Proof of Filiation Of Legitimate Children FC 172-173 Page | 1
AGUILAR v SIASAT SIASAT GR 200169 JAN 28, 2015
The Facts:
Of
Spouses Alfredo and Cadelaria (Aguilar) died without will and without debts in 1983 and 1994, respectivel, leaving 3 two parcels of land covered b !C! "os# !$%&89' !$%&89' and !$(1&'4'%) !$(1&'4'%) 1# *odolfo Aguilar) Aguilar) filed filed a petition petition for +andator inunction with da+ages against -dna (Siasat) in 199', alleging that he is the onl son of the spouses Alfredo and Candelaria. that when he searched for the two tiles the sa+e cannot be found, and suspected that so+eone fro+ the Siasat clan stole it,hence he e/ecuted an affidavit of loss, and later filed a petition for issuance of duplicate owner0s cop of the titles, which -dna (Siasat) opposed, clai+ing that the titles were in her possession, were not stolen, and entrusted to her b her aunt Candelaria, and refused to surrender the titles# *odolfo thus filed the instant case to co+pel -dna to surrender the titles to hi+# n her defense, -dna clai+ed that *odolfo is not the son of the spouses Alfredo and Candelaria but a stranger raised b the+ +erel out of generosit and 2ind heart. that Alfredo predeceased Candelaria, thus thus the latter inherited his conugal conugal share. upon her death, her brothers brothers and sisters inherited the estate of Candelaria, and the titles were entrusted to her b Candelaria# At trial *odoldo presented docu+entar e/hibits such as his school records, where Alfredo was indicated as his father. his !* which listed Candelaria as her +other, Alfredo0s Alfredo0s SSS -$1 or+ which listed *odolfo as his son. and other pertinent docu+ents to show his filiation to the spouses# e also presented his wife 5u6 7arie, to prove the fact that he is the son of Alfredo and Candelaria. and his aunt, -ster, sister of Alfredo, who testified that *odolfo is the onl son of Alfredo and Candelaria, born at 77C, and the 2new of this fact hence she and her siblings did not an+ore clai+ on Alfredo0s properties properties because the recognised recognised rodolfo rodolfo as Alfredo0s Alfredo0s son# After his release release fro+ prison, *odolfo lived with his +other Candelaria at one of the properties and continues to live there# -dna on the other hand presented the testi+onies of Aurea, a sister of Candelaria, who stated that the spouses does not have a son, though he 2now of a certain *odofo: with a nic2na+e 7ait: and that Alfredo had a sister na+ed -ster# -dna also presented an Affidavit e/ecuted b Candelaria announcing that she and Alfredo had no issue, and she is the sole heir to Alfredo0s estate# estate# !he *!C, after trial, rendered udg+ent in favour of -dna# t ruled that *odolfo failed to present an evidence that he is the biological son of Alfredo and -dna, further co+plicated b the lac2 of a certificate of live birth and the affidavit of Candelaria that she had no issue# n his appeal to the CA, *odolfo argued that his failure to present a Certificate of 5ive irth was b reason of the destruction of all records at the 5ocal Civil *egistr acolod Cit for the period 1941$4& as shown b -/hibit ;3. that under Article 1% of the a+il Code, an ad+ission of filiation in a public docu+ent or a private handwritten docu+ent signed b the parent constitute proof of filiation, which he sufficientl proved b his docu+entar e/hibits# !he CA ruled otherwise, averring that the docu+ents presented b *odolfo b itself did not prove that he is the son of Alfredo and Candelaria. that use of the fa+il surna+e does not establish pedigree# aving failed to establish his filiation to the spouses, *odolfo failed to prove that he had a clear and un+ista2able right that had been violated# *odolfo elevated his case to the Supre+e Court, arguing that the docu+ents he presented satisf the ree ?esus v# -state -state of >i6on@ 1, has held that B !he filiation of illegiti+ate children, li2e legiti+ate children, is established b (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil civil regist register er or a final final udg+e udg+ent. nt. or (%) an ad+is ad+issio sion n of legiti legiti+at +ate e filiat filiation ion in a public public docu+ent docu+ent or a privat private e handwritten instru+ent and signed b the parent concerned# n the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved b (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legiti+ate child. or (%) an other +eans allowed b the *ules of Court and special laws# !he due recognition of an illegiti+ate child child in a record of birth, a will, a state+ent before before a court of record, or in an authentic writing is, in itself, a consu++ated act of ac2nowledg+ent of the child, and no further court action is re
