SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-66574. June 17, 1987.]

ANSELMA DIAZ, guardian of VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA and

MIGUEL, all surnamed SANTERO , petitioners, and FELIXBERTA PACURSA,
guardian of FEDERICO SANTERO, et al., vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
JARDIN respondents.
COURT and FELISA PAMUTI JARDIN,

Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for petitioners.

Pedro S. Sarino for respondent F.P. Jardin.

DECISION

PARAS J :
PARAS, p

Private respondent led a Petition dated January 23, 1976 with the Court of First
Instance of Cavite in Sp. Proc. Case No. B-21, "In The Matter of the Intestate Estate of
the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero," praying among other things, that the
corresponding letters of Administration be issued in her favor and that she be
appointed as special administratrix of the properties of the deceased Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero.
It is undisputed: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate children of
the spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; 2) that Juliana married Simon Jardin
and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during
infancy; 3) that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and
the mother of Pablo Santero; 4) that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his
parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; 5) that Pascual Santero
died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; 6) that Pablo Santero,
at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero and his six minor
natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children
with Felixberta Pacursa.
Judge Jose Raval in his Orders dated December 1, 1976 1 and December 9, 1976
2 declared Felisa Pamuti Jardin as the sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero. LLphil

Before the trial court, there were 4 interrelated cases filed to wit:
"a) Sp. Proc. No. B-4 — is the Petition for the Letters of Administration of the
Intestate Estate of Pablo Santero;

"b) Sp. Proc. No. B-5 — is the Petition for the Letters of Administration of the
Intestate Estate of Pascual Santero;

"c) Sp. Proc. No. B-7 — is the Petition for Guardianship over the properties of
an Incompetent Person, Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero;

"e) Sp. Proc. No. B-21 — is the Petition for Settlement of the Intestate Estate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero."

Felisa Jardin upon her Motion to Intervene in Sp. Proceedings Nos. B-4 and B-5,
was allowed to intervene in the intestate estates of Pablo Santero and Pascual Santero
by Order of the Court dated August 24, 1977.
Petitioner Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children, led her "Opposition
and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti-Jardin dated March 13, 1980, from further taking
part or intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, as well as in the intestate estate of Pascual Santero and Pablo Santero.
Felixberta Pacursa guardian for her minor children, led thru counsel, her
Manifestation of March 14, 1980 adopting the Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa
Pamuti, filed by Anselma Diaz.
On May 20, 1980, Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza issued an order excluding Felisa
Jardin "from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate
of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, as well as in the intestate estates of Pascual
Santero and Pablo Santero and declared her to be, not an heir of the deceased Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero." 3
After her Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial court in its order
dated November 1, 1980, Felisa P. Jardin led her appeal to the Intermediate Appellate
Court in CA-G.R. No. 69814-R. A decision 4 was rendered by the Intermediate Appellate
Court on December 14, 1983 (reversing the decision of the trial court) the dispositive
portion of which reads —
"WHEREFORE, nding the Order appealed from not consistent with the facts and
law applicable, the same is hereby set aside and another one entered sustaining
the Orders of December 1 and 9, 1976 declaring the petitioner as the sole heir of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero and ordering oppositors-appellees not to interfere
in the proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the estate of Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero."

"Costs against the oppositors-appellees."

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by oppositors-appellees (petitioners herein)

was denied by the same respondent court in its order dated February 17, 1984 hence,
the present petition for Review with the following: LexLib

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. The Decision erred in ignoring the right to intestate succession of
petitioners grandchildren Santero as direct descending line (Art. 978) and/or
natural/"illegitimate children" (Art. 988) and prefering a niece, who is a collateral
relative (Art. 1003);

II. The Decision erred in denying the right of representation of the natural
grandchildren Santero to represent their father Pablo Santero in the succession to
the intestate estate of their grandmother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero (Art.
982);

III. The Decision erred in mistaking the intestate estate of the grandmother
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the estate of "legitimate child or relative" of
Pablo Santero, her son and father of the petitioners' grandchildren Santero;
IV. The Decision erred in ruling that petitioner-appellant Felisa P. Jardin who
is a niece and therefore a collateral relative of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 excludes the natural children of her son Pablo Santero, who are her direct
descendants and/or grand children;
V. The Decision erred in applying Art. 992, when Arts. 988, 989 and 990 are
the applicable provisions of law on intestate succession; and

VI. The Decision erred in considering the orders of December 1 and December
9, 1976 which are provisional and interlocutory as final and executory.

