Tomas Corpus, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Administrator and/or Executor of the Estate of Teodoro R. Yangco, Yangco, Rafael Corpus, Amalia Corpus, Corpus, Jose A.. A.. Corpus, Corpus, Ramon Ramon !. Corpus, Corpus, Enri"ue Enri"ue J. Corpus, Corpus, #.$. #tagg, #oledad Asprer, and Cipriano %avarro, defendants-appellees. &R %o. !-''()* + ctoer ', *01 + J. A"uino
2ACT#3 Teodoro Yangco is the testator. He died in April 20, 1939. His will was probated in 1934. Yangco had no forced he irs. At At the time of his death, his nearest relaties were !1" his half brother, #$is %. Yangco, !2" his half sister, &a' Yangco, the wife of (ig$el )ssorio !3" Amalia *orp$s, +ose A. . *orp$s, and %amon #. *orp$s, the children of his half brother, &ablo *orp$s, and !4" Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his half brother Jose Corpus. Corpus. !+$anita had a legit son whose name was Tomas *orp$s. -ia $ng Tomas Tomas *orp$s na %espondent" +$anita died in )ctober, 1944 at &ala$ig, /ambales. Teodoro %. Yangco was the !nat$ral" son of #$is %afael Yangco and %amona Arg$elles, the widow of Tomas *orp$s. efore her $nion with #$is %afael Yangco, %amona had begotten fie children with Tomas *orp$s !the first and the #T h$sband", two of whom were the aforenamed &ablo *orp$s and +ose *orp$s !+ose is the mother of +$anita. Tomas Tomas +r. is the legit. son of +$anita". The testate heirs of Teodoro had a &A%TT) A%(T. Tomas *orp$s +r. signed a *)(&%)(- A%(T A%(T as the sole sole heir of +$anita +$anita *orp$s. The The estate of Teodoro Teodoro Yangco Yangco entered into a similar compromise with Tomas +r. This agreement was approed b the co$rt and became 56 in 1947. After this agreement was signed, Tomas Tomas +r. signed receipt wherein he ac8nowledged his receipt of &2,000 as compromise. -$bse$entl, howeer, in 19:1, Tomas +r., as -)# H% )5 +;ATA, filed an A*T) 5)% A;#(T A;#(T )5 YA*) &%)HT> A#AT) A#AT) )5 )5 YA* YA*) b T)(A- +%., ma inherit from Teodoro Yangco as a forced heir
6E!73 o. J$anita cannot be a forced heir of Teodoro *orp$s in the first place. Hence, Tomas has no right of representation. Here, the %T* fo$nd that Teodoro Yangco is )#Y A AT;%A# *H#>. The basis of the trial co$rt@s concl$sion that Teodoro %. Yangco was an ac8nowledged nat$ral child and not a legitimate child was the statement in the will of his father, #$is %afael Yangco, dated +$ne 14, 1907, that Teodoro and his three other children were his acknowledged natural children. His eact words areB C5irst. declare that hae fo$r nat$ral children recogni'edB Teodoro, &a', #$isa, and #$is, which a re m onl heirs.D )n the other hand, the children of %amona Arg$elles and Tomas *orp$s are pres$med to be legitimate. A marriage is pres$med to hae ta8en place between %amona and Tomas. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. -ince Teodoro %. Yangco was an ac8nowledged nat$ral child or was illegitimate and since +$anita *orp$s was the legitimate child of +ose *orp$s, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas *orp$s has no ca$se of action for the recoer of the s$pposed hereditar share of his mother, +$anita *orp$s, as a legal heir, in Yangco@s estate. +$anita *orp$s was not a legal heir of Yangco beca$se there is no reciprocal s$ccession between legitimate and illegitimate relaties. The trial co$rt did not err in d ismissing the complaint of Tomas *orp$s. !%A> ** 992" ;nder articles 944 and 94: of the -panish *iil *ode, C n defa$lt of nat$ral ascendants, nat$ral and legitimated children shall be s$cceeded b their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the r$les established for legitimate brothers and sisters.E That r$le is based on the theor that the illegitimate child is disgracef$ll loo8ed $pon b the legitimate famil while the legitimate famil is, in t$rn, hated b the illegitimate child. The law does not recogni'e the blood tie and see8s to aoid f$rther gro$nds of resentment.
