b1 evidence other than the declaration= and .5/ that the declaration 2as (ade ante litem motam& that is& not onl1 before the co((ence(ent of the suit involvin" the sub<ect (atter of the declaration& but before an1 controvers1 has arisen thereon. There is no dispute 2ith respect to the first& second and fourth ele(ents. ?hat re(ains for anal1sis is the third ele(ent& that is& 2hether or not the other docu(ents offered in evidence sufficientl1 corroborated the declaration (ade b1 Teodora DeColler Buerrero in her lifeti(e re"ardin" the pedi"ree of petitioner -oraCon DeColler Tison or& if at all& it is necessar1 to present evidence other than such declaration. !(erican <urisdiction has it that a distinction (ust be (ade as to 2hen the relationship of the declarant (a1 be proved b1 the ver1 declaration itself& or b1 other declarations of said declarant& and 2hen it (ust be supported b1 evidence ali nde. The rule is stated thus8

One situation to be noted is that 2here one see3s to set up a clai( throu"h& but not fro(& the declarant and to establish the ad(issibilit1 of a declaration re"ardin" clai(antLs pedi"ree& he (a1 not do b1 declarantLs o2n state(ents as to declarantLs relationship to the particular fa(il1. The reason is that declarantLs declaration of his o2n relationship is of a self6servin" nature. !ccordin"l1 there (ust be precedent proof fro( other sources that declarant is 2hat he clai(ed to be& na(el1& a (e(ber of the particular fa(il1= other2ise the re4uire(ent to ad(issibilit1 that declarantLs relationship to the co((on fa(il1 (ust appear is not (et. 'ut 2hen the part1 clai(in" see3s to establish relationship in order to clai( directl1 fro( the declarant or the declarantLs estate& the situation and the polic1 of the la2 applicable are 4uite different. 2n s ch case the declaration of the decedent, whose estate is in contro(ersy, that he was related to the one who claims his estate, is admissible witho t other proof of the fact of relationship. ?hile the nature of the declaration is then disservin"& that is not the real "round for its ad(ission. Such declarations do not derive their evidential value fro( that consideration& althou"h it is a useful& if not an artificial& aid in deter(inin" the class to 2hich the declarations belon". The distinction 2e have note is sufficientl1 apparent= in the one case the declarations are self6servin"& in the otherthey are competent from reasons of necessity. 17 .,(phasis ours./ The "eneral rule& therefore& is that 2here the part1 clai(in" see3s recover1 a"ainst a relative co((on to both clai(ant and declarant& but not fro( the declarant hi(self or the declarantLs estate& the relationship of the declarant to the co((on relative (a1 not be proved b1 the declaration itself. There (ust be so(e independent proof of this fact. 1" !s an e9ception& the re4uire(ent that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship& does not appl1 2here it is sou"ht to reach the estate of the declarant hi(self and not (erel1 to establish a ri"ht throu"h his declarations to the propert1 of so(e other (e(ber of the fa(il1. 19 ?e are sufficientl1 convinced& and so hold& that the present case is one instance 2here the "eneral re4uire(ent on evidence ali nde (a1 be rela9ed. Petitioners are clai(in" a ri"ht to part of the estate of the declarant herself. -onfor(abl1& the declaration (ade b1 Teodora DeColler Buerrero that petitioner -oraCon is her niece& is ad(issible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship& not2ithstandin" the fact that there 2as no other preli(inar1 evidence thereof& the reason bein" such declaration is rendered co(petent b1 virtue of the necessit1 of receivin" such evidence to avoid a failure of <ustice. #0 More i(portantl1& there is in the present case an absolute failure b1 all and sundr1 to refute that declaration (ade b1 the decedent.

Aro( the fore"oin" dis4uisitions& it (a1 thus be safel1 concluded& on the sole basis of the decedentLs declaration and 2ithout need for further proof thereof& that petitioners are the niece and nephe2 of Teodora DeColler Buerrero. !s held in one case& #1 2here the sub<ect of the declaration is the declarantLs o2n relationship to another person& it see(s absurb to re4uire& as a foundation for the ad(ission of the declaration& proof of the ver1 fact 2hich the declaration is offered to establish. The preli(inar1 proof 2ould render the (ain evidence unnecessar1. !ppl1in" the "eneral rule in the present case 2ould nonetheless produce the sa(e result. Aor 2hile the docu(entar1 evidence sub(itted b1 petitioners do not strictl1 confor( to the rules on their ad(issibilit1& 2e are ho2ever of the considered opinion that the sa(e (a1 be ad(itted b1 reason of private respondentLs failure to interpose an1 ti(el1 ob<ection thereto at the ti(e the1 2ere bein" offered in evidence. ## It is ele(entar1 that an ob<ection shall be (ade at the ti(e 2hen an alle"ed inad(issible docu(ent is offered in evidence& #+ other2ise& the ob<ection shall be treated as 2aived& #4 since the ri"ht to ob<ect is (erel1 a privile"e 2hich the part1 (a1 2aive. #5 !s e9plained in 3brenica (s. Gonda& et al.& #/ it has been repeatedl1 laid do2n as a rule of evidence that a protest or ob<ection a"ainst the ad(ission of an1 evidence (ust be (ade at the proper ti(e& other2ise it 2ill be dee(ed to have been 2aived. The proper ti(e is 2hen fro( the 4uestion addressed to the 2itness& or fro( the ans2er thereto& or fro( the presentation of the proof& the inad(issibilit1 of the evidence is& or (a1 be inferred. Thus& a failure to e9cept to the evidence because it does not confor( 2ith the statute is a 2aiver if the provisions of the la2. That ob<ection to a 4uestion put to a 2itness (ust be (ade at the ti(e the 4uestion is as3ed. !n ob<ection to the ad(ission of evidence on the "round of inco(petenc1& ta3en after the testi(on1 has been "iven& is too late. #7 Thus& for instance& failure to ob<ect to parol evidence "iven on the stand& 2here the part1 is in a position to ob<ect& is a 2aiver of an1 ob<ections thereto. #" The situation is a""ravated b1 the fact that co nsel for pri(ate respondent nreser(edly cross-e/amined petitioners& as the lone witness, on the doc mentary e(idence that were offered. !t no ti(e 2as the issue of the supposed inad(issibilit1 thereof& or the possible basis for ob<ection thereto& ever raised. Instead& private respondentLs counsel elicited ans2ers fro( the 2itness on the circu(stances and re"ularit1 of her obtention of said docu(ents8 The observations later (ade b1 private respondent in her co((ent to petitionersL offer of e9hibits& althou"h the "rounds therefor 2ere alread1 apparent at the ti(e these docu(ents 2ere bein" adduced in evidence durin" the testi(on1 of -oraCon DeColler Tison but 2hich ob<ections 2ere not ti(el1 raised therein& (a1 no lon"er serve to rectif1 the le"al conse4uences 2hich resulted therefro(. Hence& even assu(in" e/ gratia arg menti that these docu(ents are inad(issible for bein" hearsa1& but on account of herein private respondentLs

failure to ob<ect thereto& the sa(e (a1 be ad(itted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted. #9 !ccordin"l1& the -ertificate of Marria"e .,9hibit S/ 2herein it is indicated that the parents of Teodora DeColler are Isabelo DeColler and -ecilia -alpo& as 2ell as the -ertificates of 'aptis( of Teodora DeColler +0 .,9hibit H/ and Her(o"enes DeColler .,9hibit :/ 2hich both reflect the na(es of their parents as Isabelo DeColler and -ecilia -alpo& to sho2 that Her(o"enes DeColler is the brother of Teodora DeColler Buerrero= and the Death -ertificate of Her(o"enes DeColler .,9hibit O/ the entries 2herein 2ere (ade b1 petitioner -oraCon DeColler Tison as his dau"hter& to"ether 2ith the :oint !ffidavits of Pablo VerCosa and Meliton Sit<ar .,9hibits N and P/& to prove that herein petitioners are the children of Her(o"enes DeColler I these can be dee(ed to have sufficientl1 established the relationship bet2een the declarant and herein petitioners. This is in consonance 2ith the rule that a prima facie sho2in" is sufficient and that onl1 sli"ht proof of the relationship is re4uired. +1 Ainall1& it (a1 not be a(iss to consider as in the nature of circu(stantial evidence the fact that both the declarant and the clai(ants& 2ho are the sub<ect of the declaration& bear the surna(e DeColler. +# III. The follo2in" provisions of the -ivil -ode provide for the (anner b1 2hich the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case& to 2it8 !rt. $0%. ?hen children of one or (ore brothers or sisters of the deceased survive& the1 shall inherit fro( the latter b1 representation& if the1 survive 2ith their uncles or aunts. 'ut if the1 alone survive& the1 shall inherit in e4ual portions. !rt. $$%. In the absence of le"iti(ate descendants and ascendants& and ille"iti(ate children and their descendants& 2hether le"iti(ate or ille"iti(ate& the survivin" spouse shall inherit the entire estate& 2ithout pre<udice to the ri"hts of brothers and sisters& nephe2s and nieces& should there be an1& under !rticle #77#. !rt. #77#. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive 2ith the 2ido2 or 2ido2er& the latter shall be entitled to one6half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or theirs children to the other half. Gpon the death of Teodora DeColler Buerrero& one6half of the sub<ect propert1 2as auto(aticall1 reserved to the survivin" spouse& Martin Buerrero& as his share in the con<u"al partnership. !ppl1in" the afore4uoted statutor1 provisions& the re(ainin" half shall be e4uall1 divided bet2een the 2ido2er and herein petitioners 2ho are entitled to <ointl1 inherit in their o2n ri"ht. Hence& Martin Buerrero could onl1 validl1 alienate his total undivided three6fourths .)@5/ share in the entire propert1 to herein

private respondent. Resultantl1& petitioners and private respondent are dee(ed co6 o2ners of the propert1 covered b1 Transfer -ertificate of Title No. )057#2 in the proportion of an undivided one6fourth .#@5/ and three6fourths .)@5/ share thereof& respectivel1. !ll told& on the basis of the fore"oin" considerations& the de(urrer to plaintiffLs evidence should have been& as it is hereb1& denied. Nonetheless& private respondent (a1 no lon"er be allo2ed to present evidence b1 reason of the (andate under Section # of revised Rule ) of the Rules of -ourt 2hich provides that +if the (otion is "ranted but on appeal the order of dis(issal is reversed he shall be dee(ed to have 2aived the ri"ht to present evidence.+ ++ ?H,R,AOR,& the 4uestioned <ud"(ent of respondent -ourt of !ppeals is hereb1 R,V,RS,D and S,T !SID,& and herein petitioners and private respondent are declared co6o2ners of the sub<ect propert1 2ith an undivided one6fourth .#@5/ and three6fourths .)@5/ share therein& respectivel1. SO ORD,R,D.

This is a petition for revie2 on certiorari of the decision 1 of the -ourt of !ppeals& reversin" the decision of the Re"ional Trial -ourt& 'ranch 20& of Tanda"& Suri"ao del Sur& as 2ell as the appellate courtLs resolution den1in" petitionersL (otion for reconsideration. !t issue is the ri"ht of the parties to a 2.0 hectare piece of land in Sun"3it& Madrid& Suri"ao del Sur& 2hich :usta !rnaldo6Serin" left upon her death on March )#& #$ $. The parties and their relationship to :usta !rnaldo6Serin" are as follo2s8 Private respondent 'enedicto ,strada is the son of !"atonica !rreCa& 2hose parents 2ere Pedro !rreCa and Grsula Tubil. Gpon the death of Pedro !rreCa& Grsula (arried :uan !rnaldo b1 2ho( she had another dau"hter& the decedent :usta. # Private respondent 'enedicto ,strada is thus the nephe2 of :usta b1 her half sister !"atonica. Petitioners& referred to in this case as the heirs of Pascasio Griarte& are the 2ido2 and dau"hters of Pascasio Griarte. Pascasio 2as one of the sons of Pri(itiva !rnaldo and -onrado Griarte. His (other& Pri(itiva Griarte& 2as the dau"hter of Do(in"o !rnaldo and -atalina !Carcon. Do(in"o !rnaldo and :ustaLs father& :uan !rnaldo& 2ere brothers. + Petitioners are thus "randchildren& the relatives 2ithin the fifth de"ree of consan"uinit1& of :usta b1 her cousin Pri(itiva !rnaldo Griarte. The other petitioners are the children of Pri(itiva and those of her brother Bre"orio. 4 The children of Pri(itiva b1 -onrado Griarte& aside fro( Pascasio& are :osefina& Baudencio& Si(plicio& Do(in"o and Vir"ilio& all surna(ed Griarte. The children of Bre"orio !rnaldo& Pri(itivaLs brother& b1 :ulieta Ilo"on& are :orencio& ,necia& Nicolas& ;upecino and Aelisa. These other petitioners are thus "randchildren and relatives 2ithin the fifth de"ree of consan"uinit1 of :usta b1 her cousins Bre"orio !rnaldo and Pri(itiva !rnaldo. Private respondent 'enedicto ,strada brou"ht this case in the Re"ional Trial -ourt for the partition of the land left b1 :usta !rnaldo6Serin". The land& consistin" of 2.0 hectares& had been ac4uired b1 :usta as follo2s8 7.% hectare b1 inheritance fro( her parents :uan !rnaldo and Grsula Tubil& and 2.2 hectares b1 purchase. 5 Private respondent clai(ed to be the sole survivin" heir of :usta& on the "round that the latter died 2ithout issue. He co(plained that Pascasio Griarte 2ho& he clai(ed& 2or3ed the land as :ustaLs tenant& refused to "ive hi( .private respondent/ his share of the harvest. / He contended that Pascasio had no ri"ht to the entire land of :usta but could clai( onl1 one6half of the 7.% hectare land 2hich :usta had inherited fro( her parents :uan !rnaldo and Grsula Tubil. 7 Pascasio died durin" the pendenc1 of the case and 2as substituted b1 his heirs. " In their ans2er& the heirs denied the1 2ere (ere tenants of :usta 9 but the latterLs heirs entitled to her entire land.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S,-OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 11/775 ,a-uar. ##, 199" (E&RS O$ P'SC'S&O UR&'RTE, -amel., ROSE%4N UR&'RTE, M'DR&%4N a-d %OURDES UR&'RTE, a-d $E%OM&N' )UN&E% UR&'RTE, a-d (E&RS O$ PR&M&T&*' 'RN'%DO a-d (E&RS O$ GREGOR&O 'RN'%DO, re7re6e-ted 0ere8- !. $E%&S' 'RN'%DO SU%%'NO a-d %UPEC&NO 'RN'%DO, petitioners& vs. COURT O$ 'PPE'%S a-d )ENED&CTO ESTR'D', respondents.

MENDO3', J.:

The1 clai(ed that the entire land& sub<ect of the case& 2as ori"inall1 o2ned b1 !(brocio !rnaldo& 10 their "reat "randuncle. It 2as alle"edl1 be4ueathed to Do(in"o and :uan !rnaldo& !(brocioLs nephe2s& in a holo"raphic 2ill e9ecuted b1 !(brocio in #$7 . 11 Do(in"o 2as to receive t2o6thirds of the land and :uan& one6third. 1# The heirs clai(ed that the land had al2a1s been in their possession and that in her lifeti(e :usta never asserted e9clusive ri"ht over the propert1 but onl1 received her share of the harvest fro( it. 1+ The1 alle"ed that private respondent did not have an1 ri"ht to the propert1 because he 2as not an heir of !(brocio !rnaldo& 14 the ori"inal o2ner of the propert1. The trial court sustained petitionersL contention. In its decision rendered on Nove(ber & #$$# it ruled8 !s earlier stated& the land of !(brosio !rnaldo 2hich he left to his t2o nephe2s& Do(in"o and :uan !rnaldo& 2as onl1 .%5 # hectares& divided as follo2s8 t2o6thirds or )&*%5 s4uare (eters to Do(in"o& and one6third or #& 20 s4uare (eters to :uan. The area increased to 2.0% hectares fro( .%5 # hectares because the ad<acent lot of about t2o hectares 2as ac4uired b1 :usta !rnaldo Serin"& dau"hter of :uan !rnaldo& after the latterLs death. The entire 2.0% hectares 2as covered b1 ta9 declaration in the na(e of :usta !rnaldo Serin". The latter ho2ever died intestate and 2ithout issue. Her nearest survivin" relatives are the children of her uncle Do(in"o !rnaldo& to 2ho( her entire estate passed on after her death b1 operation of la2& to the e9clusion of all other relatives. Thus& the ri"hts to the succession are trans(itted fro( the (o(ent of the death of the decedent .!rt. 200& -ivil -ode/. 15 !ccordin"l1& the court ordered8 ?H,R,AOR,& <ud"(ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of the defendants and the intervenors Eherein petitionersF and a"ainst the plaintiff Eprivate respondentF& declarin" the defendants and the intervenors& to"ether 2ith the other heirs of the late Do(in"o !rnaldo& as entitled to the entire parcel of land described in Ta9 Declaration No. #25 and subse4uent revisin" ta9 declarations in the na(e of :usta !rnaldo Serin". No cost. SO ORD,R,D. 1/ On appeal& the -ourt of !ppeals reversed. -ontrar1 to the trial courtLs findin"& the appellate court found that the 7.% hectares had been ac4uired b1 :ustaLs parents& :uan !rnaldo and Grsula Tubil& durin" their (arria"e. !s the nephe2 of :usta b1 her

half6sister !"atonica& private respondent 2as held to be entitled to share in the estate of :usta. In the dispositive portion of its decision the appellate court ordered8 ?H,R,AOR,& the <ud"(ent appealed fro( is hereb1 R,V,RS,D and another is hereb1 entered I Orderin" the partition of the propert1 described in the second a(ended co(plaint in the follo2in" (anner8 .#/ .2%77 hectare as the share of defendants6intervenors& and .2/ 2.% hectare as the share of the plaintiff. Aor this purpose& the court a 7 o is hereb1 directed to proceed 2ith the partition in accordance 2ith the procedure laid do2n in Rule *$ of the Rules of -ourt. SO ORD,R,D. 17 Hence& this petition b1 the heirs of Pascasio Griarte& the heirs of Pri(itiva Griarte& and the heirs of Bre"orio !rnaldo. Petitioners alle"e8 I I TH, R,SPOND,NT -OGRT OA !PP,!;S BR!V,;J !'GS,D ITS DIS-R,TION T!NT!MOGNT TO ;!-O !ND@OR IN ,H-,SS OA :GRISDI-TION IN HO;DINB TH!T TH, P;!INTIAA IS TH, SON OA !B!TON! !RR,N!& TH, H!;A SIST,R OA :GST! !RN!;DO S,RINB= II I TH, R,SPOND,NT -OGRT OA !PP,!;S PR,A,RR,D T,-HNI-!;ITJ OV,R SG'ST!NTI!;ITJ ?H,N IT BR!V,;J !'GS,D ITS DIS-R,TION IN HO;DINB TH!T TH, HO;OBR!PHI- ?I;; ;,AT 'J TH, D,-,!S,D !M'RO-IO !RN!;DO -!NNOT P!SS R,!; OR P,RSON!; PROP,RTJ= III I TH, PR!J,RS AOR R,STR!ININB ORD,R !ND@OR ?RIT OA PR,;IMIN!RJ IN:GN-TION !ND D!M!B,S IS M,RITORIOGS= IV I !ND TH, INST!NT P,TITION IS IMPR,SS,D ?ITH M,RIT !ND SHOG;D H!V, ',,N BR!NT,D. 1" !fter due consideration of the petition& 2e find it to be 2ithout (erit. !s alread1 stated& :usta left a piece of land consistin" 2.0 hectares. Half of this land .7.%

hectares/& as the -ourt of !ppeals found& for(erl1 2as con<u"al propert1 of her parents& :uan !rnaldo and Grsula Tubil. The rest& consistin" of 2.2 hectares& 2as ac4uired b1 :usta after the death of her parents. !ccordin"l1& the division of :ustaLs propert1 should be as follo2s as private respondent contends8 ! I The first #@2 hectare should be divided into t2o parts& the share of :uan !rnaldo 2hich 2ill accrue to petitioners and the second half 2hich pertains to Grsula Tubil& 2hich 2ill accrue to private respondent. ' I !s to the second portion of the area of the land in 4uestion 2hich as alread1 stated 2as consolidated 2ith the #@2 hectare ori"inall1 belon"in" to the con<u"al partnership of :uan !rnaldo and Grsula Tubil& the sa(e shall accrue to private respondent& 2ho is the son of !"atonica !rreCa& and 2ho is onl1 three de"rees fro( :usta !rnaldo& 2hereas petitioners 2ho are the children of Pri(itiva !rnaldo and Bre"orio !rnaldo& are five de"rees re(oved fro( :usta !rnaldo. 19 The issue in this case is 2ho a(on" the petitioners and the private respondent is entitled to :ustaLs estate as her nearest relatives 2ithin the (eanin" of !rt. $*2 of the -ivil -ode. !s a preli(inar1 (atter& petitioners contend that the -ourt of !ppeals "ravel1 abused its discretion in holdin" that private respondent is the son of !"atonica !rreCa& 2ho 2as the half6sister of :usta !rnaldo. Petitioners are raisin" this issue onl1 no2. It is 2ell6settled& ho2ever& that 4uestions not ta3en up durin" the trial of a case cannot be raised for the first ti(e on appeal. ?ith (ore reason& therefore& should such a 4uestion be disallo2ed 2hen raised for the first ti(e on appeal to this -ourt. #0 It is note2orth1 that& in their brief before the -ourt of !ppeals& #1 petitioners ad(itted that private respondent is :ustaLs nephe2& his (other& !"atonica& bein" :ustaLs half6 sister. !pparentl1 the1 are no2 4uestionin" private respondentLs filiation because& as e9plained b1 the -ourt of !ppeals& private respondent is the nearest relative of :usta and& therefore& the onl1 one entitled to her estate. Indeed& "iven the fact that 7.% hectares of the land in 4uestion belon"ed to the con<u"al partnership of :ustaLs parents& :usta 2as entitled to 7.#2% hectares of the half hectare land as her fatherLs .:uan !rnaldoLs/ share in the con<u"al propert1& 2hile petitioners are entitled to the other 7.#2% hectares. In addition& :usta inherited her (otherLs .Grsula TubilLs/ share consistin" of 7.2% hectares. Plus the 2.2 hectares 2hich belon"ed to her in her o2n ri"ht& :usta o2ned a total of 2.%0% or 2.% hectares of the 2.0 I hectare land. This 2.% 6hectare land 2as inherited b1 private respondent 'enedicto ,strada as :ustaLs nearest survivin" relative. !s the -ourt of !ppeals held8

!ccordin" to !rticle $*2 of the -ivil -ode& In ever1 inheritance& the relative nearest in de"ree e9cludes the (ore distant ones& savin" the ri"ht of representation 2hen it properl1 ta3es place. Relatives in the sa(e de"ree shall inherit in e4ual shares& sub<ect to the provisions of !rticle #77* 2ith respect to relatives of the full and half blood& and of !rticle $ 0& para"raph 2& concernin" division bet2een paternal and (aternal lines. The (anner of deter(inin" the pro9i(it1 of relationship are provided b1 !rticles $*) I $** of the -ivil -ode. The1 provide8 !rt. $*). Pro9i(it1 of relationship is deter(ined b1 the nu(ber of "enerations. ,ach "eneration for(s a de"ree. !rt. $*5. ! series of de"rees for(s a line& 2hich (a1 be either direct or collateral. ! direct line is that constituted b1 the series of de"rees a(on" ascendants and descendants. ! collateral line is that constituted b1 the series of de"rees a(on" persons 2ho are not ascendants and descendants& but 2ho co(e fro( a co((on ancestor. !rt. $*%. The direct line is either descendin" or ascendin". The for(er unites the head of the fa(il1 2ith those 2ho descend fro( hi(. The latter binds a person 2ith those fro( 2ho( he descends. !rt. $**. In the line& as (an1 de"rees are counted as there are "enerations or persons& e9cludin" the pro"enitor. In the direct line& ascent is (ade to the co((on ancestor. Thus the child is one de"ree re(oved

fro( the parent& t2o fro( the "randfather& and three fro( the "reat6"randparent. In the collateral line& ascent is (ade to the co((on ancestor and then descent is (ade to the person 2ith 2ho( the co(putation is to be (ade. Thus& a person is t2o de"rees re(oved fro( his brother& three fro( his uncle& 2ho is the brother of his father& four fro( his first cousin& and so forth. In this case& plaintiff is the son of !"atonica& the half6sister of :usta. He is thus a third de"ree relative of :usta. On the other hand& defendants and intervenors are the sons and dau"hters of :ustaLs cousin. The1 are thus fifth de"ree relatives of :usta. !ppl1in" the principle that the nearest e9cludes the farthest& then plaintiff is the la2ful heir of :usta. The fact that his (other is onl1 a half6sister of :usta is of no (o(ent. ## Nevertheless& petitioners (a3e (uch of the fact that private respondent is not an !rnaldo& his (other bein" GrsulaLs dau"hter not b1 :uan !rnaldo but b1 Pedro !rreCa. The1 clai( that this bein" the case& private respondent is not an heir of :usta and thus not 4ualified to share in her estate. Petitioners (isappreciate the relationship bet2een :usta and private respondent. !s alread1 stated& private respondent is the son of :ustaLs half6sister !"atonica. He is therefore :ustaLs nephe2. ! nephe2 is considered a collateral relative 2ho (a1 inherit if no descendant& ascendant& or spouse survive the decedent. #+ That private respondent is onl1 a half6blood relative is i((aterial. This alone does not dis4ualif1 hi( fro( bein" his auntLs heir. !s the -ourt of !ppeals correctl1 pointed out& +The deter(ination of 2hether the relationship is of the full or half blood is i(portant onl1 to deter(ine the e9tent of the share of the survivors.+ #4 'ecause of the conclusion 2e have thus reached& the third and fourth "rounds of the petition for revie2 (ust fail. ?H,R,AOR,& the petition is D,NI,D. The te(porar1 restrainin" order issued b1 this -ourt is ;IAT,D& and the decision of the -ourt of !ppeals is !AAIRM,D. SO ORD,R,D.

