RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA
G. SIASAT, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Spouses
Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar died, intestate and without debt
included in their estate are two parcels of land
In
June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod City
(Bacolod RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against
respondent Edna G. Siasat. alleged that petitioner is the only son and
sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he (petitioner) discovered
that the subject titles were missing, and thus he suspected that someone from
the Siasat clan could have stolen the same
In
her Answer, respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole
surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised by
the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is
not a natural or adopted child of the Aguilar spouses; that since Alfredo
Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, the latter inherited
the conjugal share of the former; that upon the death of
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as she
had no issue; and that the subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted to her
for safekeeping by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt. By way of
counterclaim, respondent prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages,
and attorney’s fees.
RTC dismissed the case.
CA denied the appeal of the
petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner
can prove his filiation to the spouse Aguilar using SSS E-1 (acknowledged and
notarized before a notary public, executed by Alfredo Aguilar, recognizing the
petitioner as his son) mere proof of open and continuous possession.
RULING:
The
Court grants the Petition.
This Court, speaking in De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon,has held that –
This Court, speaking in De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon,has held that –
The
filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by
(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 thereof, 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. The due recognition of an
illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of
acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. In
fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory
recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a
separate action for judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for
recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity,
i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute
of limitations is essential in order to establish the child’s acknowledgment.
To
repeat what was stated in De Jesus, filiation may be proved by an
admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any
authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the
child, and no further court action is required.
0 Comments