Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Petitioners appealed to the CA. They reiterated that 3. Whether prescription and laches bar respondents
Silvela had sold her share of the property to her from claiming coownership over Lot No. 4696
brother Gilberta. They asserted that the RTC could not
have considered Leopolda the son of Natalia on the
mere basis of his Certificate of Baptism. Emphasizing RULING OF THE COURT
based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which
Sale of the Shares of Silvela to Gilberto case the action may be brought during the lifetime of
the alleged parent.
Petitioners argue before us that Silvela had a perfected
contract of sale with Gilberto over her shares of Lot No. The parties concede that there is no record of
4696. That argument is obviously a question of fact, Leopolda's birth in either the National Statistics
[14]
as it delves into the truth of whether she conveyed Office[17] or in the Office of the Municipal Registrar of
her rights in favor of her brother. Kalibo, Aklan.[18] The RTC and the CA then referred to
other means to prove the status of Leopoldo: his
The assessment of the existence of the sale requires Certificate of Baptism and his Marriage Contract. Since
the calibration of the evidence on record and the both documents indicate Natalia as the mother of
probative weight thereof. The RTC, as affirmed by the Leopoldo, the courts a quo concluded that respondent
CA, already performed its function and found that the heirs of Leopoldo had sufficiently proven the filiation of
heirs of Gilberto had not presented any document or their ancestor to the original owner of Lot No. 4696.
witness to prove the fact of sale. For this reason, the RTC and the CA maintained that
the heirs of Leopoldo are entitled to an equal share of
The factual determination of courts, when adopted and the property, together with the heirs of Gilberto and
confirmed by the CA, is final and conclusive on this heirs of Silvela.
Court except if unsupported by the evidence on record.
[15]
In this case, the exception does not apply, as We disagree.
petitioners merely alleged that Silvela "sold,
transferred and conveyed her share in the land in Jurisprudence has already assessed the probative value
question to Gilberto Roldan for a valuable of baptismal certificates. In Fernandez v. Court of
consideration" without particularizing the details or Appeals,[19] which referred to our earlier rulings
referring to any proof of the transaction.[16] Therefore, in Berciles v. Government Service Insurance
we sustain the conclusion that she remains coowner of System[20] and Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals,
[21]
Lot No. 4696. the Court explained that because the putative
parent has no hand in the preparation of a baptismal
Filiation of Leopoldo to Natalia certificate, that document has scant evidentiary value.
The canonical certificate is simply a proof of the act to
In resolving the issue of filiation, the RTC and the CA which the priest may certify, i.e., the administration of
referred to Articles 172 and 175 of the Family the sacrament. In other words, a baptismal certificate is
Code, viz.: "no proof of the declarations in the record with respect
to the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior and
distinct facts which require separate and concrete
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is
evidence."[22]
established by any of the following:
In cases that followed Fernandez, we reiterated that a
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or
baptismal certificate is insufficient to prove filiation.
a final judgment; or [23]
But in Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v.
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
Harper,[24] this Court clarified that a baptismal
document or a private handwritten instrument and
certificate has evidentiary value to prove kinship "if
signed by the parent concerned.
considered alongside other evidence of
filiation."[25] Therefore, to resolve one's lineage, courts
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the
must peruse other pieces of evidence instead of relying
legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
only on a canonical record. By way of example, we have
considered the combination of testimonial evidence,
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status [26]
family pictures,[27] as well as family books or charts,
of a legitimate child; or [28]
alongside the baptismal certificates of the claimants,
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
in proving kinship.
special laws.
In this case, the courts below did not appreciate any
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their
other material proof related to the baptismal certificate
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
of Leopoldo that would establish his filiation with
evidence as legitimate children.
Natalia, whether as a legitimate or as an illegitimate
son.
The action must be brought within the same period
specified in Article 173, except when the action is
The only other document considered by the RTC and petitioners to substantiate their allegation of laches by
the CA was the Marriage Contract of Leopoldo. But, like proving that respondents slept on their rights.
his baptismal certificate, his Marriage Contract also [33]
Nevertheless, had they done so, two grounds deter
lacks probative value as the latter was prepared them from successfully claiming the existence of
without the participation of Natalia. In Reyes v. Court of prescription and laches.
Appeals,[29] we held that even if the marriage contract
therein stated that the alleged father of the bride was First, as demanded by the repudiation requisite for
the bride's father, that document could not be taken as prescription to be appreciated, there is a need to
evidence of filiation, because it was not signed by the determine the veracity of factual matters such as the
alleged father of the bride. date when the period to bring the action commenced
to run. In Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag,[34] we considered
The instant case is similar to an issue raised in Paa v. that determination as factual in nature. The same is
Chan.[30] The claimant in that case relied upon true in relation to finding the existence of laches. We
baptismal and marriage certificates to argue filiation. held in Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr.[35]that matters like
The Court said: estoppel, laches, and fraud require the presentation of
evidence and the determination of facts. Since
As regards the baptismal and marriage certificates of petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Leoncio Chan, the same are not competent evidence to Rules of Court, as in this case, entertain questions of
prove that he was the illegitimate child of Bartola law,[36] petitioners claim of prescription and laches fail.