Regalado, P no and Martinez, 66., conc r.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 117740 O to!er +0, 199" C'RO%&N' ')'D GON3'%ES, petitioner& vs. COURT O$ 'PPE'%S, (ONOR&' EMP'4N'DO, CEC&%&' (. ')'D, M'R&'N (. ')'D a-d ROSEM'R&E S. ')'D, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: 'efore us is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the -ourt of !ppeals dated October #$& #$$5& findin" private respondents as the heirs of Ricardo de Mesa !bad as 2ell as annullin" petitionersL e9tra6<udicial partition of the decedentLs estate. The facts are as follo2s8 On !pril # & #$02& petitioners -arolina !bad BonCales& Dolores de Mesa !bad and -esar de Mesa Tioseco sou"ht the settle(ent of the intestate estate of their brother& Ricardo de Mesa !bad& before the then -ourt of Airst Instance of Manila. In their petition& doc3eted as Special Proceedin"s No. *0$2& petitioners clai(ed that the1 2ere the onl1 heirs of Ricardo de Mesa !bad& as the latter alle"edl1 died a bachelor& leavin" no descendants or ascendants& 2hether le"iti(ate or ille"iti(ate. On Ma1 $& #$02& petitioners a(ended their petition b1 alle"in" that the real properties covered b1 T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0#& and *572#& listed therein as belon"in" to the decedent& 2ere actuall1 onl1 ad(inistered b1 the latter& the true o2ner bein" their late (other& ;ucila de Mesa. On :une #*& #$02& the trial court appointed -esar de Mesa Tioseco as ad(inistrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa !bad. Mean2hile& on Ma1 2& #$02& petitioners e9ecuted an e9tra<udicial settle(ent of the estate of their late (other ;ucila de Mesa& cop1in" therein the technical descriptions

of the lots covered b1 T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0#& and *572#. '1 virtue thereof& the Re"ister of Deeds cancelled the above6(entioned T-Ts in the na(e of Ricardo !bad and issued& in lieu thereof& T-T No. #7 5 2 in the na(e of Dolores de Mesa !bad& T-T No. #7 5 ) in the na(e of -esar de Mesa Tioseco and T-T No. #7 5 5 in the na(e of -arolina !bad BonCales. The three pro(ptl1 e9ecuted real estate (ort"a"es over the real properties in favor of Mrs. :osefina Viola& the 2ife of their counsel& ,scolastico Viola. On :ul1 0& #$02& private respondents Honoria ,(pa1nado& -ecilia !bad ,(pa1nado& and Marian !bad ,(pa1nado filed a (otion to set aside proceedin"s and for leave to file opposition in Special Proceedin"s No. *0$2. In their (otion& the1 alle"ed that Honoria ,(pa1nado had been the co((on6la2 2ife of Ricardo !bad for t2ent16 seven 1ears before his death& or fro( #$5) to #$0#& and that durin" this period& their union had produced t2o children& -ecilia !bad ,(pa1nado and Marian !bad ,(pa1nado. Private respondents also disclosed the e9istence of Rose(arie !bad& a child alle"edl1 fathered b1 Ricardo !bad 2ith another 2o(an& Dolores Saracho. !s the la2 a2ards the entire estate to the survivin" children to the e9clusion of collateral relatives& private respondents char"ed petitioners 2ith deliberatel1 concealin" the e9istence of said three children in other to deprive the latter of their ri"hts to the estate of Ricardo !bad. On :ul1 25& #$02& private respondents filed a (otion to 2ithdra2 their first (otion and& in lieu thereof& filed a (otion for reconsideration pra1in" that -ecilia !bad be appointed ad(inistrator instead of -esar Tioseco. The trial court denied private respondentsL (otion to re(ove -esar Tioseco as ad(inistrator& but allo2ed the( to appear in the proceedin"s to establish their ri"ht as alle"ed heirs of Ricardo !bad. Private respondents later discovered that petitioners had (ana"ed to cancel T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0#& and *572# throu"h the strata"e( of e9tra6<udiciall1 partitionin" their (otherLs estate. !ccordin"l1& on October 5& #$0)& private respondents filed a (otion to annul the e9tra6<udicial partition e9ecuted b1 petitioners& as 2ell as T-T Nos. #7 5 2& #7 5 )& and #7 5 5& the Torrens titles issued in substitution of T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0#& and *572# and the real estate (ort"a"es constituted b1 the latter on said properties. !fter due trial& the lo2er court& on Nove(ber 2& #$0)& rendered the follo2in" <ud"(ent8 ?H,R,AOR,& <ud"(ent is hereb1 rendered as follo2s8 .#/ Declarin" -ecilia ,. !bad& Marian ,. !bad and Rose(arie S. !bad ac3no2led"ed natural children of the deceased Ricardo M. !bad=

.2/ Declarin" said ac3no2led"ed natural children& na(el18 -ecilia ,. !bad& Marian ,. !bad& and Rose(arie S. !bad the onl1 survivin" le"al heirs of the deceased Ricardo M. !bad and as such entitled to succeed to the entire estate of said deceased& sub<ect to the ri"hts of Honoria ,(pa1nado& if an1& as co6o2ner of an1 of the propert1 of said estate that (a1 have been ac4uired thru her <oint efforts 2ith the deceased durin" the period the1 lived to"ether as husband and 2ife= .)/ Den1in" the petition of decedentLs collateral relatives& na(el18 Dolores M. !bad& -esar M. Tioseco and -arolina M. !bad to be declared as heirs and e9cludin" the( fro( participatin" in the ad(inistration and settle(ent of the estate of Ricardo !bad= .5/ !ppointin" Honoria ,(pa1nado as the ad(inistratri9 in this intestac1 2ith a bond of THIRTJ THOGS!ND .P)7&777.77/ P,SOS= and .%/ Orderin" -esar Tioseco to surrender to the ne2 ad(inistratri9 all propert1 or properties& (onies and such papers that ca(e into his possession b1 virtue of his appoint(ent as ad(inistrator& 2hich appoint(ent is hereb1 revo3ed. 1 The trial court& li3e2ise& found in favor of private respondents 2ith respect to the latterLs (otion for annul(ent of certain docu(ents. On Nove(ber #$& #$05& it rendered the follo2in" <ud"(ent8 ?H,R,AOR,& this -ourt finds oppositorsL Motion for !nnul(ent& dated October 5& #$0) to be (eritorious and accordin"l1 I #. Declares that the si9 .*/ parcels of land described in T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0# and *572#& all re"istered in the na(e of Ricardo !bad& as replaced b1 T-T No. #7 5 2 in the na(e of Dolores de Mesa !bad& T-T No. #7 5 ) in the na(e of -esar de Mesa Tioseco and T-T No. #7 5 5 in the na(e of -arolina de Mesa !bad6

BonCales& and the residential house situated at 25)2 Opalo Street& San !ndres Subdivision& Manila& to be the properties of the late Ricardo !bad= SO ORD,R,D. # 2. Declares the deed of ,9tra :udicial Settle(ent of the ,state of the Deceased ;ucila de Mesa& e9ecuted on Ma1 2& #$02 .Doc. No. 55%& Pa"e No. *& 'oo3 No. VII& Series of #$02 of the notarial boo3 of Aaustino S. -ruC/ b1 petitioners and -arolina de Mesa !bad6BonCales& to be ine9istent and void fro( the be"innin"= ). Declares as null and void the cancellation of T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0# and *572# and issuance in lieu thereof& of T-T Nos. #7 5 2& #7 5 ) and #7 5 5= 5. Orders the Re"ister of Deeds of Manila to cancel T-T No. #7 5 2 of Dolores de Mesa !bad= T-T No. #7 5 ) of -esar de Mesa Tioseco= and T-T No. #7 5 5 of -arolina de Mesa !bad6BonCales and in lieu thereof& restore and@or issue the correspondin" certificate of title in the na(e of Ricardo !bad= %. Declares as ine9istent and void fro( the be"innin" the three .)/ real estate (ort"a"es e9ecuted on :ul1 0& #$02 e9ecuted b1 .a/ petitioner Dolores de Mesa !bad& identified as Doc. No. #5%& Pa"e No. )7& 'oo3 No. HH& Series of #$02& .b/ petitioner -esar de Mesa Tioseco& identified as Doc. No. #5*& Pa"e )#& 'oo3 No. HH& Series of #$02= and .c/ -arolina de Mesa !bad6BonCales& identified as Doe. No. #55& Pa"e No. )7& 'oo3 No. HH& Series of #$02& all of the notarial boo3 of Ricardo P. Jap of Manila& in favor of Mrs. :osefina -. Viola& and orders the Re"ister of Deeds of Manila to cancel the re"istration or annotation thereof fro( the bac3 of the torrens title of Ricardo !bad= and *. Orders !tt1. ,scolastico R. Viola and his la2 associate and 2ife& :osefina -. Viola& to

surrender to the ne2 ad(inistratri9& Honoria ,(pa1nado& T-T Nos. #7 5 2& #7 5 )& and #7 5 5 2ithin five .%/ da1s fro( receipt hereof.

PetitionersL (otion for reconsideration of the Nove(ber 2& #$0) decision 2as denied b1 the trial court. Their notice of appeal 2as li3e2ise denied on the "round that the sa(e had been filed out of ti(e. 'ecause of this rulin"& petitioners& instituted certiorari and (anda(us proceedin"s 2ith the -ourt of !ppeals& doc3eted there as -.!.6B.R. No. SP67)2* 6R. On Nove(ber 2& #$05& the appellate court "ranted petitionersL petition and ordered the lo2er court to "ive due course to the latterLs appeal. The trial court& ho2ever& a"ain dis(issed petitionersL appeal on the "round that their record on appeal 2as filed out of ti(e. ;i3e2ise& on :anuar1 5& #$0%& petitioners filed their notice of appeal of the Nove(ber #$& #$05 rulin" of the trial court. On March 2#& #$0%& this appeal 2as si(ilarl1 denied on the "round that it had been filed out of ti(e. Due to the dis(issal of their t2o appeals& petitioners a"ain instituted certiorari and mandam s proceedin"s 2ith the -ourt of !ppeals& doc3eted therein as -.!.6B.R. No. SP675)%2. The appellate court affir(ed the dis(issal of the t2o appeals& pro(ptin" petitioners to appeal to the Supre(e -ourt. On :ul1 $& #$ %& this -ourt directed the trial court to "ive due course to petitionersL appeal fro( the order of Nove(ber 2& #$0) declarin" private respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo !bad& and the order dated Nove(ber #$& #$05& annullin" certain docu(ents pertainin" to the intestate estate of deceased. The t2o appeals 2ere accordin"l1 elevated b1 the trial court to the appellate court. On October #$& #$$5& the -ourt of !ppeals rendered <ud"(ent as follo2s8 ?H,R,AOR,& all the fore"oin" considered& the instant appeal is D,NI,D for lac3 of (erit. The orders of the court a 7 o in SP No. *0$2& to 2it8 #. Order dated Nove(ber 2& #$0)& declarin" in substance that -ecilia& Marian and Rose(arie& all surna(ed !bad as the ac3no2led"ed natural children and the onl1 survivin" heirs of the deceased Ricardo !bad= 2. Order dated Nove(ber #$& #$05& declarin" in substance that the si9 .*/ parcels of land described in T-T Nos. #)%)7& %)*0# and *572#

are the properties of Ricardo !bad= that the e9tra6<udicial partition of the estate of the deceased ;ucila de Mesa e9ecuted on Ma1 2& #$02 is ine9istent and void fro( the be"innin"& the cancellation of the afore(entioned T-Ts is null and void= the Re"ister of Deeds be ordered to restore and@or issue the correspondin" -ertificates of Title in the na(e of Ricardo !bad= and ). Order dated March 2#& #$0% den1in" the appeal of Dolores de Mesa !bad and -esar de Mesa Tioseco fro( the latter Order& for bein" filed out of ti(e& are all !AAIRM,D in toto. ?ith costs a"ainst petitioner6appellants. SO ORD,R,D. + Petitioners no2 see3 to annul the fore"oin" <ud"(ent on the follo2in" "rounds8 I. TH, -OGRT OA !PP,!;S !ND TH, TRI!; -OGRT BR!V,;J ,RR,D IN HO;DINB TH!T R,SPOND,NTS -,-I;I! ,. !'!D& M!RI!N ,. !'!D !ND ROS,M!RI, S. !'!D !R, TH, !-ONO?;,DB,D N!TGR!; -HI;DR,N OA TH, D,-,!S,D RI-!RDO D, M,S! !'!D. II. P,TITION,RS !R, ,NTIT;,D TO TH, SG':,-T ,ST!T, ?H,TH,R TH, S!M, IS O?N,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D RI-!RDO D, M,S! !'!D OR 'J ;G-I;! D, M,S!& TH, MOTH,R OA P,TITION,RS !ND RI-!RDO D, M,S! !'!D. ?e are not persuaded. Petitioners& in contestin" -ecilia& Marian and Rose(arie !badLs filiation& sub(it the startlin" theor1 that the husband of Honoria ,(pa1nado& :ose ;ibunao& 2as still alive 2hen -ecilia and Marian !bad 2ere born in #$5 and #$%5& respectivel1. It is undisputed that prior to her relationship 2ith Ricardo !bad& Honoria ,(pa1nado 2as (arried to :ose ;ibunao& their union havin" produced three children& !n"elita& -esar& and Maria Nina& prior to the birth of -ecilia and Marian. 'ut 2hile private

respondents clai( that :ose ;ibunao died in #$5)& petitioners clai( that the latter died so(eti(e in #$0#. The date of :ose ;ibunaoLs death is i(portant& for if he 2as still alive in #$0#& and "iven that he 2as le"all1 (arried to Honoria ,(pa1nado& the presu(ption 2ould be that -ecilia and Marian are not Ricardo !badLs children 2ith the latter& but of :ose ;ibunao and Honoria ,(pa1nado. !rticle 2%*& the applicable provision of the -ivil -ode& provides8 !rt. 2%*. The child shall be presu(ed le"iti(ate& althou"h the (other (a1 have declared a"ainst its le"iti(ac1 or (a1 have been sentenced as an adulteress. 4 To bolster their theor1& petitioners presented in evidence the application for enrol(ent at Mapua Institute of Technolo"1 of !n"elita ;ibunao& acco(plished in #$%*& 2hich states8 AatherLs Na(e8 :ose ;ibunao Occupation8 en"ineer .(inin"/ MotherLs Na(e8 Honoria ,(pa1nado 5 as 2ell as -esar ;ibunaoLs #$% application for enrol(ent at the Mapua Institute of Technolo"1& 2hich states8 AatherLs Na(e8 :ose ;ibunao Occupation8 none MotherLs Na(e8 Honoria ,(pa1nado / Petitioners clai( that had :ose ;ibunao been dead durin" the ti(e 2hen said applications 2ere acco(plished& the enrol(ent for(s of his children 2ould have stated so. These not bein" the case& the1 conclude that :ose ;ibunao (ust have still been alive in #$%* and #$% . !dditionall1& petitioners presented the <oint affidavit of :uan Muia(bao and !le<andro Ra(os 7 statin" that to their 3no2led"e :ose ;ibunao had died in #$0#& leavin" as his 2ido2& Honoria ,(pa1nado& and that the for(er had been interred at the ;o1ola Me(orial Par3.

;astl1& petitioners presented the affidavit of Dr. Pedro !renas& " Ricardo !badLs ph1sician& declarin" that in #$)%& he had e9a(ined Ricardo !bad and found hi( to be infected 2ith "onorrhea& and that the latter had beco(e sterile as a conse4uence thereof. ?ith these pieces of evidence& petitioners clai( that -ecilia and Marian !bad are not the ille"iti(ate children of Ricardo !bad& but rather the le"iti(ate children of the spouses :ose ;ibunao and Honoria ,(pa1nado. !t the outset& it (ust be noted that petitioners are disputin" the veracit1 of the trial courtLs findin" of facts. It is a funda(ental and settled rule that factual findin"s of the trial court& adopted and confir(ed b1 the -ourt of !ppeals& are final and conclusive and (a1 not be revie2ed on appeal. 9 Petitioners& ho2ever& ar"ue that factual findin"s of the -ourt of !ppeals are not bindin" on this -ourt 2hen there appears in the record of the case so(e fact or circu(stance of 2ei"ht and influence 2hich has been overloo3ed& or the si"nificance of 2hich has been (isinterpreted& that if considered& 2ould affect the result of the case. 10 This -ourt finds no <ustifiable reason to appl1 this e9ception to the case at bar. Airst& the evidence presented b1 petitioners to prove that :ose ;ibunao died in #$0# are& to sa1 the least& far fro( conclusive. Aailure to indicate on an enrol(ent for( that oneLs parent is +deceased+ is not necessaril1 proof that said parent 2as still livin" durin" the ti(e said for( 2as bein" acco(plished. Aurther(ore& the <oint affidavit of :uan Muia(bao and !le<andro Ra(os as to the supposed death of :ose ;ibunao in #$0# is not co(petent evidence to prove the latterLs death at that ti(e& bein" (erel1 secondar1 evidence thereof. :ose ;ibunaoLs death certificate 2ould have been the best evidence as to 2hen the latter died. Petitioners have& ho2ever& ine9plicabl1 failed to present the sa(e& althou"h there is no sho2in" that said death certificate has been lost or destro1ed as to be unavailable as proof of :ose ;ibunaoLs death. More tellin"& 2hile the records of ;o1ola Me(orial Par3 sho2 that a certain :ose 9a tista ;ibunao 2as indeed buried there in #$0#& this person appears to be different fro( Honoria ,(pa1nadoLs first husband& the latterLs na(e bein" :ose &antos ;ibunao. ,ven the na(e of the 2ife is different. :ose 'autista ;ibunaoLs 2ife is listed as :osefa Re1es 2hile the 2ife of :ose Santos ;ibunao 2as Honoria ,(pa1nado. !s to Dr. !renasL affidavit& the sa(e 2as ob<ected to b1 private respondents as bein" privile"ed co((unication under Section 25 .c/& Rule #)7 of the Rules of -ourt. 11 The rule on confidential co((unications bet2een ph1sician and patient re4uires that8 a/ the action in 2hich the advice or treat(ent "iven or an1 infor(ation is to be used is a civil case= b/ the relation of ph1sician and patient e9isted bet2een the person clai(in" the privile"e or his le"al representative and the ph1sician= c/ the advice or treat(ent "iven b1 hi( or an1 infor(ation 2as ac4uired b1 the ph1sician 2hile professionall1

attendin" the patient= d/ the infor(ation 2as necessar1 for the perfor(ance of his professional dut1= and e/ the disclosure of the infor(ation 2ould tend to blac3en the reputation of the patient.1# Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit (eets the first four re4uisites. The1 assert& ho2ever& that the findin" as to Ricardo !badLs +sterilit1+ does not blac3en the character of the deceased. Petitioners convenientl1 for"et that Ricardo !badLs +sterilit1+ arose 2hen the latter contracted "onorrhea& a fact 2hich (ost assuredl1 blac3ens his reputation. In fact& "iven that societ1 holds virilit1 at a pre(iu(& sterilit1 alone& 2ithout the attendant e(barrass(ent of contractin" a se9uall16trans(itted disease& 2ould be sufficient to blac3en the reputation of an1 patient. ?e thus hold the affidavit inad(issible in evidence. !nd the sa(e re(ains inad(issible in evidence& not2ithstandin" the death of Ricardo !bad. !s stated b1 the trial court8 In the case of 1esto(er (s. 3etna :ife 2ns rance !ompany& $$ N.J. %$& it 2as pointed out that8 +The privile"e of secrec1 is not abolished or ter(inated because of death as stated in established precedents. It is an established rule that the purpose of the la2 2ould be th2arted and the polic1 intended to be pro(oted thereb1 2ould be defeated& if death re(oved the seal of secrec1& fro( the co((unications and disclosures 2hich a patient should (a3e to his ph1sician. !fter one has "one to his "rave& the livin" are not per(itted to i(pair his na(e and dis"race his (e(or1 b1 dra""in" to li"ht co((unications and disclosures (ade under the seal of the statute. Biven the above dis4uisition& it is clearl1 apparent that petitioners have failed to establish their clai( b1 the 4uantu( of evidence re4uired b1 la2. On the other hand& the evidence presented b1 private respondents over2hel(in"l1 prove that the1 are the ac3no2led"ed natural children of Ricardo !bad. ?e 4uote 2ith approval the trial courtLs decision& thus8 In his individual state(ents of inco(e and assets for the calendar 1ears #$% and #$07& and in all his individual inco(e ta9 returns for the 1ears #$*5& #$*%& #$*0& #$* & #$*$ and #$07& he has declared therein as his le"iti(ate 2ife& Honoria ,(pa1nado= and as his le"iti(ate dependent children& -ecilia& Marian .e9cept in ,9h. #2/ and Rose(arie !bad .,9hs. #2 to #$= TSN& Aebruar1 2*& #$0)& pp. ))655/. 999 999 999 In Dece(ber #$%$& Ricardo !bad insured his dau"hters -ecilia& then eleven .##/ 1ears old& and Marian& then .%/ 1ears old& on EaF

t2ent1 .27/ 1ear6endo2(ent plan 2ith the Insular ;ife !ssurance -o.& ;td. and paid for their pre(iu(s .,9h. )5 and )56!= )56' to -= )%& )%6! to D= TSN& Aebruar1 20& #$0)& pp. 0627/. In #$**& he and his dau"hter -ecilia !bad opened a trust fund account of P#77&777&77 2ith the PeopleLs 'an3 and Trust -o(pan1 2hich 2as rene2ed until .sic/ #$0#& pa1able to either of the( in the event of death .,9hs. )*6!= )*6,/. On :anuar1 %& #$0#& Ricardo !bad opened a trust fund of P#77&777.77 2ith the sa(e ban3& pa1able to his dau"hter Marian .,9h. )06!/. On :anuar1 5& #$0#& Ricardo !bad and his sister Dolores !bad had .sic/ a"reed to stipulate in their P'T- Trust !"ree(ent that the $P inco(e of their P#77&777.77 trust fund shall .sic/ be paid (onthl1 to the account reserved for -ecilia& under P'T- Savin"s !ccount No. 5$7%) in the na(e of Ricardo !bad and@or -ecilia !bad .,9h. ) / 2here the inco(e of the trust fund intended for -ecilia 2as also deposited (onthl1 .TSN& Aebruar1 20& #$0)& pp. 2#6)*/. Ricardo !bad had also deposited .(one1/ 2ith the Monte de Piedad and Savin"s 'an3 in the na(e of his dau"hter Marian& represented b1 hi(& as father& under Savin"s !ccount #0)5 2hich has .sic/ a balance of P)5& #2.2 as of :une )7& #$02. .,9h. *76'/. . . ?ith the findin" that private respondents are the ille"iti(ate children of Ricardo !bad& petitioners are precluded fro( inheritin" the estate of their brother. The applicable provisions are8 !rt. $ . In the absence of le"iti(ate descendants or ascendants& the illegitimate children shall s cceed to the entire estate of the deceased. !rt. #77). If there are no . . . illegitimate children& or a survivin" spouse& the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance 2ith the follo2in" articles. .,(phasis supplied/. !s to petitionersL clai( that the properties ( the na(e of Ricardo !bad actuall1 belon" to their (other ;ucila de Mesa& both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that the evidence presented b1 private respondents proved that said properties in truth belon" to Ricardo !bad. !s stated earlier& the findin"s of fact b1 the trial court are entitled to "reat 2ei"ht and should not be disturbed on appeal& it bein" in a better position to e9a(ine the real evidence& as 2ell as to observe the de(eanor of the 2itnesses 2hile testif1in" in the case. 1+ In fact& petitioners see( to accept this conclusion& their contention bein" that the1 are entitled to the sub<ect estate 2hether the sa(e is o2ned b1 Ricardo !bad or b1 ;ucila de Mesa.