The real issue in this case may be brie y stated as follows — who are the legal
heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa Pamuti Jardin or her
grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)?
The dispute at bar refers only to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero and the issue here is whether oppositors-appellees (petitioners herein) as
illegitimate children of Pablo Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, by right of representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a legitimate
child of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Now then what is the appropriate law on the matter? Petitioners contend in their
pleadings that Art. 990 of the New Civil Code is the applicable law on the case. They
contend that said provision of the New Civil Code modi es the rule in Article 941 (Old
Civil Code) and recognizes the right of representation (Art. 970) to descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate and that Art. 941, Spanish Civil Code denied
illegitimate children the right to represent their deceased parents and inherit from their
deceased grandparents, but that Rule was expressly changed and/or amended by Art.
990 New Civil Code which expressly grants the illegitimate children the right to
represent their deceased father (Pablo Santero) in the estate of their grandmother
(Simona Pamuti)" 5
Petitioners' contention holds no water. Since the hereditary con ict refers solely
to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, who is the legitimate mother
of Pablo Santero, the applicable law is the provision of Art. 992 of the Civil Code which
reads as follows: Cdpr

ART. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. (943a).

Pablo Santero is a legitimate child, he is not an illegitimate child. On the other

hand, the oppositors (petitioners herein) are the illegitimate children of Pablo Santero.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the
legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They
may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of
Art. 992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to
be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate
child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of
which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but
the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more
than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment. 6
Thus, petitioners herein cannot represent their father Pablo Santero in the
succession of the letter to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother Simona Pamuti
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Vda. de Santero, because of the barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the New Civil
Code.
In answer to the erroneous contention of petitioners that Article 941 of the
Spanish Civil Code is changed by Article 990 of the New Civil Code, We are reproducing
herewith the Re ections of the Illustrious Hon. Justice Jose B.L. Reyes which also nds
full support from other civilists, to wit:
"In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of representation was admitted only
within the legitimate family; so much so that Article 943 of that Code prescribed
that an illegitimate child can not inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father and mother. The Civil Code of the Philippines
apparently adhered to this principle since it reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish
Code in its own Art. 992, but with ne inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990,
995 and 998) our Code allows the hereditary portion of the illegitimate child to
pass to his own descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art,
992 prevents the illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from representing him in
the intestate succession of the grandparent, the illegitimates of an illegitimate
child can now do so. This difference being indefensible and unwarranted, in the
future revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice and decide either
that the illegitimate issue enjoys in all cases the right of representation, in which
case Art. 992 must be suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said article and
modify Articles 995 and 998. The rst solution would be more in accord with an
enlightened attitude vis-a-vis illegitimate children. (Re ections on the Reform of
Hereditary Succession, JOURNAL of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, First
Quater, 1976, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 40-41).

It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase
"legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda.
de Santero as the word "relative" includes all the kindred of the person spoken of. 7 The
record shows that from the commencement of this case the only parties who claimed
to be the legitimate heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Pamuti
Jardin and the six minor natural or illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since
petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent
Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti-Jardin
to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero. cdll

Lastly, petitioners claim that the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court erred
in ruling that the Orders of the Court a quo dated December 1, 1976 and December 9,
1976 are nal and executory. Such contention is without merit. The Hon. Judge Jose
Raval in his order dated December 1, 1976 held that the oppositors (petitioners herein)
are not entitled to intervene and hence not allowed to intervene in the proceedings for
the declaration of the heirship in the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Subsequently, Judge Jose Raval issued an order, dated December 9, 1976, which
declared Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti. The said
Orders were never made the subjects of either a motion for reconsideration or a
perfected appeal. Hence, said orders which long became nal and executory are
already removed from the power of jurisdiction of the lower court to decide anew. The
only power retained by the lower court, after a judgment has become nal and
executory is to order its execution. The respondent Court did not err therefore in ruling
that the Order of the Court a quo dated May 30, 1980 excluding Felisa Pamuti Jardin as
intestate heir of the deceased Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero "is clearly a total reversal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of an Order which has become final and executory, hence null and void."
WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed decision is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr. and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Bidin, J., took no part.
Footnotes

1. RA pp. 30-35.

2. RA pp. 35-38.

3. R.A. p. 87.

4. Penned by Justice Marcelino R. Veloso and concurred in by Justices Porfirio V. Sison,

Abdulwahid A. Bidin and Desiderio P. Jurado.

5. Motion for Reconsideration, p. 78-79, Rollo.

6. F. Manresa 110 cited in Grey v. Fabie 40 O.G. (First S) No. 3, p. 196).

7. Comment, p. 139 Rollo citing, p. 2862, Bouvier's Law Dictionary vol. II, Third Revision,
Eighth Edition.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com