Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia v. Dra. Fely S. Pizarro and Henry Rossi | G.R. No. 187273
| Feb. 15, 2017 | Filiation
FACTS:
- Petitioners and
Respondents all claim to be the children of Josefa A. Ara, who died on November
18, 2012. Petitioners assert that Respondent Pizarro was born to Josefa and her
then husband Vincent Salgado.
- He died during World War II. Towards the end of the
war Jose lived with Darwin Gray, an American soldier, and gave birth to
Petitioner Ara. Later, Josefa met Alfredo Garcia, got married, and gave birth
to Petitioner William Garcia and Ramon Garcia. After he passed away, Josefa met
Frank Rossi and gave birth to Respondent Rossi.
- Respondent
Pizarro claims that she is the only child of Josefa and has stated that
Petitioner Garcia is recorded as a son of Carmen Bucarin and Pedro Garcia as
evidenced by a Certificate of Live Birth (June 19, 1950) and Petitioner Ara is
recorded as a son of Jose Ara and Maria Flores as evidenced by a Certificate of
Live Birth.
- The parties
verbally sought partition of the properties left by Josefa which were in the
possession of Respondent Pizarro, who refused to partition. The plaintiffs
referred the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for an amicable settlement, which
they were unable to do. The parties then filed a complaint for judicial
partition of properties before the RTC of Malaybalay.
- Respondent
Pizarro claimed that to her knowledge, she was the only child of Josefa. She
denied that the other parties were her siblings. Further, Josefa left other
properties with the plaintiffs. During the pre-trial, the plaintiffs claimed
part of Rossi’s property.
- RTC ruled that
the other properties (other than Baguio and Valenci) shall be co-owned by all
parties in equal shares
- CA held that
only Respondents Pizarro and Rossi, as well as plaintiff Ramon, were children
of Josefa and are entitled to shares of her estate. The CA also found that the
RTC erred in allowing petitioners to prove their status as illegitimate sons of
Josefa after her death.
ISSUE: Whether or not
the petitioners have proven their filiation to Josefa even after her death.
RULING: No.
The Family Code
has stated:
Article 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by
any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence
of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means
allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
Article 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the
child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should
the child die during minority or in a state of insanity.
In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within
which to institute the action. The action already commenced by the child shall
survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties. (268a)
Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The
action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except
when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case
the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent
As such, a
person must establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a parent via
record of birth. The case of Uycuango v. CA also supports this with the facts
of the case being similar. Petitioners
submitted:
- Garcia’s Baptismal Certificate
listing Josefa as the mother
- His Certificate of Marriage
indicating the same, a picture of the wedding including Josefa
- A Certificate of Marriage
between Alfredo and Josefa
- Garcia’s Certificate of Birth
retrieved after Josefa’s death, a group picture
- A comment of Rossi which stated
that Josefa sis nor register all of her children so she wouldn’t lose her pension
- Ara’s testimony that he was the
son
- Nelly Alipio’s, a first degree
of Josefa, testimony stating the same.
None constitute
as evidence under Article 172 of the Family Code.
Although Garcia had
a birth certificate, the fact that he registered it late prevents the Court
from according it the same weight as any other birth certificate. Further the
late registration of the birth certificate is pursuant to Rule 25 of the
National Statistics Office Administrative Order No. 1-93. This is shown in Fernandez
v. CA where certificates of live birth are not competent evidence in the
paternity suit where there was no showing that the putative father had any
participation in the preparation of the certificate.
Further, in
People v. Villar, the Court sustained the Trial Court’s rejection of a delayed
registration of birth as conclusive evidence through Article 410 of the Civil
Code which states that documents from the civil registrar are only prima facie
evidence.
The petitioners may have been able to prove the filiation without
the birth certificate through an admission of the filiation in a public or
private handwritten document signed by Josefa but none was presented.
The evidence of
pictures, testimonies, and marriage certificates are also insufficient as there
were no acts, declarations, or omissions which attributed directly to Josefa,
much less ones pertaining to the filiation of the petitioners.
DENIED, CA DECISION
AFFIRMED.
Comments
Post a Comment