Di"ressin" fro( the (ain issue& in its decision dated October #$& #$$5& the -ourt of !ppeals affir(ed the trial courtLs order dated March 2#& #$0% den1in" the appeal of Dolores de Mesa !bad and -esar de Mesa Tioseco on the "round that the sa(e 2as filed out of ti(e. This affir(ance is erroneous& for on :ul1 $& #$ %& this -ourt had alread1 ruled that the sa(e 2as not filed out of ti(e. ?ell6settled is the dictu( that the rulin"s of the Supre(e -ourt are bindin" upon and (a1 not be reversed b1 a lo2er court. ?H,R,AOR,& pre(ises considered& the instant petition is hereb1 D,NI,D. The decision of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. -V No. )7# 5 dated October #$& #$$5 is !AAIRM,D 2ith the MODIAI-!TION that the affir(ance of the Order dated March 2#& #$0% den1in" the appeal of Dolores de Mesa !bad and -esar de Mesa Tioseco for bein" filed out of ti(e is S,T !SID,. -osts a"ainst petitioners. SO ORD,R,D. 5ar(asa, ;ap nan, P risima and Pardo, 66., conc r.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila AIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 1/191/ ,a-uar. #0, #00/

'RNE%&TO 'D%';'N& Petitioner& vs. EMETER&O M. 'D%';'N a-d N'RC&S' M. 'D%';'N, Respondents.

D,-ISION 4N'RES1S'NT&'GO, J.: !ssailed in this petition for revie2 is the Septe(ber 2)& 277) Decision# of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. SP No. 05$2# 2hich set aside the Septe(ber #)& 2772 Decision2 of the Re"ional Trial -ourt .RT-/ of -ebu -it1& 'ranch 0& in -ivil -ase No. -,'620 7*& and reinstated the Aebruar1 #2& 2772 :ud"(ent) of the Municipal Trial -ourt .MT-/ of Min"lanilla& Metro -ebu& in -ivil -ase No. )$2& dis(issin" petitioner

!rnelito !dla2anDs unla2ful detainer suit a"ainst respondents ,(eterio and Narcisa !dla2an. ;i3e2ise 4uestioned is the :anuar1 & 2775 Resolution5of the -ourt of !ppeals 2hich denied petitionerDs (otion for reconsideration. The instant e<ect(ent suit ste((ed fro( the partiesD dispute over ;ot 022* and the house built thereon& covered b1 Transfer -ertificate of Title No. 52&% re"istered in the na(e of the late Do(inador !dla2an and located at 'arrio ;ipata& Municipalit1 of Min"lanilla& -ebu. In his co(plaint& petitioner clai(ed that he is an ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate child* of Do(inador 2ho died on Ma1 2 & #$ 0 2ithout an1 other issue. -lai(in" to be the sole heir of Do(inador& he e9ecuted an affidavit ad<udicatin" to hi(self ;ot 022* and the house built thereon.0 Out of respect and "enerosit1 to respondents 2ho are the siblin"s of his father& he "ranted their plea to occup1 the sub<ect propert1 provided the1 2ould vacate the sa(e should his need for the propert1 arise. So(eti(e in :anuar1 #$$$& he verball1 re4uested respondents to vacate the house and lot& but the1 refused and filed instead an action for 4uietin" of title 2ith the RT-. Ainall1& upon respondentsD refusal to heed the last de(and letter to vacate dated !u"ust 2& 2777& petitioner filed the instant case on !u"ust $& 2777.$ On the other hand& respondents Narcisa and ,(eterio& 07 and %$ 1ears of a"e& respectivel1&#7 denied that the1 be""ed petitioner to allo2 the( to sta1 on the 4uestioned propert1 and stressed that the1 have been occup1in" ;ot 022* and the house standin" thereon since birth. The1 alle"ed that ;ot 022* 2as ori"inall1 re"istered in the na(e of their deceased father& Ra(on !dla2an## and the ancestral house standin" thereon 2as o2ned b1 Ra(on and their (other& Oli"ia MaQacap !dla2an. The spouses had nine#2 children includin" the late Do(inador and herein survivin" respondents ,(eterio and Narcisa. Durin" the lifeti(e of their parents and deceased siblin"s& all of the( lived on the said propert1. Do(inador and his 2ife& Braciana Ra(as !dla2an& 2ho died 2ithout issue& also occupied the sa(e.#) Petitioner& on the other hand& is a stran"er 2ho never had possession of ;ot 022*. So(eti(e in #$*#& spouses Ra(on and Oli"ia needed (one1 to finance the renovation of their house. Since the1 2ere not 4ualified to obtain a loan& the1 transferred o2nership of ;ot 022* in the na(e of their son Do(inador 2ho 2as the onl1 one in the fa(il1 2ho had a colle"e education. '1 virtue of a :anuar1 )#& #$*2 si(ulated deed of sale&#5 a title 2as issued to Do(inador 2hich enabled hi( to secure a loan 2ith ;ot 022* as collateral. Not2ithstandin" the e9ecution of the si(ulated deed& Do(inador& then sin"le& never disputed his parentsD o2nership of the lot. He and his 2ife& Braciana& did not disturb respondentsD possession of the propert1 until the1 died on Ma1 2 & #$ 0 and Ma1 *& #$$0& respectivel1. Respondents also contended that Do(inadorDs si"nature at the bac3 of petitionerDs birth certificate 2as for"ed& hence& the latter is not an heir of Do(inador and has no ri"ht to clai( o2nership of ;ot 022*.#% The1 ar"ued that even if petitioner is indeed

Do(inadorDs ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate son& his ri"ht to succeed is doubtful because Do(inador 2as survived b1 his 2ife& Braciana.#* On Aebruar1 #2& 2772& the MT- dis(issed the co(plaint holdin" that the establish(ent of petitionerDs filiation and the settle(ent of the estate of Do(inador are conditions precedent to the accrual of petitionerDs action for e<ect(ent. It added that since Do(inador 2as survived b1 his 2ife& Braciana& 2ho died #7 1ears thereafter& her le"al heirs are also entitled to their share in ;ot 022*. The dispositive portion thereof& reads8 In Vie2 of the fore"oin"& for failure to prove b1 preponderance of evidence& the plaintiffDs cause of action& the above6entitled case is hereb1 Ordered DISMISS,D. SO ORD,R,D.#0 On appeal b1 petitioner& the RT- reversed the decision of the MT- holdin" that the title of Do(inador over ;ot 022* cannot be collaterall1 attac3ed. It thus ordered respondents to turn over possession of the controverted lot to petitioner and to pa1 co(pensation for the use and occupation of the pre(ises. The decretal portion thereof& provides8 ?herefore& the :ud"(ent& dated Aebruar1 #2& 2772& of the Municipal Trial -ourt of Min"lanilla& -ebu& in -ivil -ase No. )$2& is reversed. Defendants6appellees are directed to restore to plaintiff6appellant possession of ;ot 022* and the house thereon& and to pa1 plaintiff6appellant& be"innin" in !u"ust 2777& co(pensation for their use and occupation of the propert1 in the a(ount of P%77.77 a (onth. So ordered.# Mean2hile& the RT- "ranted petitionerDs (otion for e9ecution pendin" appeal#$ 2hich 2as opposed b1 the alle"ed nephe2 and nieces of Braciana in their (otion for leave to intervene and to file an ans2er in intervention.27 The1 contended that as heirs of Braciana& the1 have a share in ;ot 022* and that intervention is necessar1 to protect their ri"ht over the propert1. In addition& the1 declared that as co6o2ners of the propert1& the1 are allo2in" respondents to sta1 in ;ot 022* until a for(al partition of the propert1 is (ade. The RT- denied the (otion for leave to intervene.2# It& ho2ever& recalled the order "rantin" the e9ecution pendin" appeal havin" lost <urisdiction over the case in vie2 of the petition filed b1 respondents 2ith the -ourt of !ppeals.22 On Septe(ber 2)& 277)& the -ourt of !ppeals set aside the decision of the RT- and reinstated the <ud"(ent of the MT-. It ratiocinated that petitioner and the heirs of

Braciana are co6o2ners of ;ot 022*. !s such& petitioner cannot e<ect respondents fro( the propert1 (ia an unla2ful detainer suit filed in his o2n na(e and as the sole o2ner of the propert1. Thus K ?H,,AOR,& pre(ises considered& the appealed Decision dated Septe(ber #)& 2772 of the Re"ional Trial -ourt of -ebu -it1& 'ranch 0& in -ivil -ase No. -,'620 7* is R,V,RS,D and S,T !SID,& and the :ud"(ent dated Aebruar1 #2& 2772 of the Municipal Trial -ourt of Min"lanilla& Metro -ebu& in -ivil -ase No. )$2 is R,INST!T,D. -osts a"ainst the respondent. SO ORD,R,D.2) PetitionerDs (otion for reconsideration 2as denied. Hence& the instant petition. The decisive issue to be resolved is 2hether or not petitioner can validl1 (aintain the instant case for e<ect(ent. Petitioner averred that he is an ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate son and the sole heir of Do(inador. He in fact e9ecuted an affidavit ad<udicatin" to hi(self the controverted propert1. In rulin" for the petitioner& the RT- held that the 4uestioned :anuar1 )#& #$*2 deed of sale validl1 transferred title to Do(inador and that petitioner is his ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate son 2ho inherited o2nership of the 4uestioned lot. The -ourt notes& ho2ever& that the RT- lost si"ht of the fact that the theor1 of succession invo3ed b1 petitioner 2ould end up provin" that he is not the sole o2ner of ;ot 022*. This is so because Do(inador 2as survived not onl1 b1 petitioner but also b1 his le"al 2ife& Braciana& 2ho died #7 1ears after the de(ise of Do(inador on Ma1 2 & #$ 0.25 '1 intestate succession& Braciana and petitioner beca(e co6o2ners of ;ot 022*.2% The death of Braciana on Ma1 *& #$$0& did not (a3e petitioner the absolute o2ner of ;ot 022* because the share of Braciana passed to her relatives b1 consan"uinit1 and not to petitioner 2ith 2ho( she had no blood relations. The -ourt of !ppeals thus correctl1 held that petitioner has no authorit1 to institute the instant action as the sole o2ner of ;ot 022*. Petitioner contends that even "rantin" that he has co6o2ners over ;ot 022*& he can on his o2n file the instant case pursuant to !rticle 5 0 of the -ivil -ode 2hich provides8 !RT. 5 0. !n1 one of the co6o2ners (a1 brin" an action in e<ect(ent. This article covers all 3inds of actions for the recover1 of possession. !rticle 5 0 includes forcible entr1 and unla2ful detainer .accion interdictal/& recover1 of possession .accion p bliciana<& and recover1 of o2nership .accion de rei(indicacion/.2* ! co6o2ner (a1 brin" such an action 2ithout the necessit1 of <oinin" all the other co6o2ners as co6plaintiffs because the suit is presu(ed to have been

filed to benefit his co6o2ners. It should be stressed& ho2ever& that 2here the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone 2ho clai(s to be the sole o2ner and entitled to the possession of the liti"ated propert1& the action should be dis(issed.20 The reno2ned civilist& Professor !rturo M. Tolentino& e9plained K ! co6o2ner (a1 brin" such an action& 2ithout the necessit1 of <oinin" all the other co6 o2ners as co6plaintiffs& because the suit is dee(ed to be instituted for the benefit of all. &: t0e a t8o- 86 :or t0e !e-e:8t o: t0e 7la8-t8:: alo-e, 6u 0 t0at 0e la8m6 7o66e668o- :or 08m6el: a-d -ot :or t0e o1o=-er6087, t0e a t8o- =8ll -ot 7ro67er. .,(phasis added/2 In 9aloloy (. 4 lar&2$ respondent filed a co(plaint for 4uietin" of title clai(in" e9clusive o2nership of the propert1& but the evidence sho2ed that respondent has co6o2ners over the propert1. In dis(issin" the co(plaint for 2ant of respondentDs authorit1 to file the case& the -ourt held that K Gnder !rticle 5 0 of the Ne2 -ivil -ode& an1 of the co6o2ners (a1 brin" an action in e<ect(ent. This article covers all 3inds of actions for the recover1 of possession& includin" an accion p bliciana and a reinvidicator1 action. ! co6o2ner (a1 brin" such an action 2ithout the necessit1 of <oinin" all the other co6o2ners as co6plaintiffs because the suit is dee(ed to be instituted for the benefit of all. !n1 <ud"(ent of the court in favor of the co6o2ner 2ill benefit the others but if such <ud"(ent is adverse& the sa(e cannot pre<udice the ri"hts of the uni(pleaded co6o2ners. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone 2ho clai(s to be the sole o2ner and entitled to the possession thereof& the action 2ill not prosper unless he i(pleads the other co6 o2ners 2ho are indispensable parties. In this case& the respondent alone filed the co(plaint& clai(in" sole o2nership over the sub<ect propert1 and pra1in" that he be declared the sole o2ner thereof. There is no proof that the other co6o2ners had 2aived their ri"hts over the sub<ect propert1 or conve1ed the sa(e to the respondent or such co6o2ners 2ere a2are of the case in the trial court. The trial court rendered <ud"(ent declarin" the respondent as the sole o2ner of the propert1 and entitled to its possession& to the pre<udice of the latterDs siblin"s. Patentl1 then& the decision of the trial court is erroneous. Gnder Section 0& Rule ) of the Rules of -ourt& the respondent 2as (andated to i(plead his siblin"s& bein" co6o2ners of the propert1& as parties. The respondent failed to co(pl1 2ith the rule. It (ust& li3e2ise& be stressed that the Republic of the Philippines is also an indispensable part1 as defendant because the respondent sou"ht the nullification of O-T No. P6#*%57 2hich 2as issued based on Aree Patent No. ) 57#$. Gnless the State is i(pleaded as part16defendant& an1 decision of the -ourt 2ould not be bindin" on it. It has been held that the absence of an indispensable part1 in a case renders ineffective all the proceedin"s subse4uent to

the filin" of the co(plaint includin" the <ud"(ent. The absence of the respondentDs siblin"s& as parties& rendered all proceedin"s subse4uent to the filin" thereof& includin" the <ud"(ent of the court& ineffective for 2ant of authorit1 to act& not onl1 as to the absent parties but even as to those present.)7 In the instant case& it is not disputed that petitioner brou"ht the suit for unla2ful detainer in his na(e alone and for his o2n benefit to the e9clusion of the heirs of Braciana as he even e9ecuted an affidavit of self6 ad<udication over the disputed propert1. It is clear therefore that petitioner cannot validl1 (aintain the instant action considerin" that he does not reco"niCe the co6o2nership that necessaril1 flo2s fro( his theor1 of succession to the propert1 of his father& Do(inador. In the sa(e vein& there is no (erit in petitionerDs clai( that he has the le"al personalit1 to file the present unla2ful detainer suit because the e<ect(ent of respondents 2ould benefit not onl1 hi( but also his alle"ed co6o2ners. Ho2ever& petitioner for"ets that he filed the instant case to ac4uire possession of the propert1 and to recover da(a"es. If "ranted& he alone 2ill "ain possession of the lot and benefit fro( the proceeds of the a2ard of da(a"es to the e9clusion of the heirs of Braciana. Hence& petitioner cannot successfull1 capitaliCe on the alle"ed benefit to his co6o2ners. Incidentall1& it should be pointed out that in default of the said heirs of Braciana& 2ho( petitioner labeled as +fictitious heirs&+ the State 2ill inherit her share)# and 2ill thus be petitionerDs co6o2ner entitled to possession and en<o1(ent of the propert1. The present controvers1 should be differentiated fro( the cases 2here the -ourt upheld the ri"ht of a co6o2ner to file a suit pursuant to !rticle 5 0 of the -ivil -ode. In Res ena (. !o rt of 3ppeals,)2 and &ering (. Plazo&)) the co6o2ners 2ho filed the e<ect(ent case did not represent the(selves as the e9clusive o2ner of the propert1. In!elino (. 4eirs of 3le"o and )eresa &antiago&)5 the co(plaint for 4uietin" of title 2as brou"ht in behalf of the co6o2ners precisel1 to recover lots o2ned in co((on.)% Si(ilarl1 in =encilao (. !amarenta&)* the a(ended co(plaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs 2ho co6o2ns the controverted properties. In the fore"oin" cases& the plaintiff never disputed the e9istence of a co6o2nership nor clai(ed to be the sole or e9clusive o2ner of the liti"ated lot. ! favorable decision therein 2ould of course inure to the benefit not onl1 of the plaintiff but to his co6 o2ners as 2ell. The instant case& ho2ever& presents an entirel1 different bac3drop as petitioner vi"orousl1 asserted absolute and sole o2nership of the 4uestioned lot. In his co(plaint& petitioner (ade the follo2in" alle"ations& to 2it8

9999 %. 'ein" the onl1 child@descendant and& therefore& 6ole 0e8r of the deceased Do(inador !dla2an& t0e 7la8-t8:: !e ame t0e a!6olute o=-er& and auto(aticall1 too3 POSS,SSION& of the afore(entioned house and lot 9 9 9. .,(phasis added/)0 -learl1& the said cases find no application here because petitionerDs action operates as a co(plete repudiation of the e9istence of co6o2nership and not in representation or reco"nition thereof. Dis(issal of the co(plaint is therefore proper. !s noted b1 Aor(er Supre(e -ourt !ssociate :ustice ,d"rado ;. Paras +EiFt is understood& of course& that the action Eunder !rticle 5 0 of the -ivil -odeF is bein" instituted for all. Hence& if the co6o2ner e9pressl1 states that he is brin"in" the case onl1 for hi(self& the action should not be allo2ed to prosper.+) Indeed& respondentsD not less than four decade actual ph1sical possession of the 4uestioned ancestral house and lot deserves to be respected especiall1 so that petitioner failed to sho2 that he has the re4uisite personalit1 and authorit1 as co6 o2ner to file the instant case. :ustice dictates that respondents 2ho are no2 in the t2ili"ht 1ears of their life be "ranted possession of their ancestral propert1 2here their parents and siblin"s lived durin" their lifeti(e& and 2here the1& 2ill probabl1 spend the re(ainin" da1s of their life. ;(ERE$ORE& the petition is DEN&ED. The Septe(ber 2)& 277) Decision of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. SP No. 05$2# 2hich reinstated the Aebruar1 #2& 2772 :ud"(ent of the Municipal Trial -ourt of Min"lanilla& Metro -ebu& dis(issin" petitionerDs co(plaint in -ivil -ase No. )$2& and its :anuar1 & 2775 Resolution& are '$$&RMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila AIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 1/+707 Se7tem!er 15, #00/

). The plaintiff 2as the onl1 son .ille"iti(ate/ and 6ole 0e8r of the late DOMIN!DOR !D;!?!N 2ho died intestate on 2 Ma1 #$ 0 2ithout an1 other descendant nor ascendant 9 9 9.

M&C('E% C. GU4, petitioner& vs. (ON. COURT O$ 'PPE'%S, (ON. S&>TO M'RE%%', ,R., Pre68d8-g ,udge, RTC,

)ra- 0 1+", Ma?at8 C8t. a-d m8-or6, @'REN D'NES ;E& a-d @'M&%%E D'NES ;E&, re7re6e-ted !. t0e8r mot0er, REMED&OS O'NES, respondents. D,-ISION 4N'RES1S'NT&'GO, J.A This petition for revie2 on certiorari assails the :anuar1 22& 2775 Decision# of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. SP No. 0$052& 2hich affir(ed the Orders dated :ul1 2#& 27772 and :ul1 #0& 277)) of the Re"ional Trial -ourt of Ma3ati -it1& 'ranch #) in SP Proc. -ase No. 5%5$ den1in" petitionerLs (otion to dis(iss= and its Ma1 2%& 2775 Resolution5 den1in" petitionerLs (otion for reconsideration. The facts are as follo2s8 On :une #)& #$$0& private respondent6(inors Oaren Oanes ?ei and Oa(ille Oanes ?ei& represented b1 their (other Re(edios Oanes .Re(edios/& filed a petition for letters of ad(inistration% before the Re"ional Trial -ourt of Ma3ati -it1& 'ranch #) . The case 2as doc3eted as Sp. Proc. No. 5%5$ and entitled 2ntestate .state of &ima 1ei .a.0.a. R fino G y & sim/. Private respondents alle"ed that the1 are the dul1 ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate children of Si(a ?ei& 2ho died intestate in Ma3ati -it1 on October 2$& #$$2& leavin" an estate valued at P#7&777&777.77 consistin" of real and personal properties. His 3no2n heirs are his survivin" spouse Shirle1 Bu1 and children& ,(1& :eanne& -ristina& Beor"e and Michael& all surna(ed Bu1. Private respondents pra1ed for the appoint(ent of a re"ular ad(inistrator for the orderl1 settle(ent of Si(a ?eiLs estate. The1 li3e2ise pra1ed that& in the (eanti(e& petitioner Michael -. Bu1& son of the decedent& be appointed as Special !d(inistrator of the estate. !ttached to private respondentsL petition 2as a -ertification !"ainst Aoru( Shoppin"* si"ned b1 their counsel& !tt1. Sedfre1 !. OrdoQeC. In his -o((ent@Opposition&0 petitioner pra1ed for the dis(issal of the petition. He asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can be settled 2ithout securin" letters of ad(inistration pursuant to Section #& Rule 05 of the Rules of -ourt. He further ar"ued that private respondents should have established their status as ille"iti(ate children durin" the lifeti(e of Si(a ?ei pursuant to !rticle #0% of the Aa(il1 -ode. The other heirs of Si(a ?ei filed a :oint Motion to Dis(iss on the "round that the certification a"ainst foru( shoppin" should have been si"ned b1 private respondents and not their counsel. The1 contended that Re(edios should have e9ecuted the certification on behalf of her (inor dau"hters as (andated b1 Section %& Rule 0 of the Rules of -ourt.

