G.R. No. 132305
December 4, 2001
LABAGALA vs. SANTIAGO
FACTS:
Jose T. Santiago owned a parcel of land in Manila. However, However, his sisters sued him for recovery of 2/3 share of the land alleging alleging that he had fraudulently fraudulently registered registered it in his name. The trial court decided in favor of his sisters. Jose died intestate. His sisters then filed a complaint efore the !T" for recovery of the #/3 portion of said property which was in the possession of $da ". %aagala &who claimed to e $da ". Santiago, the daughter of Jose'. The trial court ruled in favor of %aagala. (ccording to the trial court, the said deed constitutes a valid donation. )ven if it were not, petitioner would still e entitled to Jose*s #/3 portion of the property as Jose*s daughter. +hen appealed, appealed, the "ourt of (ppeals (ppeals &"(' reversed the the decision of the the trial court. $t too into account that $da was orn of different parents, as indicated her irth certificate.
ISSUES:
#. +- respondents respondents may may impugn impugn petitioner*s petitioner*s filiation filiation in this action action for recovery of title and possession. 2. +- +- peti petiti tion oner er is enti entitl tled ed to Jose Jose*s *s #/3 #/3 port portio ion n of the the prop proper erty ty he coo coown wned ed with with respondents, through succession, sale, or donation.
ELD:
The "ourt (00$!M)1 the decision of the "(. -n $ssue o. # es. legitimacy of a child, to assert and prove that a (rticle (rticle 23 refers to an action action to impugn impugn the legitimacy person is not a man*s child y his wife. However, the present respondents are asserting not merely that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Jose, ut that she is not a child of Jose at all.
( aptismal certificate, a private document, is not conclusive proof of filiation. 4se of a family name certainly does not estalish pedigree. Thus, she cannot inherit from him through intestate succession. -n $ssue o. 2 o. The "ourt ruled that there is no valid sale in this case. Jose did not have the right to transfer ownership of the entire property to petitioner since 2/3 thereof elonged to his sisters. 5etitioner could not have given her consent to the contract, eing a minor at the time. "onsent of the contracting parties is among the essential re6uisites of a contract, including one of sale, asent which there can e no valid contract. Moreover, petitioner admittedly did not pay any centavo for the property which maes the sale void. (rticle #78# of the "ivil "ode provides that if the price is simulated, the sale is void, ut the act may e shown to have een in reality a donation, or some other act or contract. either may the purported deed of sale e a valid deed of donation. )ven assuming that the deed is genuine, it cannot e a valid donation. $t lacs the acceptance of the donee re6uired y (rt. 829 of the "ivil "ode. :eing a minor, the acceptance of the donation should have een made y her father or mother or her legal representative pursuant to (rt. 87# of the same "ode. o one of those mentioned in the law accepted the donation for $da.
