Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labagala vs. Santiago
Labagala vs. Santiago
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
*
G.R.No.132305.December4,2001.
361
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
361
362
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Public Attorneys Officeforpetitioner.
Venancio B. Padillaforprivaterespondents.
QUISUMBING,J.:
This petition for review on certiorari
seeks to annul the
1
decision dated March 4, 1997, of the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R. CV No. 32817, which reversed
and set aside the
2
judgment dated October 17, 1990, of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 54, in Civil Case No. 8741515,
findinghereinpetitionertobetheownerof1/3pro indiviso
shareinaparcelofland.
Thepertinentfactsofthecase,asbornebytherecords,
areasfollows:
JoseT.SantiagoownedaparceloflandcoveredbyTCT
No. 64729, located in Rizal Avenue Extension, Sta. Cruz,
Manila.AllegingthatJosehadfraudulentlyregistereditin
his name alone, his sisters Nicolasa and Amanda (now
respondentsherein)sued
_______________
1Rollo,pp.5156.
2Id.,at2333.
363
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
363
Joseforrecoveryof2/3shareoftheproperty. OnApril20,
1981, the trial court in that case decided in favor of the
sisters,recognizingtheirrightofownershipoverportionsof
the property covered by TCT No. 64729. The Register of
Deeds of Manila was required to include the names of
Nicolasa4 and Amanda in the certificate of title to said
property.
Jose died intestate on February 6, 1984. On August 5,
1987, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of title,
ownership,andpossessionagainsthereinpetitioner,IdaC.
Labagala, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, to
recoverfromherthe1/3portionofsaidpropertypertaining
toJosebutwhichcameintopetitionerssolepossessionupon
Josesdeath.
Respondents alleged that Joses share in the property
belongs to them by operation of law, because they are the
only legal heirs of their brother, who died intestate and
without issue. They claimed that the purported sale of the
property made5 by their brother to petitioner sometime in
March 1979 was executed through petitioners
machinations and with malicious intent, to enable her to
secure the corresponding
transfer certificate
of title (TCT
6
7
No.172334 )inpetitionersnamealone.
Respondentsinsistedthatthedeedofsalewasaforgery.
ThedeedshowedthatJoseaffixedhisthumbmarkthereon
butrespondentsaverredthat,havingbeenabletograduate
fromcollege,Joseneverputhisthumbmarkondocuments
he executed but always signed his name in full. They
claimed that Jose could not have sold the property
belonging to his poor and unschooled sisters who . . 8.
sacrificed for his studies and personal welfare.
Respondentsalso
_______________
3CivilCaseNo.56226,lodgedbeforethethenCourtofFirstInstance
ofManila,Branch6(Records,p.9).IntheTSN,thecaseNo.islistedas
56626.SeeExhibitGtoG11,records,pp.165176.
4Records,p.17.
5Thepurporteddeedofsaleisdated___dayofFebruary,1979but
was notarized on March 19, 1979. See records, pp. 147148; TSN, June
29,1989,p.19.
6Records,p.161.
7Id.,at3,18.
8Id.,at4.
364
364
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
_______________
9Id.,at34,18.
365
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
365
366
366
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
367
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
367
tiesandwithintheperiodlimitedbylaw. Petitioneralso
cites Article
263 of the Civil Code in support of this
14
contention.
Fortheirpart,respondentscontendthatpetitionerisnot
thedaughterofJose,perherbirthcertificatethatindicates
her parents as Leo Labagala and Cornelia Cabrigas,
15
instead of Jose Santiago and Esperanza Cabrigas. They
arguethattheprovisionsofArticle263oftheCivilCodedo
not apply to the present case since this is not an action
impugningachildslegitimacybutoneforrecoveryoftitle,
ownership,andpossessionofproperty.
