OLIVIA S. PASCUAL and HERMES S. PASCUAL vs.

appealed their case to the Court of Appeals, but said court

ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C.
PASCUAL, JOSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C.
PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, et. al (G.R. No. 84240. March
25, 1992)
dismissed their appeal.
ISSUE: whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized natural
children from the inheritance of the deceased

FACTS: Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual

are the acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio
Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent
Don Andres Pascua.
Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October 12, 1973
without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted
or spurious children and was survived by the following:
(a) Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, surviving spouse:
(b) Children of Wenceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of
the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Esperanza C.
Pascual-Bautista; Manuel C. Pascual; Jose C.
Pascual; Susana C. Pascual-Bautista; Erlinda C.
Pascual; Wenceslao C. Pascual, Jr.
(c) Children of Pedro Pascual, brother of the half
blood of the deceased, to wit: Avelino Pascual;
Isoceles Pascual; Loida Pascual-Martinez; Virginia
Pascual-Ner; Nona Pascual-Fernando; Octavio
Pascual; Geranaia Pascual-Dubert;
(d) Acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual,
brother of the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Olivia
S. Pascual; Hermes S. Pascual
(e) Intestate of Eleuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the
half blood of the deceased and represented by the
following: Dominga M. Pascual; Mamerta P. Fugoso;
Abraham S. Sarmiento, III; Regina Sarmiento-
Macaibay; Eleuterio P. Sarmiento; Dominga P. San
Diego; Nelia P. Marquez; Silvestre M. Pascual;
Eleuterio M. Pascual.
Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, the surviving spouse of the late
Don Andres Pascual, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 162, a Special Proceeding, Case No. 7554, for
administration of the intestate estate of her late husband. On
December 18, 1973, Adela Soldevilla de Pascual filed a
Supplemental Petition to the Petition for Letters of
Administration, where she expressly stated that Olivia Pascual
and Hermes Pascual, are among the heirs of Don Andres
Pascual.
On February 27, 1974, again Adela Soldevilla de Pascual
executed an affidavit, to the effect that of her own knowledge,
Eligio Pascual is the younger full blood brother of her late
husband Don Andres Pascual, to belie the statement made by
the oppositors, that they are not among the known heirs of the
deceased Don Andres Pascual.
On October 16, 1985, all the above-mentioned heirs entered
into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, over the vehement
objections of the herein petitioners Olivia S. Pascual and
Hermes S. Pascual.
HELD: Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are
his illegitimate children. Thus, petitioners cannot represent their
father in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of
the decedent Andres, full blood brother of their father.
The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in
Diaz v. IAC, supra, where this Court ruled that:
"Article 992 of the 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 Article 992. Between the legitimate family and
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."
In their memorandum, petitioners insisted that Article 992 in the
light of Articles 902 and 989 of the Civil Code allows them
(Olivia and Hermes) to represent Eligio Pascual in the intestate
estate of Don Andres Pascual. The Court held:
"Article 902, 98, and 990 clearly speaks of
successional rights of illegitimate children, which
rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their
death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children)
who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation
may be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner,
one should not overlook the fact that the persons to
be represented are themselves illegitimate. The three
named provisions are very clear on this matter. The
right of representation is not available to illegitimate
descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance
of a legitimate grandparent. The rules laid down in
Article 982 that `grandchildren and other descendants
shall inherit by right of representation' and in Article
902 that the rights of illegitimate children . . . are
transmitted upon their death to their descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the
limitation prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father
or mother."

On September 30, 1987, petitioners filed their Motion to

Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the Memorandum in Support
of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights. On December 18,
1987, the Regional Trial Court, presided over by Judge Manuel
S. Padolina issued an order reiterating the hereditary rights of
Olivia and Hermes.