Maglaya by a Chinese father. While these certificates
may be considered public documents, they are Second, petitioners have alleged prescription and
evidence only to prove the administration of the laches only before this Court. Raising a new ground for
sacraments on the dates therein specified - which in the first time on appeal contravenes due process, as
this case were the baptism and marriage, respectively, that act deprives the adverse party of the opportunity
of Leoncio Chan - but not the veracity of the to contest the assertion of the claimant.[37] Since
statements or declarations made therein with respect respondents were not able to refute the issue of
to his kinsfolk and/or citizenship. prescription and laches, this Court denies the newly
raised contention of petitioners.
All told, the Baptismal Certificate and the Marriage
Contract of Leopoldo, which merely stated that Natalia WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed
is his mother, are inadequate to prove his filiation with by petitioner heirs of Gilberto Roldan is PARTIALLY
the property owner. Moreover, by virtue of these GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision and
documents alone, the RTC and the CA could not have Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02327 are
justly concluded that Leopoldo and his successors-in- hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:
interest were entitled to a one-third share of the
property left by Natalia, equal to that of each of her 1. Only the heirs of Gilberta Roldan and Silvela Roldan
undisputed legitimate children Gilberto and Silvela. As are declared co-owners of the land covered by Original
held in Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa,[31] a Certificate of Title No. P-7711, which should be
baptismal certificate is certainly not proof of the status partitioned among them in the following proportions:
of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claimant. Therefore,
the CA erred in presuming the hereditary rights of a. One-half share to the heirs of Gilberta Roldan; and
Leopoldo to be equal to those of the legitimate heirs of b. One-half share to the heirs of Silvela Roldan.
Natalia.
2. Petitioners are ordered to account for and deliver to
Prescription and Laches the heirs of Silvela Roldan their one-half share on the
produce of the land.
According to petitioners, prescription and laches have
clearly set in given their continued occupation of the SO ORDERED.
property in the last 42 years. Prescription cannot be
appreciated against the co-owners of a property, Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Tijam, JJ., concur.
absent any conclusive act of repudiation made clearly Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
known to the other coowners.[32]
HELD:
CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, before a taxpayer can avail of preferential tax rates
under said treaties.
vs.
HELD:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
NO. The Court held that the obligation to comply with a
G.R. Nos. 193383-84 January 14, 2015 tax treaty must take precedence over the objective of
RMO No. 1-2000.
PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe Bearing in mind the rationale of tax treaties, the period
of application for the availment of tax treaty relief as
required by RMO No. 1-2000 should not operate to
TOPIC: Tax treaty, ITAD ruling, tax refund
divest entitlement to the relief as it would constitute a
violation of the duty required by good faith in
complying with a tax treaty. The denial of the availment
of tax relief for the failure of a taxpayer to apply within
FACTS: the prescribed period under the administrative
issuance would impair the value of the tax treaty. At
CBK Power is a limited partnership duly organized and most, the application for a tax treaty relief from the BIR
existing under the laws of the Philippines, and primarily should merely operate to confirm the entitlement of
engaged in the development and operation of hydro the taxpayer to the relief.
electric power generating plants in Laguna.
Logically, noncompliance with tax treaties has negative
In February 2001, CBK Power borrowed money from implications on international relations, and unduly
Industrial Bank of Japan, Fortis-Netherlands, Raiffesen discourages foreign investors. While the consequences
Bank, Fortis-Belgium, and Mizuho Bank for which it sought to be prevented by RMO No. 1-2000 involve an
remitted interest payments from May 2001 to May administrative procedure, these may be remedied
2003. It allegedly withheld final taxes from said through other system management processes, e.g., the
payments based on the following rates: (a) fifteen imposition of a fine or penalty. But we cannot totally
percent (15%) for Fortis-Belgium, Fortis-Netherlands, deprive those who are entitled to the benefit of a
and Raiffesen Bank; and (b) twenty percent (20%) for treaty for failure to strictly comply with an
Industrial Bank of Japan and Mizuho Bank. administrative issuance requiring prior application for
tax treaty relief.
However, according to CBK Power, under the relevant
tax treaties between the Philippines and the respective
countries in which each of the banks is a resident, the
interest income derived by the
aforementioned banks are subject only to a preferential
tax rate of 10%
ISSUE: