Cruz v. Cristobal
G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners claim that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his first marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. On the other hand, private respondents are also the children of Buenaventura Cristobal resulting from his second marriage to Donata Enriquez. On 18 June 1926, Buenaventura Cristobal purchased a parcel of land with an area of 535 square meters. Sometime in the year 1930, Buenaventura Cristobal died intestate. More than six decades later, petitioners learned that private respondents had executed an extrajudicial partition of the subject property and transferred its title to their names. A Complaint for Annulment of Title and Damages was filed before the RTC by petitioners against private respondents to recover their alleged pro-indiviso shares in the subject property. To prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal, the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late Socorro were presented. In the case of Mercedes who was born on 31 January 1909, she produced a certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to 1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a judgment dismissing the case, ruling that petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal as the baptismal and birth certificates presented have scant evidentiary value and that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time amounts to laches. On appeal, the CA ruled that they were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal thru “other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” but affirmed the ruling of the trial court barring their right to recover their share of the subject property because of laches.
ISSUES:
-
Whether or not petitioners were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal.
-
Whether or not the petitioners are bound by the Deed of Partition of the subject property executed by the private respondents
RULING:
- Yes. In relation to Article 172 of the Family code, “Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws,” may consist of the child’s baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the child’s name has been entered, common reputation respecting the child’s pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In the present case, the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late Socorro were presented. Baptismal certificate is one of the acceptable documentary evidence to prove filiation in accordance with the Rules of Court and jurisprudence. In the case of Mercedes, who was born on 31 January 1909, she produced a certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to 1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear.Petitioners likewise presented Ester Santos as witness who testified that petitioners enjoyed that common reputation in the community where they reside as being the children of Buevaventura Cristobal with his first wife. Testimonies of witnesses were also presented to prove filiation by continuous possession of the status as a legitimate child.
- No. Section 1, Rule 74 of the ROC provides that the fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. In this case, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof by the private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement of Buenaventura Cristobal’s estate. The partition of the subject property by the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners were excluded therefrom. Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of Partition executed by private respondents among themselves in 1948. Petitioner Elisa became aware of the transfer and registration of the subject property in the names of private respondents only in 1994 when she was offered by private respondent Eufrocina to choose between a portion of the subject property or money, as one of the children of private respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the subject property. Considering that the Deed of Partition of the subject property does not affect the right of petitioners to inherit from their deceased father, this Court shall then proceed to divide the subject property between petitioners and private respondents, as the rule on succession prescribes. It appears that the 535 square meters subject property was a conjugal property of Buenaventura Cristobal and Donata Enriquez, the second wife, as the property was purchased in 1926, during the time of their marriage. Upon the deaths of Buenaventura in 1930 and Donata in 1936, both deaths occurring before the enactment of the New Civil Code in 1950, all the four children of the first marriage and the four children of the second marriage shall share equally in the subject property in accordance with the Old Civil Code. Absent any allegation showing that Buenaventura Cristobal left any will and testament, the subject property shall be divided into eight equal parts pursuant to Articles 921 and 931 of the Old Civil Code on intestate succession, each receiving 66.875 square meters thereof. At the time of death of Buenaventura Cristobal in 1930, Donata was only entitled to the usufruct of the land pursuant to Article 834 of the Old Civil Code, which provides that a widower or widow who, on the death of his or her spouse, is not divorced, or should be so by the fault of the deceased, shall be entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that corresponding by way of legitime to each of the legitimate children or descendants who has not received any betterment. If only one legitimate child or descendant survives, the widow or widower shall have the usufruct of the third availment for betterment, such child or descendant to have the naked ownership until, on the death of the surviving spouse, the whole title is merged in him. Donata’s right to usufruct of the subject property terminated upon her death in 1936.