Theissuesforresolutioninthiscase,toourmind,are(1)
whether or not respondents may impugn petitioners
filiation in this action for recovery of title and possession;
and (2) whether or not petitioner is entitled to Joses 1/3
portion of the property he coowned with respondents,
throughsuccession,sale,ordonation.
Onthefirstissue,wefindpetitionersrelianceonArticle
263oftheCivilCodetobemisplaced.Saidarticleprovides:
Art.263.The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be
broughtwithinoneyearfromtherecordingofthebirthintheCivil
Register,ifthehusbandshouldbeinthesameplace,orinaproper
case,anyofhisheirs.
Ifheorhisheirsareabsent,theperiodshallbeeighteenmonths
iftheyshouldresideinthePhilippines;andtwoyearsifabroad.If
thebirthofthechildhasbeenconcealed,thetermshallbecounted
fromthediscoveryofthefraud.
14ThepresentcontroversyarosepriortotheeffectivityoftheFamily
Code.
15EsperanzaandCorneliaweresisters.Seerollo,p.16.
368
368
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
adoptedsinceDoribelhadalreadybeenborntotheSayson
couple at the time, petitioners at the same time made the
conflictingclaimthatDoribelwasnotthechildofthecouple.
TheCourtruledinthatcasethatitwastoolatetoquestion
the decree of adoption that became final years before.
Besides, such a challenge to the validity of the adoption
18
cannotbemadecollaterallybutinadirectproceeding.
In this case, respondents are not assailing petitioners
legitimatestatusbutare,instead,assertingthatsheisnot
atalltheirbrotherschild.Thebirthcertificatepresentedby
respondentssupportthisallegation.
WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthat:
_______________
16SeeBenitezBadua
468, 473 (1994). This case deals with Articles 164, 166, 170, and 171 of
theFamilyCode.Article263oftheCivilCodeisnowArticle170ofthe
FamilyCode.
17 CabatbatLim
SCRA451,457(1988).
18Sayson
v. Court of Appeals,supra,note12,at326328.
369
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
369
TheCertificateofRecordofBirth(ExhibitH) plainlystatesthat..
. Ida was the child of the spouses Leon Labagala and [Cornelia]
Cabrigas. This document states that it was Leon Labagala who
made the report to the Local Civil Registrar and therefore the
supplier of the entries in said Certificate. Therefore, this certificate
isproofofthefiliationofIda.AppelleehoweverdeniesthatExhibit
H is her Birth Certificate. She insists that she is not Ida Labagala
but Ida Santiago. If Exhibit H is not her birth certificate, then
whereishers?Shedidnotpresentanythoughitwouldhavebeen
the easiest thing to do considering that according to her baptismal
certificate she was born in Manila in 1969. This court rejects such
denials and holds that Exhibit H is the certificate of the record of
birthofappelleeIda...
Against such evidence, the appellee Ida could only present her
testimony and a baptismal certificate (Exhibit 12) stating that
appelleesparentswereJoseSantiagoandEsperanzaCabrigas.But
then,adecisionalruleinevidencestatesthatabaptismalcertificate
is not a proof of the parentage of the baptized person. This
documentcanonlyprovetheidentityofthebaptized,thedateand
place of her baptism, the identities of the baptismal sponsors and
20
the priest who administered the sacramentnothing more.
(Citationsomitted.)
370
370
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Labagala vs. Santiago
24Id.,at343.
25Exhibit11.
26TSN,June29,1989,p.3.
371
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
371
Clearly,thereisnovalidsaleinthiscase.Josedidnothave
the right to transfer ownership of the entire property to
28
petitioner since 2/3 thereof belonged to his sisters.
Petitionercouldnothave
_______________
27Rollo,pp.5455.
28CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Article1459.
372
372
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Art.725.Donationisanactofliberalitywherebyapersondisposesgratuitously
ofathingorrightinfavorofanother,whoacceptsit.
Art.741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may become
donees but acceptance shall be done through their parents or legal
representatives.
373
VOL.371,DECEMBER4,2001
373