G.R. No.

L-22469 October 23, 1978

TOMAS CORPUS, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ADMINISTRATOR and/or EXECUTOR of the Estate of Teodoro R.
Yangco, RAFAEL CORPUS, AMALIA CORPUS, JOSE A. V. CORPUS,
RAMON L. CORPUS, ENRIQUE J. CORPUS, S. W. STAGG, SOLEDAD
ASPRER and CIPRIANO NAVARRO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila on April 20, 1939 at the age of
seventy-seven years.
Yangco had no forced heirs. At the time of his death, his nearest
relatives were (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2) his half sister, Paz
Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio (3) Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus,
and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus,
and (4) Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his half brother Jose
Corpus. Juanita died in October, 1944 at Palauig, Zambales.
Teodoro R. Yangco was the son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona
Arguelles, the widow of Tomas Corpus. Before her union with Luis
Rafael Yangco, Ramona had begotten five children with Tomas
Corpus, two of whom were the aforenamed Pablo Corpus and Jose
Corpus.
Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a project of partition dated
November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and the
legatees named in the will.
The Probate court in its order of December 26, 1946 approved the
project of partition.
From that order, Pedro Martinez, Juliana de Castro , Juanita Corpus
(deceased) and the estate of Luis R. Yangco appealed to this Court.
Those appeals were dismissed after the legatees and the appellants
entered into compromise agreements. The legatees agreed to pay
P35,000 to Pedro Martinez, the heirs of Pio V. Corpus, the heirs of
Isabel Corpus and the heir of Juanita Corpus. Herein appellant Tomas
Corpus signed that compromise settlement as the sole heir of Juanita
Corpus.
On September 20, 1949, the legatees executed an agreement for the
settlement and physical partition of the Yangco estate.
On October 5, 1951, Tomas Corpus, as the sole heir of Juanita corpus,
filed an action to recover her supposed share in Yangco intestate
estate.
ISSUE:
WON Tomas Corpus has a cause of action to recover his mother's
supposed intestate share in Yangco's estate? NONE.
RULING:
The basis of the trial court's conclusion that Teodoro R. Yangco was an
acknowledged natural child and not a legitimate child was the
statement in the will of his father, Luis Rafael Yangco, dated June 14,
1907, that Teodoro and his three other children were his acknowledged
natural children.
On the other hand, the children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas
Corpus are presumed to be legitimate. A marriage is presumed to have
taken place between Ramona and Tomas.
Since Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was
illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus was the legitimate child of Jose
Corpus, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas Corpus
has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary
share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangco's estate.
Juanita Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because there is no
reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.
Article 943 "prohibits all successory reciprocity mortis causa between
legitimate and illegitimate relatives."
The rule in article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code
which provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner
from the illegitimate child".
That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is
disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate
family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child.
G.R. No. 77867 February 6, 1990
ISABEL DE LA PUERTA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CARMELITA DE LA PUERTA,
respondents.
FACTS:
Dominga Revuelta died on July 3, 1966, at the age of 92, with a will
leaving her properties to her three surviving children, namely, Alfredo,
Vicente and Isabel, all surnamed de la Puerta.
On August 1, 1974, Vicente de la Puerta filed with the Court of First
Instance of Quezon a petition to adopt Carmelita de la Puerta. After
hearing, the petition was granted. However, the decision was appealed
by Isabel to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the appeal,
Vicente died, prompting her to move for the dismissal of the case.
On November 20, 1981, Carmelita, having been allowed to intervene in
the probate proceedings, filed a motion for the payment to her of a
monthly allowance as the acknowledged natural child of Vicente de la
Puerta.
On November 12,1982, the probate court granted the motion,
declaring that it was satisfied from the evidence at hand that Carmelita
was a natural child of Vicente de la Puerta and was entitled to the
amounts claimed for her support.
On appeal, the order of the lower court was affirmed by the respondent
court.
Note: Vicente de la Puerta was married to, but was separated from, his
legal wife Genoveva de la Puerta. Carmelita's father was Vicente de la
Puerta and her mother is Gloria Jordan who were living as common law
husband and wife until his death on June 14, 1978.
ISSUE:
May Carmelita de la Puerta claim support and successional rights to the
estate of Dominga Revuelta? NO.
RULING:
According to Article 970 of the Civil Code:
Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of
which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the
person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would
have if he were living or if he could have inherited.
The answer to the question posed must be in the negative. The first
reason is that Vicente de la Puerta did not predecease his mother; and
the second is that Carmelita is a spurious child.
As a spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from inheriting from
Dominga because of Article 992 of the Civil Code, which lays down the
barrier between the legitimate and illegitimate families. This article
provides quite clearly:
Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall
such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child.
Indeed, even as an adopted child, Carmelita would still be barred from
inheriting from Dominga Revuelta for there would be no natural
kindred ties between them and consequently, no legal ties to bind
them either.
The result is that Carmelita, as the spurious daughter of Vicente de la
Puerta, has successional rights to the intestate estate of her father but
not to the estate of Dominga Revuelta.
G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992
OLIVIA S. PASCUAL and HERMES S. PASCUAL, petitioners,
vs.
ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C. PASCUAL, JOSE C.
PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ERLINDA C. PASCUAL,
WENCESLAO C. PASCUAL, JR., INTESTATE ESTATE OF ELEUTERIO T.
PASCUAL, AVELINO PASCUAL, ISOCELES PASCUAL, LEIDA PASCUAL-
MARTINES, VIRGINIA PASCUAL-NER, NONA PASCUAL-FERNANDO,
OCTAVIO PASCUAL, GERANAIA PASCUAL-DUBERT, and THE
HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA of Br. 162, RTC,
Pasig, Metro Manila, respondents.
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 Pascual.
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 spouses
(b) Children of Wenceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of the full blood of the
deceased
(c) Children of Pedro-Bautista, brother of the half blood of the deceased
(d) Acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual, brother of the full
blood of the deceased
(e) Intestate of Eleuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the half blood of the
deceased
ISSUE:
WON Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines can be interpreted
to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of the
deceased. YES.
RULING:
Article 992 of the civil Code, provides:
An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate
child.
Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate
children.
Applying the above doctrine to the case at bar, respondent IAC did not
err in holding that petitioners herein cannot represent their father
Eligio Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of
the decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of their father.
Clearly the term "illegitimate" refers to both natural and spurious.
Finally under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are
generally placed under one category, which undoubtedly settles the
issue as to whether or not acknowledged natural children should be
treated differently, in the negative.