In a Manifestation@Motion as Supple(ent to the :oint Motion to Dis(iss&$ petitioner and his co6heirs alle"ed that private respondentsL clai( had been paid& 2aived& abandoned or other2ise e9tin"uished b1 reason of Re(ediosL :une 0& #$$) Release and ?aiver of -lai( statin" that in e9chan"e for the financial and educational assistance received fro( petitioner& Re(edios and her (inor children dischar"e the estate of Si(a ?ei fro( an1 and all liabilities. The Re"ional Trial -ourt denied the :oint Motion to Dis(iss as 2ell as the Supple(ental Motion to Dis(iss. It ruled that 2hile the Release and ?aiver of -lai( 2as si"ned b1 Re(edios& it had not been established that she 2as the dul1 constituted "uardian of her (inor dau"hters. Thus& no renunciation of ri"ht occurred. !ppl1in" a liberal application of the rules& the trial court also re<ected petitionerLs ob<ections on the certification a"ainst foru( shoppin". Petitioner (oved for reconsideration but 2as denied. He filed a petition for certiorari before the -ourt of !ppeals 2hich affir(ed the orders of the Re"ional Trial -ourt in its assailed Decision dated :anuar1 22& 2775& the dispositive portion of 2hich states8 ?H,R,AOR,& pre(ises considered& the present petition is hereb1 D,NI,D DG, -OGRS, and accordin"l1 DISMISS,D& for lac3 of (erit. -onse4uentl1& the assailed Orders dated :ul1 2#& 2777 and :ul1 #0& 277) are hereb1 both !AAIRM,D. Respondent :ud"e is hereb1 DIR,-T,D to resolve the controvers1 over the ille"iti(ate filiation of the private respondents .sic/ (inors E6F Oaren Oanes ?ei and Oa(ille Oanes ?ei 2ho are clai(in" successional ri"hts in the intestate estate of the deceased Si(a ?ei& a.3.a. Rufino Bu1 Susi(. SO ORD,R,D.#7 The -ourt of !ppeals denied petitionerLs (otion for reconsideration& hence& this petition. Petitioner ar"ues that the -ourt of !ppeals disre"arded e9istin" rules on certification a"ainst foru( shoppin"= that the Release and ?aiver of -lai( e9ecuted b1 Re(edios released and dischar"ed the Bu1 fa(il1 and the estate of Si(a ?ei fro( an1 clai(s or liabilities= and that private respondents do not have the le"al personalit1 to institute the petition for letters of ad(inistration as the1 failed to prove their filiation durin" the lifeti(e of Si(a ?ei in accordance 2ith !rticle #0% of the Aa(il1 -ode. Private respondents contend that their counselLs certification can be considered substantial co(pliance 2ith the rules on certification of non6foru( shoppin"& and that the petition raises no ne2 issues to 2arrant the reversal of the decisions of the Re"ional Trial -ourt and the -ourt of !ppeals.

The issues for resolution are8 #/ 2hether private respondentsL petition should be dis(issed for failure to co(pl1 2ith the rules on certification of non6foru( shoppin"= 2/ 2hether the Release and ?aiver of -lai( precludes private respondents fro( clai(in" their successional ri"hts= and )/ 2hether private respondents are barred b1 prescription fro( provin" their filiation. The petition lac3s (erit. Rule 0& Section % of the Rules of -ourt provides that the certification of non6foru( shoppin" should be e9ecuted b1 the plaintiff or the principal part1. Aailure to co(pl1 2ith the re4uire(ent shall be cause for dis(issal of the case. Ho2ever& a liberal application of the rules is proper 2here the hi"her interest of <ustice 2ould be served. In&y !hin (. !o rt of 3ppeals&## 2e ruled that 2hile a petition (a1 have been fla2ed 2here the certificate of non6foru( shoppin" 2as si"ned onl1 b1 counsel and not b1 the part1& this procedural lapse (a1 be overloo3ed in the interest of substantial <ustice.#2 So it is in the present controvers1 2here the (erits#) of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules 2ith i(punit1 should be considered as co(pellin" reasons to te(per the strict application of the rules. !s re"ards Re(ediosL Release and ?aiver of -lai(& the sa(e does not bar private respondents fro( clai(in" successional ri"hts. To be valid and effective& a 2aiver (ust be couched in clear and une4uivocal ter(s 2hich leave no doubt as to the intention of a part1 to "ive up a ri"ht or benefit 2hich le"all1 pertains to hi(. ! 2aiver (a1 not be attributed to a person 2hen its ter(s do not e9plicitl1 and clearl1 evince an intent to abandon a ri"ht.#5 In this case& 2e find that there 2as no 2aiver of hereditar1 ri"hts. The Release and ?aiver of -lai( does not state 2ith clarit1 the purpose of its e9ecution. It (erel1 states that Re(edios received P)77&777.77 and an educational plan for her (inor dau"hters +b1 2a1 of financial assistance and in full settle(ent of an1 and all clai(s of 2hatsoever nature and 3ind 9 9 9 a"ainst the estate of the late Rufino Bu1 Susi(.+#% -onsiderin" that the docu(ent did not specificall1 (ention private respondentsL hereditar1 share in the estate of Si(a ?ei& it cannot be construed as a 2aiver of successional ri"hts. Moreover& even assu(in" that Re(edios trul1 2aived the hereditar1 ri"hts of private respondents& such 2aiver 2ill not bar the latterLs clai(. !rticle #755 of the -ivil -ode& provides8 !RT. #755. !n1 person havin" the free disposal of his propert1 (a1 accept or repudiate an inheritance. '-. 8-0er8ta- e le:t to m8-or6 or 8- a7a 8tated 7er6o-6 ma. !e a e7ted !. t0e8r 7are-t6 or guard8a-6. Pare-t6 or guard8a-6 ma.

re7ud8ate t0e 8-0er8ta- e le:t to t0e8r =ard6 o-l. !. <ud8 8al aut0or8Bat8o-. The ri"ht to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belon" to the persons desi"nated b1 the testator to deter(ine the beneficiaries and distribute the propert1& or in their default& to those (entioned in !rticle #7)7. .,(phasis supplied/ Parents and "uardians (a1 not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their 2ards 2ithout <udicial approval. This is because repudiation a(ounts to an alienation of propert1#* 2hich (ust pass the courtLs scrutin1 in order to protect the interest of the 2ard. Not havin" been <udiciall1 authoriCed& the Release and ?aiver of -lai( in the instant case is void and 2ill not bar private respondents fro( assertin" their ri"hts as heirs of the deceased. Aurther(ore& it (ust be e(phasiCed that 2aiver is the intentional relin4uish(ent of a 3no2n ri"ht. ?here one lac3s 3no2led"e of a ri"ht& there is no basis upon 2hich 2aiver of it can rest. I"norance of a (aterial fact ne"ates 2aiver& and 2aiver cannot be established b1 a consent "iven under a (ista3e or (isapprehension of fact.#0 In the present case& private respondents could not have possibl1 2aived their successional ri"hts because the1 are 1et to prove their status as ac3no2led"ed ille"iti(ate children of the deceased. Petitioner hi(self has consistentl1 denied that private respondents are his co6heirs. It 2ould thus be inconsistent to rule that the1 2aived their hereditar1 ri"hts 2hen petitioner clai(s that the1 do not have such ri"ht. Hence& petitionerLs invocation of 2aiver on the part of private respondents (ust fail. !nent the issue on private respondentsL filiation& 2e a"ree 2ith the -ourt of !ppeals that a rulin" on the sa(e 2ould be pre(ature considerin" that private respondents have 1et to present evidence. 'efore the Aa(il1 -ode too3 effect& the "overnin" la2 on actions for reco"nition of ille"iti(ate children 2as !rticle 2 % of the -ivil -ode& to 2it8 !RT. 2 %. The action for the reco"nition of natural children (a1 be brou"ht onl1 durin" the lifeti(e of the presu(ed parents& e9cept in the follo2in" cases8 C1D &: t0e :at0er or mot0er d8ed dur8-g t0e m8-or8t. o: t0e 08ld, 8- =08 0 a6e t0e latter ma. :8le t0e a t8o- !e:ore t0e eE78rat8o- o: :our .ear6 :rom t0e atta8-me-t o: 086 ma<or8t.2 .2/ If after the death of the father or of the (other a docu(ent should appear of 2hich nothin" had been heard and in 2hich either or both parents reco"niCe the child.

In this case& the action (ust be co((enced 2ithin four 1ears fro( the findin" of the docu(ent. .,(phasis supplied/ ?e ruled in 9ernabe (. 3le"o# that ille"iti(ate children 2ho 2ere still (inors at the ti(e the Aa(il1 -ode too3 effect and 2hose putative parent died durin" their (inorit1 are "iven the ri"ht to see3 reco"nition for a period of up to four 1ears fro( attainin" (a<orit1 a"e. This vested ri"ht 2as not i(paired or ta3en a2a1 b1 the passa"e of the Aa(il1 -ode.#$ On the other hand& !rticles #02& #0) and #0% of the Aa(il1 -ode& 2hich superseded !rticle 2 % of the -ivil -ode& provide8 !RT. #02. The filiation of le"iti(ate children is established b1 an1 of the follo2in"8 .#/ The record of birth appearin" in the civil re"ister or a final <ud"(ent= or .2/ !n ad(ission of le"iti(ate filiation in a public docu(ent or a private hand2ritten instru(ent and si"ned b1 the parent concerned. In the absence of the fore"oin" evidence& the le"iti(ate filiation shall be proved b18 .#/ The open and continuous possession of the status of a le"iti(ate child= or .2/ !n1 other (eans allo2ed b1 the Rules of -ourt and special la2s. !RT. #0). The action to clai( le"iti(ac1 (a1 be brou"ht b1 the child durin" his or her lifeti(e and shall be trans(itted to the heirs should the child die durin" (inorit1 or in a state of insanit1. In these cases& the heirs shall have a period of five 1ears 2ithin 2hich to institute the action. The action alread1 co((enced b1 the child shall survive not2ithstandin" the death of either or both of the parties. !RT. #0%. Ille"iti(ate children (a1 establish their ille"iti(ate filiation in the sa(e 2a1 and on the sa(e& evidence as le"iti(ate children. The action (ust be brou"ht 2ithin the sa(e period specified in !rticle #0)& e9cept 2hen the action is based on the second para"raph of !rticle #02& in 2hich case the action (a1 be brou"ht durin" the lifeti(e of the alle"ed parent.

Gnder the Aa(il1 -ode& 2hen filiation of an ille"iti(ate child is established b1 a record of birth appearin" in the civil re"ister or a final <ud"(ent& or an ad(ission of filiation in a public docu(ent or a private hand2ritten instru(ent si"ned b1 the parent concerned& the action for reco"nition (a1 be brou"ht b1 the child durin" his or her lifeti(e. Ho2ever& if the action is based upon open and continuous possession of the status of an ille"iti(ate child& or an1 other (eans allo2ed b1 the rules or special la2s& it (a1 onl1 be brou"ht durin" the lifeti(e of the alle"ed parent. It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends on the t1pe of evidence to be adduced b1 private respondents in provin" their filiation. Ho2ever& it 2ould be i(possible to deter(ine the sa(e in this case as there has been no reception of evidence 1et. This -ourt is not a trier of facts. Such (atters (a1 be resolved onl1 b1 the Re"ional Trial -ourt after a full6blo2n trial. ?hile the ori"inal action filed b1 private respondents 2as a petition for letters of ad(inistration& the trial court is not precluded fro( receivin" evidence on private respondentsL filiation. Its <urisdiction e9tends to (atters incidental and collateral to the e9ercise of its reco"niCed po2ers in handlin" the settle(ent of the estate& includin" the deter(ination of the status of each heir.27 That the t2o causes of action& one to co(pel reco"nition and the other to clai( inheritance& (a1 be <oined in one co(plaint is not ne2 in our <urisprudence.2# !s held in 9riz (. 9riz822 The 4uestion 2hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in an1 event (aintain a co(ple9 action to co(pel reco"nition as a natural child and at the sa(e ti(e to obtain ulterior relief in the character of heir& is one 2hich in the opinion of this court (ust be ans2ered in the affir(ative& provided al2a1s that the conditions <ustif1in" the <oinder of the t2o distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. In other 2ords& there is no absolute necessit1 re4uirin" that the action to co(pel ac3no2led"(ent should have been instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in 2hich that sa(e plaintiff see3s additional relief in the character of heir. -ertainl1& there is nothin" so peculiar to the action to co(pel ac3no2led"(ent as to re4uire that a rule should be here applied different fro( that "enerall1 applicable in other cases. 9 9 9 The conclusion above stated& thou"h not heretofore e9plicitl1 for(ulated b1 this court& is undoubtedl1 to so(e e9tent supported b1 our prior decisions. Thus& 2e have held in nu(erous cases& and the doctrine (ust be considered 2ell settled& that a natural child havin" a ri"ht to co(pel ac3no2led"(ent& but 2ho has not been in fact ac3no2led"ed& (a1 (aintain partition proceedin"s for the division of the inheritance a"ainst his coheirs .Si"uion" vs. Si"uion"& Phil.& %= Tia(son vs. Tia(son& )2 Phil.& *2/= and the sa(e person (a1 intervene in proceedin"s for the distribution of the estate of his deceased natural father& or (other .-apistrano vs. Aabella&

Phil.& #)%= -onde vs. !ba1a& #) Phil.& 25$= Ra(ireC vs. B(ur& 52 Phil.& %%/. In neither of these situations has it been thou"ht necessar1 for the plaintiff to sho2 a prior decree co(pellin" ac3no2led"(ent. The obvious reason is that in partition suits and distribution proceedin"s the other persons 2ho (i"ht ta3e b1 inheritance are before the court= and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedin"s. ;(ERE$ORE& the instant petition is DEN&ED. The Decision dated :anuar1 22& 2775 of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6B.R. SP No. 0$052 affir(in" the denial of petitionerLs (otion to dis(iss= and its Resolution dated Ma1 2%& 2775 den1in" petitionerLs (otion for reconsideration& are '$$&RMED. ;et the records be REM'NDED to the Re"ional Trial -ourt of Ma3ati -it1& 'ranch #) for further proceedin"s. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, !.6., !hairperson, 3 stria-Martinez, !alle"o, &r., !hico-5azario, 6.6., concur.

Durin" their (arria"e& Ma9i(ino NaCareno& Sr. and !urea Poblete ac4uired properties in MueCon -it1 and in the Province of -avite. It is the o2nership of so(e of these properties that is in 4uestion in this case. It appears that after the death of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& Ro(eo filed an intestate case in the -ourt of Airst Instance of -avite& 'ranch HV& 2here the case 2as doc3eted as Sp. Proc. No. N-62 . Gpon the reor"aniCation of the courts in #$ )& the case 2as transferred to the Re"ional Trial -ourt of Naic& -avite. Ro(eo 2as appointed ad(inistrator of his fatherDs estate. In the course of the intestate proceedin"s& Ro(eo discovered that his parents had e9ecuted several deeds of sale conve1in" a nu(ber of real properties in favor of his sister& Natividad. One of the deeds involved si9 lots in MueCon -it1 2hich 2ere alle"edl1 sold b1 Ma9i(ino& Sr.& 2ith the consent of !urea& to Natividad on :anuar1 2$& #$07 for the total a(ount of P50& 77.77. The Deed of !bsolute Sale reads as follo2s8 D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, ONO? !;; M,N 'J TH,S, PR,S,NTS8

S,-OND DIVISION FG.R. No. 1+""4#. O to!er 1", #000G N'T&*&D'D P. N'3'RENO, M'>&M&NO P. N'3'RENO, ,R., petitioners, vs. COURT O$ 'PPE'%S, EST'TE O$ M'>&M&NO '. N'3'RENO, SR., ROMEO P. N'3'RENO a-d E%&3' N'3'RENO, respondents. DEC&S&ON MENDO3', J.A

I& M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& Ailipino& (arried to !urea Poblete6NaCareno& of le"al a"e and a resident of the Mun. of Naic& Prov. of -avite& Philippines& 6?ITN,SS,TH6 That I a( the absolute re"istered o2ner of si9 .*/ parcels of land 2ith the i(prove(ents thereon situated in MueCon -it1& Philippines& 2hich parcels of land are here2ith described and bounded as follo2s& to 2it8 RTR!NS. -,RT. OA TIT;, NO. #57$5*S

This is a petition for revie2 on certiorari of the decisionE#F of the -ourt of !ppeals in -!6BR -V No. )$55# dated Ma1 2$& #$$ affir(in" 2ith (odifications the decision of the Re"ional Trial -ourt& 'ranch #70& MueCon -it1& in an action for annul(ent of sale and da(a"es. The facts are as follo2s8 Ma9i(ino NaCareno& Sr. and !urea Poblete 2ere husband and 2ife. !urea died on !pril #%& #$07& 2hile Ma9i(ino& Sr. died on Dece(ber # & #$ 7. The1 had five children& na(el1& Natividad& Ro(eo& :ose& Pacifico& and Ma9i(ino& :r. Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. are the petitioners in this case& 2hile the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& Ro(eo& and his 2ife ,liCa NaCareno are the respondents.

R! parcel of land .;ot )6' of the subdivision plan Psd650575& bein" a portion of ;ot )& 'loc3 D6) described on plan 'sd6#7*52& B.;.R.O. Record No./ situated in the Muirino District& MueCon -it1. 'ounded on the N.& alon" line #62 b1 ;ot #%& 'loc3 D6) of plan 'sd 6 #7*52= alon" line 26) b1 ;ot 5& 'loc3 D6) of plan 'sd6#7*52= alon" line )65 b1 !urora 'oulevard .Road ;ot6#& 'sd6#7*52/= and alon" line 56# b1 ;ot )6D of the subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at a point (ar3ed R#S on plan& bein" S.2$ de". 2*D,.& ##%*.22 (. fro( '.;.;.M. $& MueCon -it1& thence N. 0$ de". %)D,.& #2.%7 (. to point 2= thence S. #7 de". 70D,.& 57.77 (. to point )=

thence S. 0$ de". %)D?.& #2.%7 (. to point 5= thence N. #7 de". 70D?.& 57.77 (. to the point

(ar3ed R#S on the plan& bein" S. 0 de". 2*D?.& 52*$.$7 (. (ore or less fro( '.;.;.M. No. #& Mp. of Mari4uina= thence S. 2% de". 77D,.& #2.77 (. to point R2S=

of be"innin"= containin" an area of AIV, HGNDR,D .%77/ SMG!R, M,T,RS. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and are (ar3ed on the "round as follo2s8 points R#S and R5S b1 P.;.S. -1l. -onc. Mons. bearin"s true= date of the ori"inal surve1& !pril 6:ul1 #%& #$27 and that of the subdivision surve1& March 2%& #$%*.S RTR!NS. -,RT. OA TIT;, NO. #)27#$S R! parcel of land .;ot )& 'loc3 $) of the subdivision plan Psd6%0$07 bein" a portion of ;ot *& Pcs650 *& B.;.R.O. Rec. No. $#0/ situated in Muirino District MueCon -it1. 'ounded on the N?.& alon" line #62& b1 ;ot #& 'loc3 $)= on the N,.& alon" line 26 )& b1 Road ;ot #7#= on the S,.& alon" line )65& b1 Road ;ot #77= on the S?.& alon" line 56#& b1 ;ot 5& 'loc3 $)= all of the subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at point (ar3ed R#S on plan& bein" S. *% de". 57D )))$.$2 (. fro( '.;.;.M. No. #& Mari3ina& RiCal= thence N. 2) de". 2 (in. ,.& ##.07 (. to point R2S= thence S. ** de". )2 (in. ,.& # .77 (. to point R)S= thence S. 2) de". 2 (in. ?.& ##.07 (. to point R5S= thence N. ** de". )2. (in. ?.& # .77 (. to the point of be"innin"= containin" an area of T?O HGNDR,D T,N SMG!R, M,T,RS !ND SIHTJ SMG!R, D,-IM,T,RS .2#7.*7/. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and are (ar3ed on the "round b1 '.;. -1l. -onc. Mons. #% 9 *7 c(.= bearin"s true= date of the ori"inal surve1& Nov. #7& #$27 and :an. )#6March )#& #$25 and that of the subdivision surve1& Aebruar1 # to Septe(ber )7& #$%5. Date approved 6 March $& #$*2.S RTR!NS. -,RT. OA TIT;, NO. ## %S

thence S. *5 de". %$D?.& 2$.$$ (. to point R)S= thence N. 2% de". 77D?.& #2.77 ( to point R5S= thence N. *5 de". %$D,.& 2$.$$ (. to the point of be"innin"= containin" an area of THR,, HGNDR,D SIHTJ SMG!R, M,T,RS .)*7/& (ore or less. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the "round are (ar3ed b1 P.;.S. -onc. Mons. #% 9 *7 c(.= bearin"s true= declination 7 de". %7D,.& date of the ori"inal surve1& !pril to :ul1 #%& #$27& and that of the consolidation and subdivision surve1& !pril 25 to 2*& #$5#.S RTR!NS. -,RT. OA TIT;, NO. ## *S

R! parcel of land .;ot No. ##& of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs6$ & bein" a portion of the consolidated ;ot No. 2*& 'loc3 No. *& Psd6#20& and ;ots Nos. 206! and 206'& Psd6#5$7#& B.;.R.O. Record No. $#0/& situated in the District of -ubao& MueCon -it1& Island of ;uCon. 'ounded on the N,.& b1 ;ot No. 5 of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S,.& b1 ;ot No. #2 of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S?.& b1 ;ot No. ) of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the N?.& b1 ;ot No. #7 of the consolidation and subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at a point (ar3ed R#S on plan& bein" S. 0$ de". 70D?.& 52*5.77 (. (ore or less fro( '.;.;.M. No. #& Mp. of Mari4uina= thence S. *5 de". %$D?.& 2$.$$ (. to point R2S= thence N. 2% de". 77D?.& #2.77 (. to point R)S= thence N. *5 de". %$D,.& 2$.$$ (. to point R5S= thence S. 2* de". 77D,.& #2.77 (. to the point of

R! parcel of land .;ot No. #7& of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs6$ & bein" a portion of the consolidated ;ot No. 2*& 'loc3 No. *& Psd6#20& and ;ots Nos. 206! and 206'& Psd6#5$7#& B.;.R.O. Record No. $#0/& situated in the District of -ubao& MueCon -it1& Island of ;uCon. 'ounded on the N,.& b1 ;ot No. 5 of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S,.& b1 ;ot No. ## of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S?.& b1 ;ot No. ) of the consolidation and subdivision plan= and on the N?.& b1 ;ot No. $ of the consolidation and subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at a point

be"innin"= containin" an area of THR,, HGNDR,D SIHTJ SMG!R, M,T,RS .)*7/& (ore or less. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the "round& are (ar3ed b1 P.;.S. -onc. Mons. #% 9 *7 c(.= bearin"s true= declination 7 de". %7D,.= date of the ori"inal surve1& !pril to :ul1 #%& #$27& and that of the consolidation and subdivision surve1& !pril 25 to 2*& #$5#.S

R! parcel of land .;ot No. #) of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs6$ & bein" a portion of the consolidated ;ot No. 2*& 'loc3 No. *& Psd6#20& and ;otsNos. 206! and 206'& Psd6#5$7#& B.;.R.O. Record No. $#0/& situated in the District of -ubao& MueCon -it1& Island of ;uCon. 'ounded on the N,.& b1 ;ot No. 5 of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S,.& b1 ;ot No. #5& of the consolidation= and subdivision plan= on the S?.& b1 ;ot No. ) of the consolidation and subdivision plan= and on the N?.& b1 ;ot No. #2& of the consolidation and subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at the point (ar3ed R#S on plan& bein" S.0 de". 5 D?.& 52% .27 (. (ore or less fro( '.;.;.M. No. #& Mp. of Mari4uina= thence S. *5 de". % D?.& )7.77 (. to point R2S= thence N. 2% de". 77D?.& #2.77 (. to point R)S= thence N. *5 de". %$D,.& 2$.$$ (. to point R5S= thence S.2% de". 77D,.& #2.77 (. to point of be"innin"= containin" an area of THR,, HGNDR,D SIHTJ SMG!R, M,T,RS .)*7& (ore or less. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the "round are (ar3ed b1 P.;.S. -onc. Mons. #% 9 *7 c(.= bearin"s true= declination 7 de". %7D,.& date of the ori"inal surve1& !pril to :ul1 #%& #$27& and that of the consolidation and subdivision surve1& !pril 25 to 2*& #$5#.S R! parcel of land .;ot No. #5& of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs6$ & bein" a portion of the consolidated ;ot No. 2*& 'loc3 No. *& Psd6#20& and ;ots Nos. 206! and 206'& Psd6#5$7#& B.;.R.O. Record No. $#0/& situated in the District of -ubao& MueCon -it1& Island of ;uCon. 'ounded on the N,.& b1 ;ot No. 5 of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S,.& b1 ;ot No. #%& of the consolidation and subdivision plan= on the S?.& b1 ;ot No. ) of the consolidation and subdivision plan= and on the N?.& b1 ;ot No. #) of the consolidation and subdivision plan. 'e"innin" at the point (ar3ed R#S on plan& bein" S.0 de". 5 D?.& 52% .27 (. (ore or less fro( '.;.;.M. No. #& Mp. of Mari4uina= thence S. 2% de". 77D,.& #2.77 (. to point R2S= thence S. *% de". 77D?.& )7.77 (. to point R)S= thence S. *% de". 77D?.& #2.77 (. to point R5S= thence N.*5 de". % D,.& )7.77 (. to the point of

be"innin"= containin" an area of THR,, HGNDR,D SIHTJ SMG!R, M,T,RS .)*7/& (ore or less. !ll points referred to are indicated on the plan and on the "round are (ar3ed b1 P.;.S. -onc. Mons. #% 9 *7 c(.= bearin"s true= declination 7 de". %7D,.& date of the ori"inal surve1& !pril to :ul1 #%& #$27& and that of the consolidation and subdivision surve1& !pril 25 to 2*& #$5#.S That for and in consideration of the su( of AORTJ THR,, THOGS!ND P,SOS .P5)&777.77/ PHI;IPPIN, -GRR,N-J& to (e in hand paid b1 N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO& Ailipino& sin"le& of le"al a"e and a resident of the Mun. of Naic& Prov. of -avite& Philippines& the receipt 2hereof is ac3no2led"ed to (1 entire satisfaction& I do hereb1 -,D,& S,;;& TR!NSA,R& -ONV,J and !SSIBN unto the said Natividad P. NaCareno& her heirs& ad(inistrators and assi"ns& all (1 title& ri"hts& interests and participations to the abovedescribed parcels of land 2ith the i(prove(ents thereon& 2ith the e9ception of ;OT NO. ## -OV,R,D 'J T.-.T. NO. ## *& free of an1 and all liens and encu(brances= and That for and in consideration of the su( of AOGR THOGS!ND ,IBHT HGNDR,D P,SOS .P5& 77.77/ PHI;IPPIN, -GRR,N-J& to (e in hand paid b1 N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO& Ailipino& sin"le& of le"al a"e and a resident of the Mun. of Naic& Prov. of -avite& Philippines& the receipt 2hereof is ac3no2led"ed to (1 entire satisfaction& I do hereb1 -,D,& S,;;& TR!NSA,R& -ONV,J and !SSIBN unto the said Natividad P. NaCareno& her heirs& ad(inistrators and assi"ns& all (1 title& ri"hts& interests and participations in and to ;ot No. ## covered b1 T.-.T. No. ## * above6described& free of an1 and all liens and encu(brances& 2ith the understandin" that the title to be issued in relation hereto shall be separate and distinct fro( the title to be issued in connection 2ith ;ots Nos. #) and #5& althou"h covered b1 the sa(e title. IN ?ITN,SS ?H,R,OA& I have hereunto si"ned this deed of absolute sale in the -it1 of Manila& Philippines& this 2$th da1 of :anuar1& #$07.E2F '1 virtue of this deed& transfer certificates of title 2ere issued to Natividad& to 2it8 T-T No. #*20) .;ot )6'/& E)F T-T No. #*20)$ .;ot )/&E5FT-T No. #*20)% .;ot #7/& E%F T-T No. #*20)* .;ot ##/&E*F and T-T No. #*20)0 .;ots #) and #5/& E0F all of the Re"ister of Deeds of MueCon -it1. !(on" the lots covered b1 the above Deed of Sale is ;ot )6' 2hich is re"istered under T-T No. #57$5*. This lot had been occupied b1 Ro(eo& his 2ife ,liCa& and b1 Ma9i(ino& :r. since #$*$. Gn3no2n to Ro(eo& Natividad sold ;ot )6' on :ul1 )#& #$ 2 to Ma9i(ino& :r.&E F for 2hich reason the latter 2as issued T-T No. 2$)07# b1 the Re"ister of Deeds of MueCon -it1.E$F ?hen Ro(eo found out about the sale to Ma9i(ino& :r.& he and his 2ife ,liCa loc3ed Ma9i(ino& :r. out of the house. On !u"ust 5& #$ )& Ma9i(ino& :r. brou"ht an action for recover1 of possession and da(a"es 2ith pra1er for 2rits of preli(inar1 in<unction and (andator1 in<unction 2ith the Re"ional Trial -ourt of

MueCon -it1. On Dece(ber #2& #$ *& the trial court ruled in favor of Ma9i(ino& :r. In -!6B.R. -V No. #2$)2& the -ourt of !ppeals affir(ed the decision of the trial court.E#7F On :une #%& #$ & Ro(eo in turn filed& on behalf of the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& the present case for annul(ent of sale 2ith da(a"es a"ainst Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. The case 2as filed in the Re"ional Trial -ourt of MueCon -it1& 2here it 2as doc3eted as -ivil -ase No. 6% . E##FRo(eo sou"ht the declaration of nullit1 of the sale (ade on :anuar1 2$& #$07 to Natividad and that (ade on :ul1 )#& #$ 2 to Ma9i(ino& :r. on the "round that both sales 2ere void for lac3 of consideration. On March #& #$$7& Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. filed a third6part1 co(plaint a"ainst the spouses Ro(eo and ,liCa.E#2F The1 alle"ed that ;ot )& 2hich 2as included in the Deed of !bsolute Sale of :anuar1 2$& #$07 to Natividad& had been surreptitiousl1 appropriated b1 Ro(eo b1 securin" for hi(self a ne2 title .T-T No. 200$* / in his na(e.E#)F The1 alle"ed that ;ot ) is bein" leased b1 the spouses Ro(eo and ,liCa to third persons. The1 therefore sou"ht the annul(ent of the transfer to Ro(eo and the cancellation of his title& the eviction of Ro(eo and his 2ife ,liCa and all persons clai(in" ri"hts fro( ;ot )& and the pa1(ent of da(a"es. The issues havin" been <oined& the case 2as set for trial. Ro(eo presented evidence to sho2 that Ma9i(ino and !urea NaCareno never intended to sell the si9 lots to Natividad and that Natividad 2as onl1 to hold the said lots in trust for her siblin"s. He presented the Deed of Partition and Distribution dated :une 2 & #$*2 e9ecuted b1 Ma9i(ino Sr. and !urea and dul1 si"ned b1 all of their children& e9cept :ose& 2ho 2as then abroad and 2as represented b1 their (other& !urea. '1 virtue of this deed& the nine lots sub<ect of this Deed of Partition 2ere assi"ned b1 raffle as follo2s8 #. Ro(eo 6 ;ot 2%6; .*52 (2/ 2. Natividad 6 ;ots 2) .)#2 (2/ and 25 .)0$ (2/ ). Ma9i(ino& :r. 6 ;ots * .)) (2/ and 0 .)) (2/ 5. Pacifico 6 ;ots #) .)*7 (2/ and #5 .)*7 (2/ %. :ose 6 ;ots #7 .)*7 (2/ and ## .)*7 (2/ Ro(eo received the title to ;ot 2%6; under his na(e& E#5F 2hile Ma9i(ino& :r. received ;ots * and 0 throu"h a Deed of Sale dated !u"ust #*& #$** for the a(ount of P$&%77.77.E#%F Pacifico and :oseDs shares 2ere alle"edl1 "iven to Natividad& 2ho a"reed to "ive ;ots #7 and ## to :ose& in the event the latter ca(e bac3 fro( abroad. NatividadDs share& on the other hand& 2as sold to third personsE#*F because she alle"edl1 did not li3e the location of the t2o lots. 'ut& Ro(eo said& the (one1 realiCed fro( the sale 2as "iven to Natividad. Ro(eo also testified that ;ot )6' 2as bou"ht for hi( b1 his father& 2hile ;ot ) 2as sold to hi( for P0&777.77 b1 his parents on :ul1 5& #$*$.E#0F Ho2ever& he ad(itted that a docu(ent 2as e9ecuted b1 his parents transferrin" si9 properties in MueCon -it1& i.e.& ;ots )& )6'& #7& ##& #)& and #5& to Natividad.

Ro(eo further testified that& althou"h the deeds of sale e9ecuted b1 his parents in their favor stated that the sale 2as for a consideration& the1 never reall1 paid an1 a(ount for the supposed sale. The transfer 2as (ade in this (anner in order to avoid the pa1(ent of inheritance ta9es. E# F Ro(eo denied stealin" ;ot ) fro( his sister but instead clai(ed that the title to said lot 2as "iven to hi( b1 Natividad in #$ # after their father died. Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. clai(ed that the Deed of Partition and Distribution e9ecuted in #$*2 2as not reall1 carried out. Instead& in Dece(ber of #$*$& their parents offered to sell to the( the si9 lots in MueCon -it1& i.e.& ;ots )& )6'& #7& ##& #) and #5. Ho2ever& it 2as onl1 Natividad 2ho bou"ht the si9 properties because she 2as the onl1 one financiall1 able to do so. Natividad said she sold ;ots #) and #5 to Ros6!lva Mar3etin" -orp.E#$F and ;ot )6' to Ma9i(ino& :r. for P#0%&777.77. E27F Natividad ad(itted that Ro(eo and the latterDs 2ife 2ere occup1in" ;ot )6' at that ti(e and that she did not tell the latter about the sale she had (ade to Ma9i(ino& :r. Natividad said that she had the title to ;ot ) but it so(eho2 "ot lost. She could not "et an ori"inal cop1 of the said title because the records of the Re"istrar of Deeds had been destro1ed b1 fire. She clai(ed she 2as surprised to learn that Ro(eo 2as able to obtain a title to ;ot ) in his na(e. Natividad insisted that she paid the a(ount stated in the Deed of !bsolute Sale dated :anuar1 2$& #$07. She alle"ed that their parents had sold these properties to their children instead of (erel1 "ivin" the sa(e to the( in order to i(pose on the( the value of hard2or3. Natividad accused Ro(eo of filin" this case to harass her after Ro(eo lost in the action for recover1 of possession .-ivil -ase No. M6)$7# / 2hich had been brou"ht a"ainst hi( b1 Ma9i(ino& :r. It appears that before the case filed b1 Ro(eo could be decided& the -ourt of !ppeals rendered a decision in -!6BR -V No. #2$)2 affir(in" the trial courtDs decision in favor of Ma9i(ino& :r. On !u"ust #7& #$$2& the trial court rendered a decision& the dispositive portion of 2hich states8 ?H,R,AOR,& <ud"(ent is hereb1 rendered declarin" the nullit1 of the Deed of Sale dated :anuar1 2$& #$07. ,9cept as to ;ots )& )6'& #) and #5 2hich had passed on to third persons& the defendant Natividad shall hold the rest in trust for :ose NaCareno to 2ho( the sa(e had been ad<udicated. The Re"ister of Deeds of MueCon -it1 is directed to annotate this <ud"(ent on Transfer -ertificate of Titles Nos. #*20)% and #*20)* as a lien in the titles of Natividad P. NaCareno. The defendantsD counterclai( is dis(issed. ;i3e2ise& the third6part1 co(plaint is dis(issed.

The defendants are hereb1 directed to pa1 to the plaintiff <ointl1 and severall1 the su( of P)7&777 as and for attorne1Ds fees. ;i3e2ise& the third6part1 plaintiff is directed to pa1 the third6part1 defendantDs attorne1Ds fees of P27&777. !ll other clai(s b1 one part1 a"ainst the other are dis(issed. SO ORD,R,D.E2#F Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. filed a (otion for reconsideration. !s a result& on October #5& #$$2 the trial court (odified its decision as follo2s8 ?H,R,AOR,& the plaintiffDs Partial Motion for Reconsideration is hereb1 "ranted. The <ud"(ent dated !u"ust #7& #$$2 is hereb1 a(ended& such that the first para"raph of its dispositive portion is correspondin"l1 (odified to read as follo2s8 R?H,R,AOR,& <ud"(ent is hereb1 rendered declarin" the nullit1 of the Deeds of Sale dated :anuar1 2$& #$07 and :ul1 )#& #$ 2. R,9cept as to ;ots )& #) and #5 2hich had passed on to third person& the defendant Natividad shall hold the rest OA TH, PROP,RTI,S -OV,R,D 'J TH, D,,D OA S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 .;OTS #7 and ##/ in trust for :ose NaCareno to 2ho( the sa(e had been ad<udicated. RThe Re"ister of Deeds of MueCon -it1 is directed to annotate this <ud"(ent on Transfer -ertificates of Title No. #*20)% and #*20)* as a lien on the titles of Natividad P. NaCareno. R;IO,?IS,& TH, S!ID R,BIST,R OA D,,DS IS DIR,-T,D TO -!N-,; T-T NO. 2$)07# .for(erl1 #*207%/ OV,R ;OT )6' !ND R,STOR, T-T NO. #57$5* IN TH, N!M, OA M!HIMINO N!N!R,NO SR. !ND !GR,! PO';,T,.SE22F On appeal to the -ourt of !ppeals& the decision of the trial court 2as (odified in the sense that titles to ;ot ) .in the na(e of Ro(eo NaCareno/ and ;ot )6' .in the na(e of Ma9i(ino NaCareno& :r./& as 2ell as to ;ots #7 and ## 2ere cancelled and ordered restored to the estate of Ma9i(ino NaCareno& Sr. The dispositive portion of the decision dated Ma1 2$& #$$ reads8 ?H,R,AOR,& the appeal is BR!NT,D. The decision and the order in 4uestion are (odified as follo2s8 #. The Deed of !bsolute Sale dated 2$ :anuar1 #$07 and the Deed of !bsolute Sale dated )# :ul1 #$ 2 are hereb1 declared null and void=

2. ,9cept as to ;ots #) and #5 o2nership of 2hich has passed on to third persons& it is hereb1 declared that ;ots )& )6'& #7 and ## shall for( part of the estate of the deceased Ma9i(ino NaCareno& Sr.= ). The Re"ister of Deeds of MueCon -it1 is hereb1 ordered to restore T-T No. #57$5* .coverin" ;ot )6'/& T-T No. #)27#$ .coverin" ;ot )/& T-T No. ## % .coverin" ;ot #7/& and T-T No. ## * .coverin" ;ot ##/.E2)F Petitioners filed a (otion for reconsideration but it 2as denied in a resolution dated Ma1 20& #$$$. Hence this petition. Petitioners raise the follo2in" issues8 #. ?H,TH,R OR NOT TH, GN-ORRO'OR!T,D T,STIMONJ OA PRIV!T, R,SPOND,NT ROM,O P. N!N!R,NO -!N D,STROJ TH, AG;; A!ITH !ND -R,DIT !--ORD,D TO NOT!RIN,D DO-GM,NTS ;IO, TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 .,HH. #/ ,H,-GT,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& SR. !ND !GR,! PO';,T, IN A!VOR OA P,TITION,R N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO. 2. ?H,TH,R OR NOT TH, R,SPOND,NT -OGRT BROSS;J MIS!PPR,-I!T,D TH, A!-TS OA TH, -!S, ?ITH R,SP,-T TO TH, V!;IDITJ OA TH, S!ID D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 .,HH. #/ IN TH, ;IBHT OA TH, AO;;O?INB8 !/ TH, DO-GM,NT!RJ ,VID,N-,& !;; OA ?HI-H !R, NOT!RIN,D& ,H,-GT,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S DGRINB TH,IR ;IA,TIM, INVO;VINB SOM, OA TH,IR -ON:GB!; PROP,RTI,S.

'/ TH, ,H,-GTION OA !N ,HTR!6:GDI-I!; P!RTITION ?ITH ?!IV,R OA RIBHTS !ND -ONAIRM!TION OA S!;, D!T,D M!J 25& #$0% .,HH. #5!/ OA TH, ,ST!T, OA !GR,! PO';,T, 'J TH, D,-,!S,D M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& SR. !ND TH,IR -HI;DR,N INVO;VINB TH, ON;J R,M!ININB ,ST!T, OA !GR,! PO';,T, THGS IMP;I,D;J !DMITTINB TH, V!;IDITJ OA PR,VIOGS DISPOSITIONS M!D, 'J S!ID D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S ON TH,IR -ON:GB!; PROP,RTI,S& H!;A OA ?HI-H ?OG;D H!V, ',-OM, ! P!RT OA !GR,! PO';,T,DS ,ST!T, GPON H,R D,MIS,. -/ TH, !DMISSION M!D, 'J M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& SR. IN HIS T,STIMONJ IN OP,N -OGRT ON !GBGST #)& #$ 7 DGRINB HIS ;IA,TIM, IN -IVI; -!S, NO. N-60#2 .,HH. #& #'/ TH!T H, H!D SO;D -,RT!IN PROP,RTI,S IN A!VOR OA N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO THGS ',;JINB TH, -;!IM OA

ROM,O P. N!N!R,NO TH!T TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 IS ON, !MONB TH, DO-GM,NTS ,H,-GT,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S TO ', ?ITHOGT -ONSID,R!TION. D/ TH, !DMISSIONS M!D, 'J ROM,O P. N!N!R,NO HIMS,;A -ONT!IN,D IN ! AIN!; D,-ISION OA TH, R,SPOND,NT -OGRT IN -!6BR -V NO. #2$)2 D!T,D !GBGST )#& #$$2 !ND !N !NN,H !PP,!RINB IN HIS !NS?,R TO TH, -OMP;!INT IN -IVI; -!S, NO. M6)$7# .,HH. ##6'/ INVO;VINB ;OT )'& ON, OA TH, PROP,RTI,S IN MG,STION TH!T TH, S!ID PROP,RTJ IS O?N,D 'J P,TITION,R N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO. ,/ TH, P!RTI!; PRO:,-T OA P!RTITION D!T,D M!J 25& #$$% ?HI-H ?!S !PPROV,D 'J TH, INT,ST!T, -OGRT IN SP. PRO-. NO. N-62 !ND ,H,-GT,D IN !--ORD!N-, ?ITH TH, ;!TT,R -OGRTDS AIN!; ORD,R D!T,D :G;J $& #$$# D,T,RMININB ?HI-H ?,R, TH, R,M!ININB PROP,RTI,S OA TH, ,ST!T,. ). ?H,TH,R OR NOT TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 ,H,-GT,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& SR. !ND !GR,! PO';,T, DGRINB TH,IR ;IA,TIM, INVO;VINB TH,IR -ON:GB!; PROP,RTI,S IS !N INDIVISI';, -ONTR!-T> !ND IA SO ?H,TH,R OR NOT GPON TH,IR D,!TH& TH, ,ST!T, OA M!HIMINO !. N!N!R,NO& SR. !;ON, -!N S,,O TH, !NNG;M,NT OA S!ID S!;,> 5. ?H,TH,R OR NOT TH, S!;, OA ;OT ) GND,R TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 IN A!VOR OA P,TITION,R N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO& IS V!;ID -ONSID,RINB TH!T !S P,R TH, ORD,R OA TH, ;O?,R -OGRT D!T,D NOV,M',R 2#& #$$7. ROM,O N!N!R,NO !DMITT,D TH!T H, DID NOT P!J TH, -ONSID,R!TION ST!T,D IN TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, D!T,D :G;J 5& #$*$ ,H,-GT,D 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S IN HIS A!VOR .,HH. M62/. %. ?H,TH,R OR NOT !S ! -ONS,MG,N-,& TH, TIT;, ISSG,D IN TH, N!M, OA ROM,O P. N!N!R,NO& T-T NO. 200$* .,HH. M/ SHOG;D ', -!N-,;;,D !ND D,-;!R,D NG;; !ND VOID !ND ! N,? ON, ISSG,D IN A!VOR OA N!TIVID!D P. N!N!R,NO PGRSG!NT TO TH, D,,D OA !'SO;GT, S!;, ,H,-GT,D IN TH, ;!TT,RDS A!VOR ON :!NG!RJ 2$& #$07 'J TH, D,-,!S,D SPOGS,S.E25F ?e find the petition to be 2ithout (erit.

Airst. Petitioners ar"ue that the lone testi(on1 of Ro(eo is insufficient to overco(e the presu(ption of validit1 accorded to a notariCed docu(ent. To be"in 2ith& the findin"s of fact of the -ourt of !ppeals are conclusive on the parties and carr1 even (ore 2ei"ht 2hen these coincide 2ith the factual findin"s of the trial court. This -ourt 2ill not 2ei"h the evidence all over a"ain unless there is a sho2in" that the findin"s of the lo2er court are totall1 devoid of support or are clearl1 erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.E2%F The lone testi(on1 of a 2itness& if credible& is sufficient. In this case& the testi(on1 of Ro(eo that no consideration 2as ever paid for the sale of the si9 lots to Natividad 2as found to be credible both b1 the trial court and b1 the -ourt of !ppeals and it has not been successfull1 rebutted b1 petitioners. ?e& therefore& have no reason to overturn the findin"s b1 the t2o courts "ivin" credence to his testi(on1. The fact that the deed of sale 2as notariCed is not a "uarantee of the validit1 of its contents. !s held in Sunta1 v. -ourt of !ppeals8E2*F Thou"h the notariCation of the deed of sale in 4uestion vests in its favor the presu(ption of re"ularit1& it is not the intention nor the function of the notar1 public to validate and (a3e bindin" an instru(ent never& in the first place& intended to have an1 bindin" le"al effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties still and al2a1s is the pri(ar1 consideration in deter(inin" the true nature of a contract. Second. Petitioners (a3e capital of the fact that in -.!.6B.R. -V No. #2$)2& 2hich 2as declared final b1 this -ourt in B.R. No. #70* 5& the -ourt of !ppeals upheld the ri"ht of Ma9i(ino& :r. to recover possession of ;ot )6'. In that case& the -ourt of !ppeals held8 !s sho2n in the precedin" dis4uisition& Natividad P. NaCareno ac4uired the propert1 in dispute b1 purchase in #$07. She 2as issued Transfer -ertificate of Title No. #*20) of the Re"istr1 of Deeds of MueCon -it1. ?hen her parents died& her (other !urea Poblete6NaCareno in #$07 and her father Ma9i(ino !. NaCareno& Sr. in #$ 7& Natividad P. NaCareno had lon" been the e9clusive o2ner of the propert1 in 4uestion. There 2as no 2a1 therefore that the aforesaid propert1 could belon" to the estate of the spouses Ma9i(ino NaCareno& Sr. and !urea Poblete. The (ere fact that Ro(eo P. NaCareno included the sa(e propert1 in an inventor1 of the properties of the deceased Ma9i(ino !. NaCareno& Sr. 2ill not adversel1 affect the o2nership of the said realt1. !ppellant Ro(eo P. NaCarenoDs suspicion that his parents had entrusted all their assets under the care and in the na(e of Natividad P. NaCareno& their eldest livin" sister 2ho 2as still sin"le& to be divided upon their de(ise to all the co(pulsor1 heirs& has not pro"ressed be1ond (ere speculation. His barefaced alle"ation on the point not onl1 is 2ithout an1 corroboration but is even belied b1 docu(entar1 evidence. The deed of absolute sale .,9hibit R'S/& bein" a public docu(ent .Rule #)2& Secs. #$ and 2)& Revised Rules on ,vidence/& is entitled to "reat 2ei"ht= to contradict the sa(e& there (ust be evidence that is clear& convincin"

and (ore than (erel1 preponderant .Jturralde vs. !"anon& 2 S-R! 570= Aavor vs. -ourt of !ppeals& #$5 S-R! )7 /. Defendants6appellantsD o2n conduct disproves their clai( of co6o2nership over the propert1 in 4uestion. 'ein" the(selves the o2ner of a ten6unit apart(ent buildin" alon" Stanford St.& -ubao MueCon -it1& defendants6 appellants& in a letter of de(and to vacate addressed to their tenants .,9hibits RPS& RP6#S and RP62S/ in said apart(ent& ad(itted that the house and lot located at No. $0$ !urora 'lvd.& MueCon -it1 2here the1 2ere residin" did not belon" to the(. !lso& 2hen the1 applied for a per(it to repair the sub<ect propert1 in #$00& the1 stated that the propert1 belon"ed to and 2as re"istered in the na(e of Natividad P. NaCareno. !(on" the docu(ents sub(itted to support their application for a buildin" per(it 2as a cop1 of T-T No. #*20) of the Re"istr1 of Deeds of MueCon -it1 in the na(e of Natividad NaCareno .,9hibit ROS and sub(ar3in"s= tsn March #%& #$ %& pp. 56%/.E20F To be sure& that case 2as for recover1 of possession based on o2nership of ;ot )6'. The parties in that case 2ere Ma9i(ino& :r.& as plaintiff& and the spouses Ro(eo and ,liCa& as defendants. On the other hand& the parties in the present case for annul(ent of sale are the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& as plaintiff& and Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r.& as defendants. Ro(eo and ,liCa 2ere na(ed third6part1 defendants after a third6part1 co(plaint 2as filed b1 Natividad and Ma9i(ino& :r. !s alread1 stated& ho2ever& this third6part1 co(plaint concerned ;ot )& and not ;ot )6'. The estate of a deceased person is a <uridical entit1 that has a personalit1 of its o2n.E2 F Thou"h Ro(eo represented at one ti(e the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& the latter has a separate and distinct personalit1 fro( the for(er. Hence& the <ud"(ent in -!6 BR -V No. #2$)2 re"ardin" the o2nership of Ma9i(ino& :r. over ;ot )6' binds Ro(eo and ,liCa onl1& and not the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr.& 2hich also has a ri"ht to recover properties 2hich 2ere 2ron"full1 disposed. Aurther(ore& NatividadDs title 2as clearl1 not an issue in the first case. In other 2ords& the title to the other five lots sub<ect of the present deed of sale 2as not in issue in that case. If the first case resolved an1thin"& it 2as the o2nership of Ma9i(ino& :r. over ;ot )6' alone. Third. Petitioners alle"e that& as sho2n b1 several deeds of sale e9ecuted b1 Ma9i(ino& Sr. and !urea durin" their lifeti(e& the intention to dispose of their real properties is clear. -onse4uentl1& the1 ar"ue that the Deed of Sale of :anuar1 2$& #$07 should also be dee(ed valid. This is a non6se4uitur. The fact that other properties had alle"edl1 been sold b1 the spouses Ma9i(ino& Sr. and !urea does not necessaril1 sho2 that the Deed of Sale (ade on :anuar1 2$& #$07 is valid. Ro(eo does not dispute that their parents had e9ecuted deeds of sale. The 4uestion& ho2ever& is 2hether these sales 2ere (ade for a consideration. The trial court and the -ourt of !ppeals found that the NaCareno spouses transferred their

properties to their children b1 fictitious sales in order to avoid the pa1(ent of inheritance ta9es. Indeed& it 2as found both b1 the trial court and b1 the -ourt of !ppeals that Natividad had no (eans to pa1 for the si9 lots sub<ect of the Deed of Sale. !ll these convince the -ourt that Natividad had no (eans to pa1 for all the lots she purportedl1 purchased fro( her parents. ?hat is (ore& Ro(eoDs ad(ission that he did not pa1 for the transfer to hi( of lots ) and 2%6; despite the considerations stated in the deed of sale is a declaration a"ainst interest and (ust rin" 2ith resoundin" truth. The 4uestion is& 2h1 should Natividad be treated an1 differentl1& i.e.& 2ith consideration for the sale to her& 2hen she is ad(ittedl1 the closest to her parents and the one sta1in" 2ith the( and (ana"in" their affairs> It <ust see(s 2ithout reason. !n12a1& the -ourt is convinced that the 4uestioned Deed of Sale dated :anuar1 2$& #$07 .,9h. R!S or R#S/ is si(ulated for lac3 of consideration& and therefore ineffective and void.E2$F In affir(in" this rulin"& the -ourt of !ppeals said8 Aacts and circu(stances indicate bad"es of a si(ulated sale 2hich (a3e the Deed of !bsolute Sale dated 2$ :anuar1 #$07 void and of no effect. In the case of Sunta1 vs. -ourt of !ppeals .2%# S-R! 5)7 E#$$%F/& the Supre(e -ourt held that bad"es of si(ulation (a3e a deed of sale null and void since parties thereto enter into a transaction to 2hich the1 did not intend to be le"all1 bound. It appears that it 2as the practice in the NaCareno fa(il1 to (a3e si(ulated transfers of o2nership of real properties to their children in order to avoid the pa1(ent of inheritance ta9es. Per the testi(on1 of Ro(eo& he ac4uired ;ot 2%6; fro( his parents throu"h a fictitious or si(ulated sale 2herein no consideration 2as paid b1 hi(.He even truthfull1 ad(itted that the sale of ;ot ) to hi( on 75 :ul1 #$*$ .Deed of !bsolute Sale& Records& Vol. II& p. 5%)/ li3e2ise had no consideration. This docu(ent 2as si"ned b1 the spouses Ma9& Sr. and !urea as vendors 2hile defendant6appellant Natividad si"ned as 2itness.E)7F Aourth. Petitioners ar"ue further8 The Deed of !bsolute Sale dated :anuar1 2$& #$07 is an indivisible contract founded on an indivisible obli"ation. !s such& it bein" indivisible& it can not be annulled b1 onl1 one of the(. !nd since this suit 2as filed onl1 b1 the estate of Ma9i(ino !. NaCareno& Sr. 2ithout includin" the estate of !urea Poblete& the present suit (ust fail. The estate of Ma9i(ino !. NaCareno& Sr. can not cause its annul(ent 2hile its validit1 is sustained b1 the estate of !urea Poblete.E)#F

!n obli"ation is indivisible 2hen it cannot be validl1 perfor(ed in parts& 2hatever (a1 be the nature of the thin" 2hich is the ob<ect thereof.The indivisibilit1 refers to the prestation and not to the ob<ect thereof. E)2F In the present case& the Deed of Sale of :anuar1 2$& #$07 supposedl1 conve1ed the si9 lots to Natividad. The obli"ation is clearl1 indivisible because the perfor(ance of the contract cannot be done in parts& other2ise the value of 2hat is transferred is di(inished. Petitioners are therefore (ista3en in basin" the indivisibilit1 of a contract on the nu(ber of obli"ors. In an1 case& if petitionersD onl1 point is that the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr. alone cannot contest the validit1 of the Deed of Sale because the estate of !urea has not 1et been settled& the ar"u(ent 2ould nonetheless be 2ithout (erit. The validit1 of the contract can be 4uestioned b1 an1one affected b1 it. E))F ! void contract is ine9istent fro( the be"innin". Hence& even if the estate of Ma9i(ino& Sr. alone contests the validit1 of the sale& the outco(e of the suit 2ill bind the estate of !urea as if no sale too3 place at all. Aifth. !s to the third6part1 co(plaint concernin" ;ot )& 2e find that this has been passed upon b1 the trial court and the -ourt of !ppeals. !s Ro(eo ad(itted& no consideration 2as paid b1 hi( to his parents for the Deed of Sale. Therefore& the sale 2as void for havin" been si(ulated.Natividad never ac4uired o2nership over the propert1 because the Deed of Sale in her favor is also void for bein" 2ithout consideration and title to ;ot ) cannot be issued in her na(e. Nonetheless& it cannot be denied that Ma9i(ino& Sr. intended to "ive the si9 MueCon -it1 lots to Natividad. !s Ro(eo testified& their parents e9ecuted the Deed of Sale in favor of Natividad because the latter 2as the onl1 Rfe(ale and the onl1 un(arried (e(ber of the fa(il1.SE)5F She 2as thus entrusted 2ith the real properties in behalf of her siblin"s. !s she herself ad(itted& she intended to conve1 ;ots #7 and ## to :ose in the event the latter returned fro( abroad. There 2as thus an i(plied trust constituted in her favor. !rt. #55$ of the -ivil -ode states8 There is also an i(plied trust 2hen a donation is (ade to a person but it appears that althou"h the le"al estate is trans(itted to the donee& he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or onl1 a part thereof. There bein" an i(plied trust& the lots in 4uestion are therefore sub<ect to collation in accordance 2ith !rt. #7*# 2hich states8 ,ver1 co(pulsor1 heir& 2ho succeeds 2ith other co(pulsor1 heirs& (ust brin" into the (ass of the estate an1 propert1 or ri"ht 2hich he (a1 have received fro( the decedent& durin" the lifeti(e of the latter& b1 2a1 of donation& or an1 other "ratuitous title& in order that it (a1 be co(puted in the deter(ination of the le"iti(e of each heir& and in the account of the partition.

!s held b1 the trial court& the sale of ;ots #) and #5 to Ros6!lva Mar3etin"& -orp. on !pril 27& #$0$E)%F 2ill have to be upheld for Ros6!lva Mar3etin" is an innocent purchaser for value 2hich relied on the title of Natividad. The rule is settled that Rever1 person dealin" 2ith re"istered land (a1 safel1 rel1 on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the la2 2ill in no 2a1 obli"e hi( to "o behind the certificate to deter(ine the condition of the propert1.SE)*F ?H,R,AOR,& the decision of the -ourt of !ppeals is !AAIRM,D. SO ORDERED. 9ellosillo, >!hairman<, ? is mbing, and $e :eon, 6r., 66., concur. 9 ena, 6., no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 10"947 Se7tem!er #9, 1997 RO%'NDO S'NC(E3, $%OR&D' M&ER%4 S'NC(E3, '%$REDO T. S'NC(E3 a-d M4RN' T. S'NC(E3,petitioners& vs. T(E (ONOR')%E COURT O$ 'PPE'%S, ROS'%&' S. %UGOD, 'RTURO S. %UGOD, E*E%4N %UGOD1R'N&SES a-d RO)ERTO S. %UGOD, respondents.

P'NG'N&)'N, J.: Is a petition for certiorari& in lieu of appeal& the proper re(ed1 to correct orders of a probate court nullif1in" certain deeds of sale and& thus& effectivel1 passin" upon title to the properties sub<ect of such deeds> Is a co(pro(ise a"ree(ent partitionin" inherited properties valid even 2ithout the approval of the trial court hearin" the intestate estate of the deceased o2ner> )he !ase

These 4uestions are ans2ered b1 this -ourt as it resolves the petition for revie2 on certiorari before us assailin" the Nove(ber 2)& #$$2 Decision 1 of the -ourt of !ppeals # in -!6B.R. SP No. 2 0*# 2hich annulled the decision+ of the trial court 4 and 2hich declared the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent a(on" the parties valid and bindin" even 2ithout the said trial courtLs approval. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads8 ?H,R,AOR,& for the reasons hereinabove set forth and discussed& the instant petition is BR!NT,D and the challen"ed decision as 2ell as the subse4uent orders of the respondent court are !NNG;;,D and S,T !SID,. The te(porar1 restrainin" order issued b1 this -ourt on October #5& #$$2 is (ade P,RM!N,NT. The co(pro(ise a"ree(ent dated October )7& #$*$ as (odified b1 the (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent of !pril #)& #$07 is D,-;!R,D valid and bindin" upon herein parties. !nd Special Proceedin"s No. 556M and #722 are dee(ed -;OS,D and T,RMIN!T,D. SO ORD,R,D. 5 )he 3ntecedent #acts The facts are narrated b1 the -ourt of !ppeals as follo2s8 EHerein private respondentF Rosalia S. ;u"od is the onl1 child of spouses :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca 2hile Eherein private respondentsF !rturo S. ;u"od& ,vel1n ;. Ranises and Roberto S. ;u"od are the le"iti(ate children of Eherein private respondentF Rosalia. EHerein petitionersF Rolando& Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC& are the ille"iti(ate children of :uan -. SancheC. Aollo2in" the death of her (other& Maria Villafranca& on Septe(ber 2$& #$*0& Eherein private respondentF Rosalia filed on :anuar1 22& #$* & thru counsel& a petition for letters of ad(inistration over the estate of her (other and the estate of her father& :uan -. SancheC& 2ho 2as at the ti(e in state of senilit1 .!nne9 +'+& Petition/. On Septe(ber )7& #$* & Eherein private respondentF Rosalia& as ad(inistratri9 of the intestate estate of her (other& sub(itted an inventor1 and appraisal of the real and personal estate of her late (other .!nne9 +-+& Petition/.

'efore the ad(inistration proceedin"s Special in Proceedin"s No. 556M could for(all1 be ter(inated and closed& :uan -. SancheC& Eherein private respondentF RosaliaLs father& died on October 2#& #$* . On :anuar1 #5& #$*$& Eherein petitionersF as heirs of :uan -. SancheC& filed a petition for letters of ad(inistration .Special Proceedin"s No. #722/ over the intestate estate of :uan -. SancheC& 2hich petition 2as opposed b1 .herein private respondent/ Rosalia. / On October )7& #$*$& ho2ever& Eherein private respondentF Rosalia and Eherein petitionersF assisted b1 their respective counsels e9ecuted a co(pro(ise a"ree(ent .!nne9 +D+& Petition/ 2herein the1 a"reed to divide the properties enu(erated therein of the late :uan -. SancheC. On Nove(ber )& #$*$& petitioner Rosalia 2as appointed b1 Ethe trial courtF& and too3 her oath as the ad(inistratri9 of her fatherLs intestate estate. On :anuar1 #$& #$07& Eherein petitionersF filed a (otion to re4uire ad(inistratri9& Eherein private respondentF Rosalia& to deliver deficienc1 of 25 hectares and or to set aside co(pro(ise a"ree(ent .!nne9 +,+& Petition/. Gnder date of !pril #)& #$07& .herein private respondent/ Rosalia and Eherein petitionersF entered into and e9ecuted a (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent 2hich (odified the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent .!nne9 +A+. Petition/ On October 2%& #$0$& or nine 1ears later& Eherein petitionersF filed& thru counsel& a (otion to re4uire Eherein private respondentF Rosalia to sub(it a ne2 inventor1 and to render an accountin" over properties not included in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent .!nne9 +B+& Petition/. The1 li3e2ise filed a (otion to defer the approval of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent .!nne9 +H+& 2bid/& in 2hich the1 pra1ed for the annul(ent of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent on the "round of fraud. On Aebruar1 5& #$ 7& ho2ever& counsel for Eherein petitionersF (oved to 2ithdra2 his appearance and the t2o (otions he flied& !nne9 +B+ and +H+ .!nne9 +I+& Petition/.

On Aebruar1 2 & #$ 7& the EtrialF court issued an order directin" Eherein private respondentF Rosalia to sub(it a ne2 inventor1 of properties under her ad(inistration and an accountin" of the fruits thereof& 2hich pro(pted Eherein private respondentF Rosalia to file a re<oinder on March )#& #$ 7 .!nne9 +O+& Petition/. On Ma1 #2& #$ 7& Eherein petitionersF& thru ne2 counsel& filed a (otion to chan"e ad(inistratri9 .!nne9 +;+& Petition/ to 2hich Eherein private respondentF Rosalia filed an opposition .!nne9 +M+& 2bid/. The parties 2ere subse4uentl1 ordered to sub(it their respective position papers& 2hich the1 did .!nne9es +N+ and +O+& Petition/. On Septe(ber #5& #$ $& for(er counsel of .herein petitioners/ entered his re6appearance as counsel for .herein petitioners/. On the bases of (e(oranda sub(itted b1 the parties& the Etrial courtF& this ti(e presided b1 :ud"e Vivencio !. Balon& pro(ul"ated its decision on :une 2*& #$$#& the dispositive portion of 2hich states8 ?H,R,AOR,& pre(ises considered& <ud"(ent is hereb1 rendered as follo2s b1 declarin" and orderin"8 #. That the entire intestate estate of Maria Villafranca SancheC under Special Proceedin"s No. 556M consists of all her paraphernal properties and one6half .#@2/ of the con<u"al properties 2hich (ust be divided e4uall1 bet2een Rosalia SancheC de ;u"od and :uan -. SancheC= 2. That the entire intestate estate of :uan -. SancheC under Special Proceedin"s No. #722 consists of all his capital properties& one6half .#@2/ fro( the con<u"al partnership of "ains and one6 half .#@2/ of the intestate estate of Maria Villafranca under Special Proceedin"s No. 556M= ). That one6half .#@2/ of the entire intestate estate of :uan -. SancheC shall be inherited b1 his onl1 le"iti(ate dau"hter& Rosalia V. SancheC de ;u"od 2hile the other one6half .#@2/ shall be

inherited and be divided e4uall1 b1& bet2een and a(on" the si9 .*/ ille"iti(ate children& na(el18 Patricia !lburo& Maria Ra(uso SancheC& Rolando Pedro T. SancheC& Alorida Mierl1 T. SancheC& !lfredo T. SancheC and M1rna T. SancheC= 5. That all the Deed .sic/ of !bsolute Sales e9ecuted b1 :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca in favor of Rosalia SancheC ;u"od& !rturo S. ;u"od& ,vel1n S. ;u"od and Roberto S. ;u"od on :ul1 2*& #$*) and :une 2*& #$*0 are all declared si(ulated and fictitious and (ust be sub<ect to collation and partition a(on" all heirs= %. That 2ithin thirt1 .)7/ da1s fro( finalit1 of this decision& Rosalia SancheC ;u"od is hereb1 ordered to prepare a pro<ect of partition of the intestate estate of :uan -. SancheC under Special Proceedin"s No. #722 and distribute and deliver to all heirs their correspondin" shares. If she fails to do so 2ithin the said thirt1 .)7/ da1s& then a 'oard of -o((issioners is hereb1 constituted& 2ho are all entitled to honorariu( and per die(s and other necessar1 e9penses char"eable to the estate to be paid b1 !d(inistratri9 Rosalia S. ;u"od& appointin" the -o((unit1 ,nviron(ent and Natural Resources Officer .-,NRO/ of Bin"oo" -it1 as (e(bers thereof& 2ith the tas3 to prepare the pro<ect of partition and deliver to all heirs their respective shares 2ithin ninet1 .$7/ da1s fro( the finalit1 of said decision= *. That 2ithin thirt1 .)7/ da1s fro( receipt of this decision& !d(inistratri9 Rosalia SancheC Vda. de ;u"od is hereb1 ordered to sub(it t2o .2/ separate certified true and correct accountin"& one for the inco(e of all the properties of the entire intestate estate of Maria Villafranca under Special Proceedin"s No. 556M& and another for the properties of the entire intestate estate of :uan -. SancheC under Special Proceedin"s No. #722 dul1 both si"ned b1 her and both verified b1

a -ertified Public !ccountant and distribute and deliver to her si9 .*/ ille"iti(ate brothers and sisters in e4ual shares& one6half .#@2/ of the net inco(e of the estate of :uan -. SancheC fro( October 2#& #$* up to the finalit1 of this decision= 0. Aor failure to render an accountin" report and failure to "ive cash advances to the ille"iti(ate children of :uan -. SancheC durin" their (inorit1 and hour of need fro( the net inco(e of the estate of :uan -. SancheC& 2hich adversel1 pre<udiced their social standin" and pursuit of colle"e education& .the trial court/ hereb1 orders Rosalia SancheC Vda. de ;u"od to pa1 her si9 .*/ ille"iti(ate brothers and sisters the su( of Aive Hundred Thousand .P%77&777.77/ Pesos& as e9e(plar1 da(a"es& and also the su( of One Hundred Aift1 Thousand .P#%7&777.77/ Pesos for attorne1Ls fees= . Gpon release of this decision and durin" its pendenc1& should appeal be (ade& the Re"ister of Deeds and !ssessors of the Provinces and -ities 2here the properties of :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca are located& are all ordered to re"ister and annotate in the title and@or ta9 declarations& the dispositive portion of this decision for the protection of all heirs and all those 2ho (a1 be concerned. SO ORD,R,D. EHerein private respondentF Rosalia filed a (otion for reconsideration dated :ul1 #0& #$$# .!nne9 +P+& Petition/ on !u"ust *& #$$#. On !u"ust #)& #$$#& Eherein petitionersF filed a (otion for e9ecution and opposition to Eherein private respondentF RosaliaLs (otion for reconsideration .!nne9 +M+& Petition/. On Septe(ber )& #$$#& Ethe trial courtF issued an O(nibus Order .!nne9 +S+& Petition/ declarin"& a(on" other thin"s& that the decision at issue had beco(e final and e9ecutor1.

EHerein private respondentF Rosalia then filed a (otion for reconsideration of said O(nibus Order .!nne9 +T+& Petition/. Said Eherein private respondentF 2as allo2ed to file a (e(orandu( in support of her (otion .!nne9 +V+& Petition/. On :une 2*& #$$#& Ethe trial courtF issued and Order den1in" petitioner RosaliaLs (otion for reconsideration .!nne9 +?+& Petition/. 7 Thereafter& private respondents elevated the case to the -ourt of !ppeals via a petition for certiorari and contended8 I The Etrial courtF has no authorit1 to disturb the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. II The Etrial courtF has arbitraril1 faulted Eherein private respondentF Rosalia S. ;u"od for alle"ed failure to render an accountin" 2hich 2as i(possible. III The Etrial courtF acted 2ithout <urisdiction in dero"ation of the constitutional ri"hts of Eherein private respondentsF !rturo S. ;u"od& ,vel1n ;. Ranises and Roberto S. ;u"od 2hen Ethe trial courtF decided to annul the deed of sale bet2een the said Eherein private respondentsF and :uan -. SancheC 2ithout affordin" the( their da1 in court. IV EThe trial court <ud"eF defied 2ithout rh1(e or reason 2ell6 established and entrenched <urisprudence 2hen he deter(ined facts sans an1 evidence thereon. V EThe trial courtF "rossl1 (isinterpreted Eherein private respondentF Rosalia S. ;u"odLs ri"ht to appeal. "

Aor clarit1Ls sa3e& this -ourt hereb1 reproduces verbati( the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 9 of the parties8 !8MPR8M2&. 3GR..M.5) -OM, NO?& the parties in the above6entitled case& (otivated b1 their (utual desire to preserve and (aintain har(onious relations bet2een and a(on" the(selves& for (utual valuable considerations and in the spirit of "ood 2ill and fair pla1& and& for the purpose of this -o(pro(ise !"ree(ent& a"ree to the follo2in"8 #. That the deceased :uan -. SancheC 2ho died intestate on October 2#& #$* 2as le"all1 (arried to Maria Villafranca de SancheC& 2ho predeceased her on Septe(ber 2$& #$*0& out of 2hose 2edloc3 Rosalia SancheC ;u"od& Oppositor herein& 2as born& thus (a3in" her the sole and onl1 survivin" le"iti(ate heir of her deceased parents= 2. That the said deceased :uan -. SancheC& left ille"iti(ate children& Intervenors6Oppositors and Petitioners& respectivel1& herein na(el1= .#/ Patricio !lburo& born out of 2edloc3 on March #0& #$2* at -ebu -it1& Philippines& to ,(ilia !lburo= .2/ Maria Ra(oso SancheC& born out of 2edloc3 on Ma1 $& #$)0 at Bin"oo"& Misa(is Oriental& no2& Bin"oo" -it1& to !lberta Ra(oso= .)/ .a/ Rolando Pedro SancheC& born on Ma1 #$& #$50& .b/ Alorida Mierl1 SancheC& born on Aebruar1 #*& #$5$& .c/ !lfredo SancheC& born on :ul1 2#& #$%7& and

.d/ M1rna SancheC& born on :une #*& #$%2& all born out of 2edloc3 to ;aureta Ta(pus in Bin"oo" -it1& Philippines. ). That the deceased :uan -. SancheC left the follo2in" properties& to 2it8 I. S,P!R!T, -!PIT!; OA :G!N -. S!N-H,N N!TGR,& D,S-RIPTION !ND !R,! !SS,SS,D V!;G, .#/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9. Decl. No. 7*5% & -ad. ;ot No. #75# -62& located at Murallon& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot Nos. #7))& #7)%& #7)*& #7)0& #7)$& #757& #752 T #75)= South b1 ;ot No. #7 7& #7 & #7 0 T #7 5= ,ast b1 ;ot Nos. #7 $& #7*# T 2)#$= ?est b1 ;ot Nos. $%5& #7) & #7%0 T #7%*& containin" an area of ON, HGNDR,D ,IBHTJ THR,, THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D S,V,NTJ T?O .# )& *02/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P2#&*$7.77 II. -ON:GB!; PROP,RTJ OA :G!N -. S!N-H,N !ND M!RI! VI;;!AR!N-! D, S!N-H,N .#/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*550& -ad. ;ot No. 205%& -60 located at !"a16a1an& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot Nos. 2055& 2052& 205 = South b1 ;ot No. 20)$= ,ast b1 ;ot No. 205*= ?est b1 ;ot No. 205#& containin" an area of AOGRT,,N THOGS!ND S,V,N HGNDR,D .#5&077/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P#&$77.77 .2/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*55$& -ad& ;ot No. )20# -60 located at Pan1an"an& ;anao& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. )207= South b1 ;ot Nos. 2$77 T )5*2= ,ast b1 Pan1an"an River T A. ;u(anao= and Part of ;ot )202= and ?est b1 Sa(a1 -ree3& containin" an area of ON, HGNDR,D AOGR THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D .#75&*77/ s4. (s. (ore or less.