On January 13, 1988, petitioners filed their motion for

reconsideration and such motion was denied. Petitioners

BENIGNO MANUEL, LIBERATO MANUEL, LORENZO
MANUEL, PLACIDA MANUEL, MADRONA MANUEL,
ESPERANZA MANUEL, AGAPITA MANUEL,
BASILISA MANUEL, EMILIA MANUEL and
NUMERIANA MANUEL, vs. HON. NICODEMO T.
FERRER, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, MODESTA
BALTAZAR and ESTANISLAOA MANUEL (G.R. No.
117246. August 21, 1995)
FACTS: The property involved in this petition for review on
certiorari is the inheritance left by an illegitimate child who died
intestate without any surviving descendant or ascendant.
Petitioners, the legitimate children of spouses Antonio Manuel
and Beatriz Guiling, initiated this suit. During his marriage with
Beatriz, Antonio had an extra-marital affair with one Ursula
Bautista. From this relationship, Juan Manuel was born.
Juan Manuel, the illegitimate son of Antonio, married
Esperanza Gamba. In consideration of the marriage, a
donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land, with an area of
2,700 square meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title
("OCT") No. P-20594 was executed in favor of Juan Manuel by
Laurenciana Manuel. On 03 June 1980, Juan Manuel executed
in favor of Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de
Retro (with a 10-year period of redemption) over a one-half
(1/2) portion of his land covered by TCT No. 41134. Juan
Manuel died intestate on 21 February 1990. Two years later, or
on 04 February 1992, Esperanza Gamba also passed away.
On 05 March 1992, a month after the death of Esperanza,
Modesta executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication claiming for
herself the three parcels of land covered by OCT P-20594,
OCT P-19902 and TCT No. 41134 (all still in the name of Juan
Manuel). Following the registration of the document of
adjudication with the Office of the Register of Deeds, the three
titles (OCT P-20594, OCT P-19902 and TCT No. 41134) in the
name of Juan Manuel were canceled and new titles, TCT No.
184223, TCT No. 184224 and TCT No. 184225, were issued in
the name of Modesta Manuel-Baltazar. On 19 October 1992,
Modesta executed in favor of her co-respondent Estanislaoa
Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim over the
unredeemed one-half (1/2) portion of the land (now covered by
TCT No. 184225) that was sold to the latter by Juan Manuel
under the 1980 Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro.
These acts of Modesta apparently did not sit well with
petitioners. In a complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court
of Lingayen, Pangasinan, the petitioners sought the declaration
of nullity of the aforesaid instruments. The trial court, in its now
assailed 15th August 1994 decision, dismissed the complaint
holding that petitioners, not being heirs ab intestato of their
illegitimate brother Juan Manuel, were not the real parties-in-
interest to institute the suit.
ISSUE: are the petitioners the legal heirs over one-half of
Juan's intestate estate (while the other half would pertain to
Juan's surviving spouse) under the provision of the last
paragraph of Article 994 of the Civil Code?
HELD: Article 992, a basic postulate, enunciates what is so
commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the
"principle of absolute separation between the legitimate family
and the illegitimate family." The doctrine rejects succession ab
intestato in the collateral line between legitimate relatives, on
the one hand, and illegitimate relatives, on other hand,
although it does not totally disavow such succession in the
direct line.
This "barrier" between the members of the legitimate and
illegitimate family in intestacy is explained by a noted civilist.
His thesis:
"What is meant by the law when it speaks of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces, as legal or intestate heirs of an
illegitimate child? It must be noted that under Art. 992 of the
Code, there is a barrier dividing members of the illegitimate
family from members of the legitimate family. It is clear that by
virtue of this barrier, the legitimate brothers and sisters as well
as the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such
brothers and sisters, cannot inherit from the illegitimate child.
Consequently, when the law speaks of 'brothers and sisters,
nephews and nieces' as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it
refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the
children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and
sisters."
The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by the
Court in several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that where the
illegitimate child had half-brothers who were legitimate, the
latter had no right to the former's inheritance; that the
legitimate collateral relatives of the mother cannot succeed
from her illegitimate child; that a natural child cannot represent
his natural father in the succession to the estate of the
legitimate grandparent; that the natural daughter cannot
succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle who is a
legitimate brother of her natural father; and that an illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father.
In her answer to the complaint, Modesta candidly admitted that
she herself is not an intestate heir of Juan Manuel. She is right.
A ward (ampon), without the benefit of formal (judicial)
adoption, is neither a compulsory nor a legal heir.
We must hold, nevertheless, that the complaint of petitioners
seeking the nullity of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed
by Modesta, the three (3) TCT's issued to her favor, as well as
the Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim in favor of Estanislaoa
Manuel, was properly dismissed by the trial court. Petitioners,
not being the real "parties-in-interest" in the case, had neither
the standing nor the cause of action to initiate the complaint.

CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R.
DEZOLLER vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA
DOMINGO (G.R. No. 121027. July 31, 1997)
FACTS: The present appellate review involves an action for
reconveyance filed by herein petitioners against herein private
respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 98, docketed as the aforesaid Civil Case No. Q-88-
1054, over a parcel of land with a house and apartment
thereon located at San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City and
which was originally owned by the spouses Martin Guerrero
and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. It appears that petitioners
Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and nephew,
respectively, of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who
is the sister of petitioners' father, Hermogenes Dezoller.
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died on March 5, 1983 without any
ascendant or descendant, and was survived only by her
husband, Martin Guerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners'
father, Hermogenes, died on October 3, 1973, hence they seek
to inherit from Teodora Dezoller Guerrero by right of
representation.
Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, her surviving
spouse, Martin, executed on September 15, 1986 an Affidavit
of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating unto himself, allegedly
as sole heir, the land in dispute which is covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 66886, as a consequence of which
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 358074 was issued in the name
of Martin Guerrero. On January 2, 1988, Martin Guerrero sold
the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo and
thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 374012 was issued
in the latter's name.
Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988. Subsequently,
herein petitioners filed an action for reconveyance on
November 2, 1988, claiming that they are entitled to inherit
one-half of the property in question by right of representation.
During the hearing, petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was
presented as the lone witness, with documentary evidence
offered to prove petitioners' filiation to their father and their
aunt. Subsequently, private respondent filed a Demurrer to
Plaintiff's Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to
prove their legitimate filiation with the deceased Teodora
Guerrero in accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code.
On December 3, 1992, the trial court issued an order granting
the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for
reconveyance.
In upholding the dismissal, respondent Court of Appeals
declared that the documentary evidence presented by herein
petitioners, such as the baptismal certificates, family picture,
and joint affidavits are all inadmissible and insufficient to prove
and establish filiation.
ISSUE: Was the court correct in ruling that the evidence
presented by petitioners insufficient in proving their filiation?
HELD: It may thus be safely concluded, on the sole basis of
the decedent's declaration and without need for further proof
thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew of Teodora
Dezoller Guerrero.
It seems that both the court a quo and respondent appellate
court have regrettably overlooked the universally recognized
presumption on legitimacy. There is no presumption of the law
more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and
more convincing reason than the presumption that children
born in wedlock are legitimate. And well settled is the rule that
the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally. The
issue, therefore, as to whether petitioners are the legitimate
children of Hermogenes Dezoller cannot be properly
controverted in the present action for reconveyance. This is
aside, of course, from the further consideration that private
respondent is not the proper party to impugn the legitimacy of
herein petitioners.
The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the
relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony of
Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller
Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically
declared that the former is Teodora's niece. Such a statement
is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible,
as an exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the
declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the
subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by
evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the
declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only
before the commencement of the suit involving the subject
matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has
arisen thereon.
The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming
seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and
declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's
estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common relative
may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be
some independent proof of this fact. As an exception, the
requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of
the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it is
sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not
merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
property of some other member of the family.
Articles 975, 995, and 1001 provide for the manner by which
the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case. Upon
the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, one-half of the subject
property was automatically reserved to the surviving spouse,
Martin Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal partnership.
Applying the aforequoted statutory provisions, the remaining
half shall be equally divided between the widower and herein
petitioners who are entitled to jointly inherit in their own right.
Hence, Martin Guerrero could only validly alienate his total
undivided three-fourths (3/4) share in the entire property to
herein private respondent. Resultantly, petitioners and private
respondent are deemed co-owners of the property covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 374012 in the proportion of an
undivided onefourth (1/4) and three-fourths (3/4) share thereof,
respectively.

HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE, namely, ROSELYN
ISSUE: URIARTE, MADRILYN and LOURDES
URIARTE, and FELOMINA BUNIEL URIARTE, and
HEIRS OF PRIMITIVA ARNALDO and HEIRS OF
GREGORIO ARNALDO, represented herein by
FELISA ARNALDO SULLANO and LUPECINO
ARNALDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
BENEDICTO ESTRADA (G.R. No. 116775. January 22,
1998)
FACTS: Private respondent Benedicto Estrada is the son of
Agatonica Arreza, whose parents were Pedro Arreza and
Ursula Tubil. Upon the death of Pedro Arreza, Ursula married
Juan Arnaldo by whom she had another daughter, the
decedent Justa. Private respondent Benedicto Estrada is thus
the nephew of Justa by her half sister Agatonica.
Petitioners, referred to in this case as the heirs of Pascasio
Uriarte, are the widow and daughters of Pascasio Uriarte.
Pascasio was one of the sons of Primitiva Arnaldo and
Conrado Uriarte. His mother, Primitiva Uriarte, was the
daughter of Domingo Arnaldo and Catalina Azarcon. Domingo
Arnaldo and Justa's father, Juan Arnaldo, were brothers.
Petitioners are thus grandchildren, the relatives within the fifth
degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousin Primitiva
Arnaldo Uriarte.
The other petitioners are the children of Primitiva and those of
her brother Gregorio. The children of Primitiva by Conrado
Uriarte, aside from Pascasio, are Josefina, Gaudencio,
Simplicio, Domingo and Virgilio, all surnamed Uriarte. The
children of Gregorio Arnaldo, Primitiva's brother, by Julieta
Ilogon, are Jorencio, Enecia, Nicolas, Lupecino and Felisa.
These other petitioners are thus grandchildren and relatives
within the fifth degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousins
Gregorio Arnaldo and Primitiva Arnaldo.
Private respondent Benedicto Estrada brought this case in the
Regional Trial Court for the partition of the land left by Justa
Arnaldo-Sering. Private respondent claimed to be the sole
surviving heir of Justa, on the ground that the latter died
without issue. He complained that Pascasio Uriarte who, he
claimed, worked the land as Justa's tenant, refused to give him
(private respondent) his share of the harvest. He contended
that Pascasio had no right to the entire land of Justa but could
claim only one-half of the 0.5 hectare land which Justa had
inherited from her parents Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil.
Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and was
substituted by his heirs. In their answer, the heirs denied they
were mere tenants of Justa but the latter's heirs entitled to her
entire land.
They claimed that the entire land, subject of the case, was
originally owned by Ambrocio Arnaldo, their great granduncle.
It was alleged bequeathed to Domingo and Juan Arnaldo,
Ambrocio's nephews, in a holographic will executed by
Ambrocio in 1908. Domingo was to receive two-thirds of the
land and Juan, one-third. The heirs claimed that the land had
always been in their possession and that in her lifetime Justa
never asserted exclusive right over the property but only
received her share of the harvest from it.
The trial court sustained petitioner's contention. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed. Contrary to the trial court's finding,
the appellate court found that the 0.5 hectares had been
acquired by Justa's parents, Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil,
during their marriage. As the nephew of Justa by her half-sister
Agatonica, private respondent was held to be entitled to share
in the estate of Justa.
who among the petitioners and the private respondent is
entitled to Justa's estate as her nearest relatives within the
meaning of Art. 962 of the Civil Code
HELD: In this case, plaintiff is the son of Agatonica, the half-
sister of Justa. He is thus a third degree relative of Justa. On
the other hand, defendants and intervenors are the sons and
daughters of Justa's cousin. They are thus fifth degree
relatives of Justa. Applying the principle that the nearest
excludes the farthest, then plaintiff is the lawful heir of Justa.
Indeed, given the fact that 0.5 hectares of the land in question
belonged to the conjugal partnership of Justa's parents, Justa
was entitled to 0.125 hectares of the half hectare land as her
father's (Juan Arnaldo's) share in the conjugal property, while
petitioners are entitled to the other 0.125 hectares. In addition,
Justa inherited her mother's (Ursula Tubil's) share consisting of
0.25 hectares. Plus the 2.2 hectares which belonged to her in
her own right, Justa owned a total of 2.575 or 2.58 hectares of
the 2.7-hectare land. This 2.58-hectare land was inherited by
private respondent Benedicto Estrada as Justa's nearest
surviving relative.
According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every inheritance,
the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,
subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with respect to
relatives of the full and half blood, and of Article 987,
paragraph 2, concerning division between paternal and
maternal lines.
Petitioners misappreciate the relationship between Justa and
private respondent. As already stated, private respondent is
the son of Justa's half-sister Agatonica. He is therefore Justa's
nephew. A nephew is considered a collateral relative who may
inherit if no descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the
decedent. The private respondent is only a half-blood relative
is immaterial. This alone does not disqualify him from being his
aunt's heir. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, "The
determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half-
blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of
the survivors."

CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, HONORIA EMPAYNADO, CECILIA H.
ABAD, MARIAN H. ABAD and ROSEMARIE S. ABAD
(G.R. No. 117740. October 30, 1998)
FACTS: On April 18, 1972, petitioners Carolina Abad
Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco
sought the settlement of the intestate estate of their brother,
Ricardo de Mesa Abad, before the then Court of First Instance
of Manila. In their petition, docketed as Special Proceedings
No. 86792, petitioners claimed that they were the only heirs of
Ricardo de Mesa Abad, as the latter allegedly died a bachelor,
leaving no descendants or ascendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate. On May 9, 1972, petitioners amended their petition
by alleging that the real properties covered by TCT Nos.
13530, 53671, and 64021, listed therein as belonging to the
decedent, were actually only administered by the latter, the
true owner being their late mother, Lucila de Mesa. On June
16, 1972, the trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as
administrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad.
Meanwhile, on May 2, 1972, petitioners executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their late mother Lucila
de Mesa, copying therein the technical descriptions of the lots
covered by TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021. By virtue
thereof, the Register of Deeds cancelled the above-mentioned
TCTs in the name of Ricardo Abad and issued, in lieu thereof,
TCT No. 108482 in the name of Dolores de Mesa Abad, TCT
No. 108483 in the name of Cesar de Mesa Tioseco and TCT
No 108484 in the name of Carolina Abad Gonzales.
On July 7, 1972, private respondents Honoria Empaynado,
Cecilia Abad Empaynado, and Marian Abad Empaynado filed a
motion to set aside proceedings and for leave to file opposition
in Special Proceedings No. 86792. In their motion, they alleged
that Honoria Empaynado had been the common-law wife of
Ricardo Abad for twenty-seven years before his death, or from
1943 to 1971, and that during this period, their union had
produced two children, Cecilia Abad Empaynado and Marian
Abad Empaynado. Private respondents also disclosed the
existence of Rosemarie Abad, a child allegedly fathered by
Ricardo Abad with another woman, Dolores Saracho. On July
24, 1972, private respondents filed a motion to withdraw their
first motion and, in lieu thereof, filed a motion for
reconsideration praying that Cecilia Abad be appointed
administrator instead of Cesar Tioseco. The trial court denied
private respondents' motion to remove Cesar Tioseco as
administrator, but allowed them to appear in the proceedings to
establish their right as alleged heirs of Ricardo Abad.
Private respondents later discovered that petitioners had
managed to cancel TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021
through the stratagem of extra-judicially partitioning their
mother's estate Accordingly, on October 4, 1973, private
respondents filed a motion to annul the extra-judicial partition
executed by petitioners, as well as TCT Nos. 108482, 108483,
and 108484, the Torrens titles issued in substitution of TCT
Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021 and the real estate mortgages
constituted by the latter on said properties.
The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents and
considered them as natural children. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration of the November 2, 1973 decision was denied
by the trial court. Their notice of appeal was likewise denied on
the ground that the same had been filed out of time.
Due to the dismissal of their two appeals, petitioners again
instituted certiorari and mandamus proceedings with the Court
of Appeals, docketed therein as C.A.-G.R. No. SP- 04352. The
appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the two appeals,
prompting petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court. On July
9, 1985, this Court directed the trial court to give due course to
petitioners' appeal from the order of November 2, 1973
declaring private respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo
Abad, and the order dated November 19, 1974, annulling
certain documents pertaining to the intestate estate of
deceased
The two appeals were accordingly elevated by the trial court to
the appellate court. On October 19, 1994, the Court of Appeals
rendered judgment - Order dated November 2, 1973, declaring
in substance that Cecilia, Marian and Rosemarie, all surnamed
Abad as the acknowledged natural children and the only
surviving heirs of the deceased Ricardo Abad and the Order
dated November 19, 1974, declaring in substance that the six
(6) parcels of land described in TCT Nos. 13530, 53671 and
64021 are the properties of Ricardo Abad; that the extrajudicial
partition of the estate of the deceased Lucila de Mesa
executed on May 2, 1972 is inexistent and void from the
beginning
ISSUE: are petitioners entitled to the subject estate whether it
was owned by Ricardo or by Lucila, the mother of petitioners?
HELD: No. With the finding that private respondents are the
illegitimate children of Ricardo Abad, petitioners are precluded
from inheriting the estate of their brother. The applicable
provisions are Arts. 988 and 1003:
Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or
ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased.
Art. 1003. If there are no . . . illegitimate children, or a
surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed
to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance
with the following articles.
The evidence presented by private respondents
overwhelmingly prove that they are the acknowledged natural
children of Ricardo Abad. We quote with approval the trial
court's decision, thus: In his individual statements of income
and assets for the calendar years 1958 and 1970, and in all his
individual income tax returns for the years 1964, 1965, 1967,
1968, 1969 and 1970, he has declared therein as his legitimate
wife, Honoria Empaynado; and as his legitimate dependent
children, Cecilia, Maria and Rosemarie Abad.
As to petitioners' claim that the properties in the name of
Ricardo Abad actually belong to their mother Lucila de Mesa,
both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that the
evidence presented by private respondents proved that said
properties in truth belong to Ricardo Abad.