ArticuLaw Primo

G.R. No. 76873 October 26, 1989

DOROTEA, VIRGILIO, APOLINARIO, JR., SULPICIO & DOMINADOR, all surnamed UYGUANGCO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, Judge SENEN PENARANDA and GRACIANO BACJAO UYGUANGCO, respondents.

 

 

Facts

 

     Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his wife, Dorotea, four legitimate children (her co-petitioners herein), and considerable properties which they divided among themselves.  Claiming to be an illegitimate son of the deceased Apolinario, and having been left out in the extrajudicial settlement of his estate, Graciano Bacjao Uyguangco filed a complaint for partition against all the petitioners.

 

     Graciano alleged that he was born in 1952 to Apolinario Uyguangco and Anastacia Bacjao and that at the age of 15 he moved to his father’s hometown at Medina, Misamis Oriental, at the latter’s urging and also of Dorotea and his half-brothers. Here he received support from his father while he was studying at the Medina High School, where he eventually graduated. He was also assigned by his father, without objection from the rest of the family, as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store in Mananom from 1967 to 1973. 

 

    In the course of his presentation of evidence at the trial, the petitioners elicited an admission from Graciano that he had none of the documents mentioned in Article 278 to show that he was the illegitimate son of Apolinario Uyguangco.  These are “the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or (in) any authentic writing.” The petitioners thereupon moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the private respondent could no longer prove his alleged filiation under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code.

 

     The trial court said he could and was sustained by the respondent Court of Appeals.  The latter court held that the trial judge had not committed any grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in allowing the private respondent to prove his filiation. Moreover, the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal and not a petition for prohibition. The petitioners ask for a reversal of these rulings on the ground that they are not in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

 

 

Issue

 

    Whether or not that he should be allowed to prove that he is an illegitimate child of his claimed father, who is already dead, in the absence of the documentary evidence required by the Civil Code.

 

 

Ruling of the Supreme Court

 

        We find that this case must be decided under a new if not entirely dissimilar set of rules because the parties have been overtaken by events, to use the popular phrase. The Civil Code provisions they invoke have been superseded, or at least modified, by the corresponding articles in the Family Code, which became effective on August 3,1988.

 

      Under the Family Code, it is provided that:

     Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

 

     The following provision is therefore also available to the private respondent in proving his illegitimate filiation:

 

     Art. 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.

 

        It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son’s illegitimate filiation.

 

        In her Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy explains the rationale of the rule, thus: “It is a truism that unlike legitimate children who are publicly recognized, illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. Who then can be sure of their filiation but the parents themselves? But suppose the child claiming to be the illegitimate child of a certain person is not really the child of the latter? The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child’s filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.”

 

       Graciano’s complaint is based on his contention that he is the illegitimate child of Apolinario Uyguangco, whose estate is the subject of the partition sought. If this claim can no longer be proved in an action for recognition, with more reason should it be rejected in the said complaint, where the issue of Graciano’s filiation is being raised only collaterally. The complaint is indeed a circumvention of Article 172, which allows proof of the illegitimate child’s filiation under the second paragraph thereof only during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

 

       Considering that the private respondent has, as we see it, established at least prima facie proof of his alleged filiation, we find it regrettable that his action should be barred under the said article. But that is the law and we have no choice but to apply it. Even so, the Court expresses the hope that the parties will arrive at some kind of rapprochement, based on fraternal and moral ties if not the strict language of the law, that will allow the private respondent an equitable share in the disputed estate. Blood should tell.

 

        WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and Civil Case No. 9067 in the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, is hereby DISMISSED.