P##&% 7.77 .)/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*55$& -ad. ;ot No. 2)#$& -ase 2& located at Murallon& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. #7*#= South b1 Hinopolan -ree3= ,ast b1 ;ot No. #755= and ?est b1 ;ot No. #75#& containin" an area of THR,, THOGS!ND T?O HGNDR,D T?,NTJ AIV, .)&22%/ s4. (s. (ore or less. .5/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5%2& -ad. ;ot No. )202& -60 Part 5 located at Pan1an"an& ;unao& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot Nos. )207 T )20)= ,ast b1 Pan1an"an River= South b1 Pan1an"an River= and ?est b1 ;ot Nos. )207 T )20#& containin" an area of AIATJ AIV, THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D .%%&*77/ s4. (s. (ore or less& bein" clai(ed b1 Da(ian Muerubin. P2&)07.77

P) 7.77 . / !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #2$25& -ad. ;ot No. #27* -6# located at -ahulo"an& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the N?.& b1 ;ot No. #27$= S?.& b1 ;ot No. #270= ,astb1 National Hi"h2a1= and ?est b1 ;ot No. #270= containin" an area of AOGR THOGS!ND AIV, HGNDR,D THIRT,,N .5&%#)/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P057.77 .$/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #2$2%& -ad. ;ot No. %%%5& located at Tina1ta1an& Pi"salohan& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot Nos. %%%$ T %%% = South b1 ;ot No. )5 *= ,ast b1 ;ot No. %%%%= and ?est b1 ;ot No. %)%%& containin" an area of ,IBHT,,N THOGS!ND AIV, HGNDR,D T?,NTJ ,IBHT .# &%2 / s4. (s. (ore or less. P)27.77

.%/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5%)& -ad. ;ot No. )207 -ase 0& located at Suno"& ;unao& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 Sa(a1 -ree3 T ;ot )2*0= South b1 ;ot Nos. )20# T )202= ,ast b1 ;ot Nos. )2*$ T )20)= and ?est b1 Sa(a1 -ree3& containin" an area of AOGR HGNDR,D ,IBHT THR,, THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D .5 )&*77/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P*#&* 7.77

.#7/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #2$2*& -ad. ;ot No. %%%% -60 located at Tina1ta1an& Pi"salo<an& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 Tina1ta1an -ree3 T ;ot Nos. %%%0 T %%% = South b1 ;ot Nos. )5 *& )5 0& )5 & )5$# T )5$*= ,ast b1 -r. T ;ot No. )5$*= and ?est b1 ;ot No. %%%5& containin" an area of S,V,NTJ S,V,N THOGS!ND S,V,N HGNDR,D S,V,NTJ SIH .00&00*/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P#&)%7.77

.*/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5%0& -ad. ;ot No. )20)& -60 Part 2 located at Pan1an"an& ;unao& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. )2*$= South b1 ;ot No. )202= ,ast b1 Pan1an"an River= and ?est b1 ;ot No. )207& containin" an area of THIRTJ AOGR THOGS!ND THR,, HGNDR,D .)5&)77/ s4. (s. (ore or less& bein" clai(ed b1 Mi"uel Tuto. P)& 7.77

.##/ ! -o((ercial ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5%5& -ad. ;ot No. *#6-6# located at Buno6-ondeCa Sts.& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot *5= South b1 Road6;ot *#) -ondeCa St= ,ast b1 ;ot Nos. *)& and *2= ?est b1 Road6;ot *#56Buno St.& containin" an area of ON, THOGS!ND AORTJ T?O .#&752/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P$&)27.77

.0/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #2777& -ad. ;ot No. 2 7*& -ase 0 located at !"a1a1an& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 !"a1a1an River= South b1 Victoriano 'arbac= ,ast b1 Isabelo Ra(oso= and ?est b1 Restituto 'aol& containin" an area of SIH THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D S,V,NTJ SIH .*&*0*/ s4. (s. (ore or less.

.#2/ ! -o((ercial ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5 5& ;ot No. %& 'loc3 2& located at -abu1oan& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. 5& bloc3 2= South b1 ;ot No. & bloc3 2= ,ast b1 ;ot

No. *& bloc3 2& ?est b1 Subdivision Road& containin" an area of AOGR HGNDR,D .577/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P#2&257.77 .#)/ ! -o((ercial ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #%0$ & 'loc3 No. 06!6#*67 located at -abu1oan& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. 06!6#*67= South b1 ;ot No. 06#*67= ,ast b1 ;ot No. 06!6# 6Road= ?est b1 ;ot No. & PSG6#270756:ulito 3rengo (s. Restit to 'aol& containin" an area of T?O HGNDR,D SIHT,,N .2#*/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P#&7%7.77 .#5/ !"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9& Decl. No. 7*0 $& -ad. ;ot No. %#%06-60& located at Oio"at& !"a1a1an& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 ;ot No. %#% & %#%$& %#%*= South b1 S,6 Steep 'an3= ,ast b1 N?& b1 ;ot No. %#% & Villafranca& containin" an area of NIN,TJ SIH THOGS!ND T?O HGNDR,D .$*&277/ s4. (s. (ore or less. P)&)07.77 III. P,RSON!; ,ST!T, .-ON:GB!;/ N!TGR, !ND D,S-RIPTION ;O-!TION !PPR!IS!; #. Aift1 .%7/ shares of stoc3 Rural 'an3 of Bin"oo"& Inc. at P#77.77 per share P%&777.77 2. Aour .5/ shares of Preferred Stoc3 2ith San Mi"uel -orporation 577.77 5. That& the parties hereto have a"reed to divide the above6 enu(erated properties in the follo2in" (anner& to 2it8 .a/ To Patricio !lburo& Maria Ra(oso SancheC& Roland Pedro T. SancheC& Alorida Mierl1 SancheC& !lfredo T. SancheC and M1rna T. SancheC& in e4ual pro6indiviso shares& considerin" not onl1 their respective areas but also the i(prove(ents e9istin" thereon& to 2it8

!"ricultural ;and. -overed b1 Ta9 Decl. No. 7*5%)& -ad. ;ot No. )207 -ase 0& located at Suno"& ;unao& Bin"oo" -it1 and bounded on the North b1 Sa(a1 -ree3 T ;ot )2*0= South b1 ;ot Nos. )20# and )202= ,ast b1 ;ot Nos. )2*$ T )20)= and ?est b1 Sa(a1 -ree3& containin" an area of AOGR HGNDR,D ,IBHTJ THR,, THOGS!ND SIH HGNDR,D .5 )&*77/ s4. (s. and assessed in the su( of P*#&* 7.77. .b/ To Rosalia SancheC ;u"od all the rest of the properties& both real and personal& enu(erated above 2ith the e9ception of the follo2in"8 .#/ T2o Preferred Shares of Stoc3 in the San Mi"uel -orporation& indicated in San Mi"uel -orporation Stoc3 -ertificate No. )72#0& 2hich t2o shares she is cedin" in favor of Patricio !lburo= .2/ The house and lot desi"nated as ;ot No. %& 'loc3 2 to"ether 2ith the i(prove(ents thereon and identified as parcel No. II6#2& lot covered b1 Ta9 Decl. No. #%0$ identified as Parcel No. II6#) in the above enu(erated& and -ad. ;ot No. %#%06 -60 to"ether 2ith the i(prove(ents thereon& 2hich is identified as parcel No. II6#5 of the above6enu(eration of properties& 2hich said Rosalia S. ;u"od is li3e2ise cedin" and renouncin" in favor of Rolando Pedro& Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC& in e4ual pro6indiviso shares= %. That Rolando Pedro& Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC hereb1 ac3no2led"e to have received <ointl1 and severall1 in for( of advances after October 2#& #$* the a""re"ate su( of ,IBHT THOGS!ND AIV, HGNDR,D THIRTJ6THR,, P,SOS .P &%)).$5/ and NIN,TJ6AOGR -,NT!VOS= *. That the parties hereto li3e2ise ac3no2led"e and reco"niCe in the indebtedness of the deceased :uan B. SancheC and his deceased 2ife Maria Villafranca SancheC to the ;u"od ,nterprises& Inc.& in the su( of P5)&7*5.$$= 0. That the parties hereto shall be responsible for the pa1(ent of the estate and inheritance ta9es proportionate to the value of their respective shares as (a1 be deter(ined b1 the 'ureau of Internal Revenue and shall li3e2ise be responsible for the e9penses of surve1 and se"re"ation of their respective shares= . That Patricio !lburo& Maria Ra(oso SancheC& Roland Pedro SancheC& Alorida Mierl1 SancheC& !lfredo SancheC and M1rna SancheC hereb1 2aive& relin4uish and renounce& <ointl1 and individuall1& in a (anner that is absolute and irrevocable& all their ri"hts and interests& share and participation 2hich the1 have or (i"ht have in all the properties& both real and personal& 3no2n or un3no2n and@or 2hich (a1 not be

listed herein& or in e9cess of the areas listed or (entioned herein& and@or 2hich (i"ht have been& at one ti(e or another& o2ned b1& re"istered or placed in the na(e of either of the spouses :uan -. SancheC or Maria Villafranca de SancheC or both& and 2hich either one or both (i"ht have sold& ceded& transferred& or donated to an1 person or persons or entit1 and 2hich parties hereto do hereb1 confir( and ratif1 to"ether 2ith all the i(prove(ents thereon& as 2ell as all the produce and proceeds thereof& and particularl1 of the properties& real and personal listed herein& as 2ell as de(andable obli"ations due to the deceased spouses :uan -. SancheC& before and after the death of the afore(entioned spouses :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca de SancheC& in favor of oppositor Rosalia S. ;u"od= $. That the e9penses of this liti"ation includin" attorne1Ls fees shall be borne respectivel1 b1 the parties hereto= #7. That ;aureta Ta(pus for herself and "uardian ad6lite( of her (inor children& na(el18 Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo& and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC& hereb1 declare that she has no ri"ht& interest& share and participation 2hatsoever in the estate left b1 :uan -. SancheC and@or Maria Villafranca de SancheC& or both& and that she li3e2ise 2aives& renounces& and relin4uishes 2hatever ri"id& share& participation or interest therein 2hich she has or (i"ht have in favor of Rosalia S. ;u"od= ##. That& the parties hereto (utuall1 2aive and renounce in favor of each other an1 2hatever clai(s or actions& arisin" fro(& connected 2ith& and as a result of Special Proceedin"s Nos. 556M and #722 of the -ourt of Airst Instance of Misa(is Oriental& Rosalia S. ;u"od& 2arrantin" that the parcel of land ceded to the other parties herein contains 5 hectares and )* ares. #2. That& Rosalia S. ;u"od shall assu(e as she hereb1 assu(es the pa1(ent to ;u"od ,nterprises& Inc.& of the su( of P%#&%$ .$) representin" the indebtedness of the estate of :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca de SancheC and the advances (ade to Rolando Pedro& Mierl1& !lfredo& and M1na all surna(ed SancheC& (entioned in para"raphs % hereto a"ree to have letters of ad(inistration issued in favor of Rosalia S. ;u"od 2ithout an1 bond. That Rosalia S. ;u"od li3e2ise a"rees to deliver possession and en<o1(ent of the parcel of land herein ceded to petitioners and intervenors i((ediatel1 after the si"nin" of this a"ree(ent and that the latter also (utuall1 a"ree a(on" the(selves to have the said lot subdivided and partitioned i((ediatel1 in accordance 2ith the proportion of one si9th .#@*/ part for ever1 petitioner and intervenor and that in the (eanti(e that the partition and subdivision is not 1et effected& the ad(inistrations of said parcel of land shall be vested <ointl1 2ith ;aureta Ta(pos& "uardian ad lite( of petitioners and Maria Ra(oso& one of the intervenors 2ho shall see to it that each

petitioner and intervenor is "iven one si9th .#@*/ of the net proceeds of all a"ricultural harvest (ade thereon. ?H,R,AOR,& it is (ost respectfull1 pra1ed that the fore"oin" co(pro(ise a"ree(ent be approved. Medina& Misa(is Oriental& October )7& #$*$. .S"d./ .S"d./ P!TRI-IO !;'GRO ROS!;I! S. ;GBOD Intervenor6Oppositor Oppositor .S"d./ M!RI! R!MOSO S!N-H,N !SSIST,D 'J8 Intervenor6Oppositor .S"d./ !SSIST,D 'J8 P!';O S. R,J,S R6#7#6Navarro 'ld". .S"d./ Don !. VeleC St. R,JN!;DO ;. A,RN!ND,N -a"a1an de Oro -it1 Bin"oon" -it1 .S"d./ .S"d./ RO;!NDO P,DRO T. S!N-H,N !;AR,DO T. S!N-H,N Petitioner Petitioner .S"d./ .S"d./ A;ORID! MI,R;J T. S!N-H,N MJRN! T. S!N-H,N Petitioner Petitioner .S"d./ ;!GR,T! T!MPGS Aor herself and as Buardian !d6;ite( of the (inors Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo& and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC !SSIST,D 'J8 T,OB,N,S V,;,N& :R. -ounsel for Petitioners -a"a1an de Oro -it1

The -ler3 of -ourt -ourt of Airst Instance 'ranch III& Medina& Mis. Or. Breetin"s8 Please set the fore"oin" co(pro(ise a"ree(ent for the approval of the Honorable -ourt toda1& Oct. )7& #$*$. .S"d./ .S"d./ .S"d./ P!';O S. R,J,S T,OB,N,S V,;,N& :R. R,JN!;DO ;. A,RN!ND,N The Me(orandu( of !"ree(ent dated !pril #)& #$07& 2hich the parties entered into 2ith the assistance of their counsel& a(ended the above co(pro(ise. .It 2ill be reproduced later in our discussion of the second issue raised b1 the petitioners./ The -ourt of !ppeals& in a Resolution 10 dated Septe(ber 5& #$$2& initiall1 dis(issed private respondentsL petition. !ctin"& ho2ever& on a (otion for reconsideration and a supple(ental (otion for reconsideration dated Septe(ber #5& #$$2 and Septe(ber 2%& #$$2& respectivel1& 11 Respondent -ourt thereafter reinstated private respondentsL petition in a resolution 1# dated October #5& #$$2. In due course& the -ourt of !ppeals& as earlier stated& rendered its assailed Decision "rantin" the petition& settin" aside the trial courtLs decision and declarin" the (odified co(pro(ise a"ree(ent valid and bindin". Hence& this appeal to this -ourt under Rule 5% of the Rules of -ourt. )he 2ss es In this appeal& petitioners invite the -ourtLs attention to the follo2in" issues8 I The respondent court "rossl1 erred in "rantin" the petition for certiorari under Rule *% considerin" that the special civil action of certiorari (a1 not be availed of as a substitute for an appeal and that& in an1 event& the "rounds invo3ed in the petition are (erel1 alle"ed errors of <ud"(ent 2hich can no lon"er be done in vie2 of the fact that the decision of the lo2er court had lon" beco(e final and e9ecutor1.

II Prescindin" fro( the fore"oin"& the respondent court erred in annullin" the decision of the lo2er court for the reason that a co(pro(ise a"ree(ent or partition as the court construed the sa(e to be& e9ecuted b1 the parties on October )7& #$*$ 2as void and unenforceable the sa(e not havin" been approved b1 the intestate court and that the sa(e havin" been seasonabl1 repudiated b1 petitioners on the "round of fraud. III The respondent court "rossl1 erred in i"norin" and disre"ardin" findin"s of facts of the lo2er court that the alle"ed conve1ances of real properties (ade b1 the spouses :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca <ust before their death in favor of their dau"hter and "randchildren& private respondents herein& are tainted 2ith fraud or (ade in conte(plation of death& hence& collationable. IV In an1 event& the respondent court "rossl1 erred in treatin" the lo2er courtLs declaration of fictitiousness of the deeds of sale as a final ad<udication of annul(ent. V The respondent court "rossl1 erred in declarin" the ter(ination of the intestate proceedin"s even as the lo2er court had not (ade a final and enforceable distribution of the estate of the deceased :uan -. SancheC. VI Prescindin" fro( the fore"oin"& the respondent court "rossl1 erred in not at least directin" respondent Rosalia S. ;u"od to deliver the deficienc1 of ei"ht . / hectares due petitioners under the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent and (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent& and in not further directin" her to include in the inventor1 properties conve1ed under the deeds of sale found b1 the lo2er court to be part of the estate of :uan -. SancheC. 1+

The salient aspects of so(e issues are closel1 intert2ined= hence& the1 are hereb1 consolidated into three (ain issues specificall1 dealin" 2ith the follo2in" sub<ects8 .#/ the propriet1 of certiorari as a re(ed1 before the -ourt of !ppeals& .2/ the validit1 of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& and .)/ the presence of fraud in the e9ecution of the co(pro(ise and@or collation of the properties sold. )he !o rt@s R ling The petition is not (eritorious. #irst 2ss e8 Propriety of !ertiorari 9efore the !o rt of 3ppeals Since private respondents had ne"lected or failed to file an ordinar1 appeal 2ithin the re"le(entar1 period& petitioners alle"e that the -ourt of !ppeals erred in allo2in" private respondentLs recourse to Rule *% of the Rules of -ourt. The1 contend that private respondentsL invocation of certiorari 2as +procedurall1 defective.+ 14 The1 further ar"ue that private respondents& in their petition before the -ourt of !ppeals& alle"ed errors of the trial court 2hich& bein" (erel1 errors of <ud"(ent and not errors of <urisdiction& 2ere not correctable b1 certiorari. 15 This -ourt disa"rees. Doctrinall1 entrenched is the "eneral rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Ho2ever& :ustice AlorenC D. Re"alado lists several e9ceptions to this rule& (iz.8 +.#/ 2here the appeal does not constitute a speed1 and ade4uate re(ed1 .Salvadades vs. Pa<arillo& et al.& 0 Phil. 00/& as 2here )) appeals 2ere involved fro( orders issued in a sin"le proceedin" 2hich 2ill inevitabl1 result in a proliferation of (ore appeals .P-I' vs. ,scolin& et al.& ;620 *7 and 20 $*& Mar. 2$& #$05/= .2/ 2here the orders 2ere also issued either in e9cess of or 2ithout <urisdiction .!"uilar vs. Tan& ;62)*77& :un )7& #$07& -f. 'autista& et al. vs. Sar(iento& et al.& ;65%#)0& Sept. 2)#$ %/= .)/ for certain special consideration& as public 2elfare or public polic1 .See :ose vs. Nulueta& et al. #*%$ & Ma1 )#& #$*# and the cases cited therein/= .5/ 2here in cri(inal actions& the court re<ects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as& in case of ac4uittal& there could be no re(ed1 .People vs. !balos& ;72$7)$& Nov. 2 & #$* /= .%/ 2here the order is a patent nullit1 .Marcelo vs. De BuC(an& et al.& ;62$700& :une 2$& #$ 2/= and .*/ 2here the decision in the certiorari case 2ill avoid future liti"ations .St. Peter Me(orial Par3& Inc. vs. -a(pos& et al.& ;6) 2 7& Mar. 2#& #$0%/.+ 1/ ,ven in a case 2here the re(ed1 of appeal 2as lost& the -ourt has issued the 2rit of certiorari 2here the lo2er court patentl1 acted in e9cess of or outside its <urisdiction& 17 as in the present case. ! petition for certiorari under Rule *% of the Rules of -ourt is appropriate and allo2able 2hen the follo2in" re4uisites concur8 .#/ the 2rit is directed a"ainst a tribunal& board or officer e9ercisin" <udicial or 4uasi6<udicial functions= .2/ such tribunal& board or officer has acted 2ithout or in e9cess of <urisdiction& or 2ith "rave

abuse of discretion a(ountin" to lac3 or e9cess of <urisdiction= and .)/ there is no appeal or an1 plain& speed1 and ade4uate re(ed1 in the ordinar1 course of la2. 1" !fter a thorou"h revie2 of the case at bar& 2e are convinced that all these re4uire(ents 2ere (et. !s a probate court& the trial court 2as e9ercisin" <udicial functions 2hen it issued its assailed resolution. The said court had <urisdiction to act in the intestate proceedin"s involved in this case 2ith the caveat that& due to its li(ited <urisdiction& it could resolve 4uestions of title onl1 provisionall1. 19 It is hornboo3 doctrine that +in a special proceedin" for the probate of a 2ill& the 4uestion of o2nership is an e9traneous (atter 2hich the probate court cannot resolve 2ith finalit1. This pronounce(ent no doubt applies 2ith e4ual force to an intestate proceedin" as in the case at bar.+ #0 In the instant case& the trial court rendered a decision declarin" as si(ulated and fictitious all the deeds of absolute sale 2hich& on :ul1 2*& #$*) and :une 2*& #$*0& :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca e9ecuted in favor of their dau"hter& Rosalia SancheC ;u"od= and "randchildren& na(el1& !rturo S. ;u"od& ,vel1n S. ;u"od and Roberto S. ;u"od. The trial court ruled further that the properties covered b1 the said sales (ust be sub<ect to collation. -itin" !rticle #57$ .2/ of the -ivil -ode& the lo2er court nullified said deeds of sale anddetermined with finality the ownership of the properties s b"ect thereof . In doin" so& it clearl1 overstepped its <urisdiction as a probate court. :urisprudence teaches8 E!F probate court or one in char"e of proceedin"s 2hether testate or intestate cannot ad<udicate or deter(ine title to properties clai(ed to be a part of the estate and 2hich are clai(ed to belon" to outside parties. !ll that the said court could do as re"ards said properties is to deter(ine 2hether the1 should or should not be included in the inventor1 or list of properties to be ad(inistered b1 the ad(inistrator. If there is not dispute& 2ell and "ood& but if there is& then the parties& the ad(inistrator& and the opposin" parties have to resort to an ordinar1 action for a final deter(ination of the conflictin" clai(s of title because the probate court cannot do so.#1 Aurther(ore& the trial court co((itted "rave abuse of discretion 2hen it rendered its decision in disre"ard of the partiesL co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. ## Such disre"ard& on the "round that the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent +2as nor approved b1 the court&+ #+ is tanta(ount to +an evasion of positive dut1 or to a virtual refusal to perfor( the dut1 en<oined or to act in conte(plation and 2ithin the bounds of la2. + #4 The fore"oin" issues clearl1 involve not onl1 the correctness of the trial courtLs decision but also the latterLs <urisdiction. The1 enco(pass plain errors of <urisdiction and "rave abuse of discretion& not (erel1 errors of <ud"(ent. #5 Since the trial court e9ceeded its <urisdiction& a petition for certiorari is certainl1 a proper re(ed1. Indeed&

it is 2ell6settled that +.a/n act done b1 a probate court in e9cess of its <urisdiction (a1 be corrected b1certiorari.+ #/ -onsistent 2ith the fore"oin"& the follo2in" dis4uisition b1 respondent appellate court is apt8 !s a "eneral proposition& appeal is the proper re(ed1 of petitioner Rosalia here under Rule #7$ of the Revised Rules of -ourt. 'ut the availabilit1 of the ordinar1 course of appeal does not constitute sufficient "round to EpreventF a part1 fro( (a3in" use of the e9traordinar1 re(ed1 of certiorari 2here appeal is not an ade4uate re(ed1 or e4uall1 beneficial& speed1 and sufficient .,chauC vs. -ourt of !ppeals& #$$ S-R! ) #/. Here& considerin" that the respondent court has disre"arded the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 2hich has lon" been e9ecuted as earl1 as October& #$*$ and declared null and void the deeds of sale 2ith finalit1& 2hich& as a probate court& it has no <urisdiction to do& ?e dee( ordinar1 appeal is inade4uate. -onsiderin" further the Etrial courtLsF "rantin" of Eherein petitionersL/ (otion for e9ecution of the assailed decision& #7 Eherein private respondentF RosaliaLs resort to the instant petition Efor revie2 on certiorariF is all the (ore 2arranted under the circu(stances. #" ?e thus hold that the 4uestioned decision and resolutions of the trial court (a1 be challen"ed throu"h a special civil action for certiorari under Rule *% of the Rules of -ourt. !t the ver1 least& this case is a clear e9ception to the "eneral rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal because the trial courtLs decision and resolutions 2ere issued 2ithout or in e9cess of <urisdiction& 2hich (a1 thus be challen"ed or attac3ed at an1 ti(e. +! void <ud"(ent for 2ant of <urisdiction is no <ud"(ent at all. It cannot be the source of an1 ri"ht nor the creator of an1 obli"ation. !ll acts perfor(ed pursuant to it and all clai(s e(anatin" fro( it have no le"al effect. Hence& it can never beco(e final and an1 2rit of e9ecution based on it is void= L . . . it (a1 be said to be a la2less thin" 2hich can be treated as an outla2 and slain at si"ht& or i"nored 2herever and 2henever it e9hibits its head.L + #9 &econd 2ss e8 =alidity of !ompromise 3greement Petitioners contend that& because the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 2as e9ecuted durin" the pendenc1 of the probate proceedin"s& <udicial approval is necessar1 to shroud it 2ith validit1. The1 stress that the probate court had <urisdiction over the properties covered b1 said a"ree(ent. The1 add that Petitioners Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo and M1rna 2ere all (iners represented onl1 b1 their (other@natural "uardian& ;aureta Ta(pus. +0