AGUILAR v SIASAT SIASAT GR 200169 JAN 28, 2015
Proof of Filiation Of Legitimate Children FC 172-173 will, a state+ent before a court of record or an authentic writing, udicial action within the applicable statute of Page | li+itations is essential in order to establish the child0s ac2nowledg+ent#
2
A scrutin of the records would show that petitioners were born during the +arriage of their parents# !he certificates of live Of birth would also identif >anilo de ?esus as being their father# !here 3 is perhaps no presu+ption of the law +ore fir+l established and founded on sounder +oralit and +ore convincing reason than the presu+ption that children born in wedloc2 are legiti+ate# !his presu+ption indeed beco+es conclusive in the absence of proof that there is phsical i+possibilit of access between the spouses during the first 1% das of the 3 da s which i++ediatel precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the phsical incapacit of the husband to have se/ual intercourse with his wife. (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separatel in such a wa that se/ual intercourse is not possible. or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutel prevents se/ual intercourse# ;uite re+ar2abl, upon the e/piration of the periods set forth in Article 1, and in proper cases Article 11, of the a+il Code (which too2 effect on 3 August 1988), the action to i+pugn the legiti+ac of a child would no longer be legall feasible and the status conferred b the presu+ption beco+es fi/ed and unassailable@ 2 # (-+phasis supplied) !hus, appling the foregoing pronounce+ent to the instant case, it +ust be concluded that petitioner B who was born on 7arch &, 194&, or during the +arriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat$Aguilar@ 3 and before their respective deaths@4 B has sufficientl proved that he is the legiti+ate issue of the Aguilar spouses# As petitioner correctl argues, Alfredo Aguilar0s SSS or+ -$1 (-/hibit D:) satisfies the ree ?esus, filiation +a be proved b an ad+ission of legiti+ate filiation in a public docu+ent or a private handwritten instru+ent and signed b the parent concerned, and such due recognition in an authentic writing is, in itself, a consu++ated act of ac2nowledg+ent of the child, and no further court action is re
Proof of Filiation Of Legitimate Children FC 172-173 have had to go through the trouble of presenting other docu+entar evidence. the "SF cop would have sufficed# Page | !his fact is not lost on petitioner. the Certification dated ?anuar %, 199' issued b the acolod Cit Civil *egistr (-/hibit 3 ;:) contained ust such an advice for petitioner to proceed to the Fffice of the Civil *egistrar Deneral at the "SF in 7anila to secure a cop of his Certificate of 5ive irth, since for ever registered birth in the countr, a cop of the Of Certificate of 5ive irth is sub+itted to said office#
3 petitioner0s argu+ent that respondent has no personalit to i+pugn his legiti+ac and cannot collaterall attac2 As to his legiti+ac, and that the action to i+pugn his legiti+ac has alread prescribed pursuant to Articles 1 and 11 of the a+il Code, the Court has held before that B Article %'3@6 refers to an action to i+pugn the legiti+ac of a child, to assert and prove that a person is not a +an0s child b his wife# owever, the present case is not one i+pugning petitioner0s legiti+ac# *espondents are asserting not +erel that petitioner is not a legiti+ate child of ?ose, but that she is not a child of ?ose at all@ 7 # inall, if petitioner has shown that he is the legiti+ate issue of the Aguilar spouses, then he is as well heir to the latter0s estate# *espondent is then left with no right to inherit fro+ her aunt Candelaria Siasat$Aguilar0s estate, since succession pertains, in the first place, to the descending direct line@ 8 # -*-F*-, the =etition is D*A"!-># !he August 3, %' >ecision and >ece+ber %, %11 *esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA$D#*# C-$CH "o# '4%%9, as well as the August 1, 1999 >ecision of the *egional !rial Court of acolod Cit, ranch 49 in Civil Case "o# 9'$9&91 are *-H-*S-> and S-! AS>-# *espondent -dna D# Siasat is hereb ordered to SG**-">-* to the petitioner *odolfo S# Aguilar the owner0s duplicates of !ransfer Certificates of !itle "os# !$%&89' and !$(1&4'%) 1# SF F*>-*->#
AGUILAR v SIASAT GR 200169 JAN 28, 2015