These contentions lac3 (erit. !rticle 272 of the -ivil -ode defines a co(pro(ise a"ree(ent as +a contract 2hereb1 the parties& b1 (a3in" reciprocal concessions& avoid a liti"ation or put an end to one alread1 co((enced.+ 'ein" a consensual contract& it is perfected upon the (eetin" of the (inds of the parties. :udicial approval is not re4uired for its perfection. +1 PetitionersL ar"u(ent that the co(pro(ise 2as not valid for lac3 of <udicial approval is not novel= the sa(e 2as raised in May ga (s. !o rt of 3ppeals& +# 2here the -ourt& throu"h :ustice Irene R. -ortes& ruled8 It is alle"ed that the lac3 of <udicial approval is fatal to the co(pro(ise. ! co(pro(ise is a consensual contract. !s such& it is perfected upon the (eetin" of the (inds of the parties to the contract. .HernandeC v. 'arcelon& 2) Phil. %$$ E#$#2F= see also De los Re1es v. de G"arte& 0% Phil. %7% E#$5%F./ !nd fro( that (o(ent not onl1 does it beco(e bindin" upon the parties .De los Re1es v. De G"arte& s pra /& it also has upon the( the effect and authorit1 of res " dicata .-ivil -ode& !rt. 27)0/&e(en if not " dicially appro(ed .Meneses v. De la Rosa& 00 Phil. )5 E#$5*F= Vda. De Builas v. David& #)2 Phil. 25#& ;6252 7& 2) S-R! 0*2 EMa1 20& #$* F= -ochin"1an v. -loribel& ;62070760# E!pril 22& #$00F& 0* S-R! )*#/. .,(phasis found in the ori"inal./ In the case before us& it is ineludible that the parties 3no2in"l1 and freel1 entered into a valid co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. !de4uatel1 assisted b1 their respective counsels& the1 each ne"otiated its ter(s and provisions for four (onths= in fact& said a"ree(ent 2as e9ecuted onl1 after the fourth draft. !s noted b1 the trial court itself& the first and second drafts 2ere prepared successivel1 in :ul1& #$*$= the third draft on Septe(ber 2%& #$*$= and the fourth draft& 2hich 2as finall1 si"ned b1 the parties on October )7& #$*$& ++ follo2ed. Since this co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 2as the result of a lon" dra2n out process& 2ith all the parties abl1 strivin" to protect their respective interests and to co(e out 2ith the best the1 could& there can be no doubt that the parties entered into it freel1 and voluntaril1. !ccordin"l1& the1 should be bound thereb1. +4 To be valid& it is (erel1 re4uired under the la2 to be based on real clai(s and actuall1 a"reed upon in "ood faith b1 the parties thereto. +5 Indeed& co(pro(ise is a for( of a(icable settle(ent that is not onl1 allo2ed but also encoura"ed in civil cases. +/!rticle 272$ of the -ivil -ode (andates that a +court shall endeavor to persuade the liti"ants in a civil case to a"ree upon so(e fair co(pro(ise.+ In opposin" the validit1 and enforce(ent of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& petitioners harp on the (inorit1 of Alorida Mierl1& !lfredo and M1na. -itin" !rticle 27)2 of the -ivil -ode& the1 contend that the courtLs approval is necessar1 in co(pro(ises entered into b1 "uardians and parents in behalf of their 2ards or children. +7

Ho2ever& 2e observe that althou"h deno(inated a co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& the docu(ent in this case is essentiall1 a deed of partition& pursuant to !rticle #7 2 of the -ivil -ode 2hich provides that +EeFver1 act 2hich is intended to put an end to indivision a(on" co6heirs and le"atees or devisees is dee(ed to be a partition& althou"h it should purport to be a sale& an e9chan"e& a co(pro(ise& or an1 other transaction.+ Aor a partition to be valid& Section #& Rule 05 of the Rules of -ourt& re4uires the concurrence of the follo2in" conditions8 .#/ the decedent left no 2ill= .2/ the decedent left no debts& or if there 2ere debts left& all had been paid= .)/ the heirs and li4uidators are all of a"e& or if the1 are (inors& the latter are represented b1 their <udicial "uardian or le"al representatives= and .5/ the partition 2as (ade b1 (eans of a public instru(ent or affidavit dul1 filed 2ith the Re"ister of Deeds. +" ?e find that all the fore"oin" re4uisites are present in this case. ?e therefore affir( the validit1 of the partiesL co(pro(ise a"ree(ent@partition in this case. In an1 event& petitioners neither raised nor ventilated this issue in the trial court. This ne2 4uestion or (atter 2as (anifestl1 be1ond the pale of the issues or 4uestions sub(itted and threshed out before the lo2er court 2hich are reproduced belo2& (iz.8 I !re the properties 2hich are the ob<ect of the sale b1 the deceased spouses to their "randchildren collationable> II !re the properties 2hich are the ob<ect of the sale b1 the deceased spouses to their le"iti(ate dau"hter also collationable> III The first and second issues bein" resolved& ho2 (uch then is the ri"htful share of the four .5/ reco"niCed ille"iti(ate children> +9 Aurther(ore& the 206pa"e Me(orandu( dated Aebruar1 #0& #$$7 filed b1 petitioners before the Re"ional Trial -ourt 40 readil1 reveals that the1 never 4uestioned the validit1 of the co(pro(ise. In their co((ent before the -ourt of !ppeals& 41 petitioners based their ob<ection to sad co(pro(ise a"ree(ent on the solitar1 +reason that it 2as tainted 2ith fraud and deception&+ Ceroin" specificall1 on the alle"ed fraud co((itted b1 private respondent Rosalia S. ;u"od. 4# The issue of (inorit1 2as first raised onl1 in petitionersL Motion for Reconsideration of the -ourt of !ppealsL Decision= 4+ thus& it +is as if it 2as never dul1 raised in that court at all.+ 44 Hence& this -ourt cannot no2& for the first ti(e on appeal& entertain this issue& for to do so 2ould plainl1 violate the basic rule of fair pla1& <ustice and due process. 45 ?e ta3e this opportunit1 to reiterate and e(phasiCe the 2ell6settled rule that +.a/n issue raised for the first ti(e on appeal and not raised ti(el1 in the

proceedin"s in the lo2er court is barred b1 estoppel. Muestions raised on appeal (ust be 2ithin the issues fra(ed b1 the parties and& conse4uentl1& issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first ti(e on appeal.+ 4/ The petitioners li3e2ise assail as void the provision on 2aiver contained in No. of the afore4uoted co(pro(ise& because it alle"edl1 constitutes a relin4uish(ent b1 petitioners of +a ri"ht to properties 2hich 2ere not 3no2n.+ 47The1 ar"ue that such 2aiver is contrar1 to la2& public polic1& (orals or "ood custo(. The -ourt disa"rees. The assailed 2aiver pertained to their hereditar1 ri"ht to properties belon"in" to the decedentLs estate 2hich 2ere not included in the inventor1 of the estateLs properties. It also covered their ri"ht to other properties ori"inall1 belon"in" to the spouses :uan SancheC and Maria Villafranca de SancheC 2hich have been transferred to other persons. In addition& the parties a"reed in the co(pro(ise to confir( and ratif1 said transfers. The 2aiver is valid because& contrar1 to petitionersL protestation& the parties 2aived a 3no2n and e9istin" interest I their hereditar1 ri"ht 2hich 2as alread1 vested in the( b1 reason of the death of their father. !rticle 000 of the -ivil -ode provides that +.t/he ri"hts to the succession are trans(itted fro( the (o(ent of death of the decedent.+ Hence& there is no le"al obstacle to an heirLs 2aiver of his@her hereditar1 share +even if the actual e9tent of such share is not deter(ined until the subse4uent li4uidation of the estate.+ 4" !t an1 rate& such 2aiver is consistent 2ith the intent and letter of the la2 advocatin" co(pro(ise as a vehicle for the settle(ent of civil disputes. 49 Ainall1& petitioners contend that Private Respondent Rosalia T. ;u"odLs alle"ed fraudulent acts& specificall1 her conceal(ent of so(e of the decedentLs properties& attended the actual e9ecution of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent.50 This ar"u(ent is debun3ed b1 the absence of an1 substantial and convincin" evidence on record sho2in" fraud on her part. !s aptl1 observed b1 the appellate court8 EHerein petitionersF accuse Eherein private respondentF Rosalia of fraud or deception b1 alle"in"& inter alia& that the parcel of land "iven to the( never confor(ed to the stated area& i.e.& fort16ei"ht .5 / hectares& as stated in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. ?e find this ar"u(ent unconvincin" and un(eritorious. EHerein petitionersLF aver(ent of fraud on the part of Eherein private respondentF Rosalia beco(es untenable 2hen ?e consider the (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent the1 later e9ecuted 2ith Eherein private respondentF Rosalia 2herein said co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 2as (odified b1 correctin" the actual area "iven to Eherein petitionersF fro( fort16 ei"ht .5 / hectares to thirt16si9 .)*/ hectares onl1. If the actual area allotted to the( did not confor( to the 5 hectare area stated in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& then 2h1 did the1 a"ree to the (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent 2hereb1 their share in the estate of their father 2as even reduced to <ust )* hectares> ?here is fraud

or deception there> -onsiderin" that Eherein petitionersF 2ere abl1 represented b1 their la21ers in e9ecutin" these docu(ents and 2ho presu(abl1 had e9plained to the( the i(port and conse4uences thereof& it is hard to believe their char"e that the1 2ere defrauded and deceived b1 Eherein private respondentF Rosalia. If the parcel of land "iven to Eherein petitionersF& 2hen actuall1 surve1ed& happened to be different in area to the stated area of 5 hectares in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent& this circu(stance is not enou"h proof of fraud or deception on Eherein private respondentF RosaliaLs part. Note that Ta9 Declaration No. 7*5%) plainl1 discloses that the land transferred to Eherein petitionersF pursuant to the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent contained an area of 5 hectares .!nne9 +!+& Supple(ental Repl1/. !nd 2hen Eherein petitionersF discovered that the land allotted to the( actuall1 contained onl1 25 hectares& a conference bet2een the parties too3 place 2hich led to the e9ecution and si"nin" of the (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent 2herein Eherein petitionersLF distributive share 2as even reduced to )* hectares. In the absence of convincin" and clear evidence to the contrar1& the alle"ation of fraud and deception cannot be successfull1 i(puted to Eherein private respondentF Rosalia 2ho (ust be presu(ed to have acted in "ood faith. 51 The (e(orandu( of a"ree(ent freel1 and validl1 entered into b1 the parties on !pril #)& #$07 and referred to above reads8 M.M8R35$AM 8# 3GR..M.5) The parties assisted b1 their respective counsel have a"reed as the1 hereb1 a"ree8 #. To a(end the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent e9ecuted b1 the( on October )7& #$*$ so as to include the follo2in"8 a. -orrection of the actual area bein" "iven to the petitioners and intervenors& all ille"iti(ate children of the late :uan -. SancheC& fort16ei"ht .5 / hectares& thirt16si9 .)*/ ares as e(bodied in the afore(entioned co(pro(ise a"ree(ent to thirt16si9 .)*/ hectares onl1& thus enablin" each of the( to "et si9 .*/ hectares each.

b. That the said )*6hectare area shall be ta3en fro( that parcel of land 2hich is no2 covered b1 O.-.T. No. #5* .Patent No. )77#2/ and the ad<oinin" areas thereof desi"nated as ;ot ! and ;ot - as reflected on the s3etch plan attached to the record of this case prepared b1 Beodetic ,n"ineer Ole"ario ,. Nalles pursuant to the -ourtLs co((ission of March #7& #$07 provided& ho2ever& that if the said )*6hectare area could not be found after addin" thereto the areas of said lots ! and -& then the additional area shall be ta3en fro( 2hat is desi"nated as ;ot '& li3e2ise also reflected in the said s3etch plan attached to the records= c. That the partition a(on" the si9 ille"iti(ate children of the late :uan -. SancheC .petitioners and intervenors/ shall be effective a(on" the(selves in such a (anner to be a"reed upon b1 the(& each underta3in" to assu(e rede(ption of 2hatever plants found in their respective shares 2hich need rede(ption fro( the tenants thereof as 2ell as the continuit1 of the tenanc1 a"ree(ents no2 e9istin" and coverin" the said shares or areas. d. The subdivision surve1 shall be at the e9pense of the said petitioners and intervenors prorata. e. That the ad(inistratri9 a"rees to deliver te(porar1 ad(inistration of the area desi"nated as ;ot % of the Valles S3etch Plan pendin" final surve1 of the said )*6hectare area. -a"a1an de Oro -it1& !pril #)& #$07. .S"d./ ;!GR,T! T!MPOS Aor herself and as Buardian ad6lite( of Rolando& Mierl1& !lfredo and M1rna& all surna(ed SancheC !ssisted b18

.S"d./ T,OB,N,S V,;,N& :r. -ounsel for Petitioners .S"d./ ROS!;I! S. ;GBOD !d(inistratri9 !ssisted b18 .S"d./ P!';O S. R,J,S -ounsel for !d(inistratri9 .S"d./ M!RI! R!'OSO S!N-H,N Intervenor 5# Not onl1 did the parties 3no2in"l1 enter into a valid co(pro(ise a"ree(ent= the1 even a(ended it 2hen the1 realiCed so(e errors in the ori"inal. Such correction e(phasiCes the voluntariness of said deed. It is also si"nificant that all the parties& includin" the then (inors& had alread1 cons mmated and a(ailed themsel(es of the benefits of their compromise. 5+ This -ourt has consistentl1 ruled that +a part1 to a co(pro(ise cannot as3 for a rescission after it has en<o1ed its benefits.+ 54 '1 their acts& the parties are ineludibl1 estopped fro( 4uestionin" the validit1 of their co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. 'olsterin" this conclusion is the fact that petitioners 4uestioned the co(pro(ise onl1 nine years after its e9ecution& 2hen the1 filed 2ith the trial court their Motion to Defer !pproval of -o(pro(ise !"ree(ent& dated October 2*& #$0$. 55 In hindsi"ht& it is not at all farfetched that petitioners filed said (otion for the sole reason that the1 (a1 have felt shortchan"ed in their co(pro(ise a"ree(ent or partition 2ith private respondents& 2hich in their vie2 2as un2ise and unfair. ?hile 2e (a1 s1(pathiCe 2ith this rueful senti(ent of petitioners& 2e can onl1 stress that this alone is not sufficient to nullif1 or disre"ard the le"al effects of said co(pro(ise 2hich& b1 its ver1 nature as a perfected contract& is bindin" on the parties. Moreover& courts have no <urisdiction to loo3 into the 2isdo( of a co(pro(ise or to render a decision different therefro(. 5/ It is a 2ell6entrenched doctrine that +the la2 does not relieve a part1 fro( the effects of an un2ise& foolish& or disastrous contract& entered into 2ith all the re4uired for(alities and 2ith full a2areness of 2hat he 2as doin"+ 57 and +a co(pro(ise entered into and carried out in "ood faith 2ill not be discarded even if there 2as a (ista3e of la2 or fact& .Mc-arth1 vs. 'arber Stea(ship ;ines& 5% Phil. 5 / because courts have no po2er to relieve parties fro( obli"ations voluntaril1 assu(ed& si(pl1 because their contracts turned out to be disastrous deals or un2ise invest(ents.+ 5" =olenti non fit in" ria.

-orollaril1& the petitioners contend that the -ourt of !ppeals "ravel1 abused its discretion in dee(in" Special Proceedin"s Nos. 556M and #722 +-;OS,D and T,RMIN!T,D&+ ar"uin" that there 2as as 1et no order of distribution of the estate pursuant to Rule $7 of the Rules of -ourt. The1 add that the1 had not received their full share thereto. 59 ?e disa"ree. Gnder Section #& Rule $7 of the Rules of -ourt& an order for the distribution of the estate (a1 be (ade 2hen the +debts& funeral char"es& and e9penses of ad(inistration& the allo2ance to the 2ido2& and inheritance ta9& if an1&+ had been paid. This order for the distribution of the estateLs residue (ust contain the na(es and shares of the persons entitled thereto. ! perusal of the 2hole record& particularl1 the trial courtLs conclusion& /0 reveals that all the fore"oin" re4uire(ents alread1 concurred in this case. The pa1(ent of the indebtedness of the estates of :uan -. SancheC and Maria Villafranca in the a(ount of P%#&%$ .$) 2as shouldered b1 Private Respondent Rosalia& 2ho also absorbed or char"ed a"ainst her share the advances of Rolando T. ;u"od in the su( of P &%)).$5& in co(pliance 2ith !rticle #7*# of the -ivil -ode on collation. /1Aurther(ore& the co(pro(ise of the parties& 2hich is the la2 bet2een the(& alread1 contains the na(es and shares of the heirs to the residual estate& 2hich shares had also been delivered. On this point& 2e a"ree 2ith the follo2in" discussion of the -ourt of !ppeals8 'ut 2hat the .trial court/ obviousl1 overloo3ed in its appreciation of the facts of this case are the uncontroverted facts that .herein petitioners/ have been in possession and o2nership of their respective distributive shares as earl1 as October )7& #$*$ and the1 have received other properties in addition to their distributive shares in consideration of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent 2hich the1 no2 assail. Proofs thereof are Ta9 Declarations No. 27$ 5& 27$ %& 27$ *& 27$ 0& 27$ & 27$ $ and 27$$7 .!nne9es +'+ to +H+& Supple(ental Repl1/ in the respective na(es of .herein petitioners/& all for the 1ear #$02. .Herein petitioners/ also retained a house and lot& a residential lot and a parcel of a"ricultural land .!nne9es +I+& +:+ and +O+& 2bid./ all of 2hich 2ere not considered in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent bet2een the parties. Moreover& in the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent per se,it is undoubtedl1 stated therein that cash advances in the a""re"ate su( of P &%)).$5 2ere received b1 .herein petitioners/ after October 2#& #$* .-o(pro(ise !"ree(ent& par. %/ /# !ll the fore"oin" sho2 clearl1 that the probate court had essentiall1 finished said intestate proceedin"s 2hich& conse4uentl1& should be dee(ed closed and ter(inated. In vie2 of the above discussion& the -ourt sees no reversible error on the part of the -ourt of !ppeals. )hird 2ss e8 #ra d and !ollation

Petitioners fault Respondent -ourt for not orderin" Private Respondent Rosalia T. ;u"od to deliver to the( the deficienc1 as alle"edl1 provided under the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent. The1 further contend that said court erred in not directin" the provisional inclusion of the alle"ed deficienc1 in the inventor1 for purposes of collatin" the properties sub<ect of the 4uestioned deeds of sale. /+ ?e see no such error. In the trial court& there 2as onl1 one hearin" conducted& and it 2as held onl1 for the reception of the evidence of Rosalia S. ;u"od to install her as ad(inistratri9 of the estate of Maria Villafranca. There 2as no other evidence& 2hether testi(onial or other2ise& +received& for(all1 offered to& and subse4uentl1 ad(itted b1 the probate court belo2+= nor 2as there +a trial on the (erits of the parriesL conflictin" clai(s.+ /4 In fact& the petitioners +(oved for the defer(ent of the co(pro(ise a"ree(ent on the basis of alle"ed fraudulent conceal(ent of properties I NOT because of an1 deficienc1 in the land conve1ed to the( under the a"ree(ents.+ /5 Hence& there is no hard evidence on record to bac3 up petitionersL clai(s. In an1 case& the trial court noted Private Respondent RosaliaLs 2illin"ness to rei(burse an1 deficienc1 actuall1 proven to e9ist. It subse4uentl1 ordered the "eodetic en"ineer 2ho prepared the certification and the s3etch of the lot in 4uestion& and 2ho could have provided evidence for the petitioners& +to brin" records of his relocation surve1.+ // Ho2ever& Beodetic ,n"ineer Idulsa did not co(pl1 2ith the courtLs s bpoena d ces tec m and ad testificand m. Neither did he furnish the re4uired relocation surve1. /7 No 2onder& even after a thorou"h scrutin1 of the records& this -ourt cannot find an1 evidence to support petitionersL alle"ations of fraud a"ainst Private Respondent Rosalia. Si(ilarl1& petitionersL alle"ations of fraud in the e9ecution of the 4uestioned deeds of sale are bereft of substance& in vie2 of the palpable absence of evidence to support the(. The le"al presu(ption of validit1 of the 4uestioned deeds of absolute sale& bein" dul1 notariCed public docu(ents& has not been overco(e. /" On the other hand& fraud is not presu(ed. It (ust be proved b1 clear and convincin" evidence& and not b1 (ere con<ectures or speculations. ?e stress that these deeds of sale did not involve "ratuitous transfers of future inheritance= these 2ere contracts of sale perfected b1 the decedents durin" their lifeti(e. /9 Hence& the properties conve1ed thereb1 are not collationable because& essentiall1& collation (andated under !rticle #7*# of the -ivil -ode conte(plates properties conve1ed inter (i(os b1 the decedent to an heir b1 2a1 of donation or other "ratuitous title. In an1 event& these alle"ed errors and deficiencies re"ardin" the deliver1 of shares provided in the co(pro(ise& conceal(ent of properties and fraud in the deeds of sale are factual in nature 2hich& as a rule& are not revie2able b1 this -ourt in petitions under Rule 5%. 70 Petitioners have failed to convince us that this case constitutes an e9ception to such rule. !ll in all& 2e find that the -ourt of !ppeals has sufficientl1

addressed the issues raised b1 the(. Indeed& the1 have not persuaded us that said -ourt co((itted an1 reversible error to 2arrant a "rant of their petition. ?H,R,AOR,& the petition is hereb1 D,NI,D and the assailed Decision of the -ourt of !ppeals is !AAIRM,D. SO ORD,R,D. 5ar(asa, !.6., Romero, Melo and #rancisco, 66., conc r.