Castro vs.

Court of Appeals
GR No. L-50974-75, May 31, 1989

Facts: Petitioners Juan and Feliciana Castro are siblings of Eustaquio Castro, while the
respondent, Benita is the only child of Eustaquio Castro. Plaintiffs filed an action for
partition of properties against the defendant Benita Castro alleging, among other
things that they are the forced heirs of Pedro Castro who died in Mayantoc, Tarlac on
May 27, 1923. Marcelina Bautista also filed an action for partition of properties against
defendant Benita Castro Naval alleging, among other things, that they are also
compulsory heirs of Eustaquio Castro who died in Mayantoc, Tarlac on August 24, 1961
and that they are entitled to the partition of the properties of said deceased. Benita
filed a petition for appointment as receiver and for preliminary injunction. The first
petition was denied but the preliminary injunction against Marcelina was granted.
Considering that evidence in these incidents of appointing a receiver and preliminary
injunction as well as the motion for contempt were related to the merits of the case, the
parties stipulated that evidence therein be considered as evidence in the trial on the
merits.

During the pre-trial the parties agreed that the main issue to be resolved in this case is
whether or not defendant Benita Castro Naval is the acknowledged natural child of
Eustaquio Castro. In view of this stipulation, defendant Benita Naval was allowed to
introduce evidence to show that she was indeed the acknowledged natural child of
Eustaquio Castro.

On May 23, 1913, Pricola Maregmen wed Felix against her will. Later that night, she
cohabited with Eustaquio Castro, a widower and lived as husband and wife until her
death in 1924. They produce a child, which is Benita. The recognition of Benita Castro as
a natural child of Eustaquio Castro appears in the records of birth. She stayed with her
father Eustaquio until she got married with Cipriano. Eustaquio Castro died in 1961.

Issue: Whether Benita is right in claiming that she is entitled to participate in the partition
of properties being an illegitimate child of Eustaquio.

Held: Yes. Benita was right in claiming that she was entitled to participate in the
partition of properties of Pedro Castro. According to Article 131 of Family Code, “ The
acknowledgement of a natural child must be made in the record of birth, in a will or in
some public document”.

In this case, there is no question that Benita was natural child of Eustaquio to Pricola,
being a widower when they cohabited. Eustaquio voluntarily acknowledge Benita, as
seen on her birth certificate that it was signed, reported and registered by him. Also, it
was Eustaquio who gave away Benita during her wedding to Cipriano. The couple
continued to live with him until his death. Therefore, Benita has the right to participate in
the partition of properties of his late Grandfather Pedro Castro.
 Gonzales v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 117740, October 30, 1998

Facts: On 18 April1972, petitioners Carolina Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad and
Cesar de Mesa Tioseco sought the settlement of the intestate estate of their brother,
Ricardo de Mesa Abad. In their petition, petitioners claimed that they were the only
heirs of their brother as he had allegedly died a bachelor, leaving no descendants or
ascendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Petitioners amended their petition by
alleging that the real properties listed as belonging to the decedent were actually only
administered by him and that the true owner was their late mother, Lucila de Mesa.

The trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator of the intestate estate
of Ricardo de Mesa Abad. Petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate of their late mother Lucila de Mesa in their favor.

On 07 July 1972, private respondents Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia Abad Empaynado,

and Marian Abad Empaynado filed a motion to set aside proceedings. In their motion,
they alleged that Honoria Empaynado had been the common-law wife of Ricardo
Abad for twenty-seven (27) years before his death, or from 1943 to 1971, and that
during this period, their union had produced two (2) children, Cecilia Abad
Empaynado and Marian Abad Empaynado. They also disclosed the existence of
Rosemarie Abad, a child allegedly fathered by Ricardo Abad with another woman,
Dolores Saracho. As the law awards the entire estate to the surviving children to the
exclusion of collateral relatives, they charged petitioners with eliberately concealing
the existence of said children in order to deprive the latter of their rights to the estate of
Ricardo Abad.

Issue: Whether the three children were entitled to inherit.

Held: Yes. Evidence presented by private respondents overwhelmingly proved that

they are the acknowledged natural children of Ricardo Abad. They were able to prove
that he stated in his individual income tax returns as his legitimate dependent children,
Cecilia, Marian and Rosemarie Abad. He insured his daughters on a 20 year
endowment plan. He opened a trust fund account for his daughters.

Finding that private respondents are the illegitimate children of Ricardo Abad,
petitioners should have been precluded from inheriting the estate of their brother on
the basis of the following Civil Code provisions:
“Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the

illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.”

“Art. 1003. If there are no illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the

collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in

accordance with the following articles.”

Petitioners contested the filiation of the children by submitting that the husband of
Honoria Empaynado, Jose Libunao, was still alive when Cecilia and Marian Abad were
born. It was undisputed that prior to her relationship with Ricardo Abad, Honoria
Empaynado was married to Jose Libunao. But while private respondents claim that Jose
Libunao died in 1943, petitioners claim that the latter died sometime in 1971.

The evidence presented by petitioners to prove that Jose Libunao died in 1971 was
inconclusive. The evidence presented was an enrolment form wherein there was failure
to indicate that Jose was “deceased”. Such proof did not necessarily prove that said
parent was still living during the time the form was being accomplished. The records of
Loyola Memorial Park also showed that a certain Jose Bautista Libunao was indeed
buried there in 1971. Such person was different from the husband whose full name was
Jose Santos Libunao.
 Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 66574, February 21, 1990

Facts: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who
together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate child of the spouses Felipe
Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion;

2) Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of
Pablo Santero;

3) Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents;

4) Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976;

5) Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero
and his six minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two
minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.

Issue: Whether the legal heir/s of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — is her niece Felisa
Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren (The Natural Children of Pablo Santero).

Held: Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent
Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin
to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero.

Art. 992 of the New Civil Code provides:

“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 relative inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child.”

The term relatives, although used many times in the Code, is not defined by it. In
accordance therefore with the canons of statutory interpretation, it should be
understood to have a general and inclusive scope, inasmuch as the term is a general
one. Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda. That the law does not make a
distinction prevents us from making one: Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera
debemus. It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase
"legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda.
de Santero as the word "relative" is broad enough to comprehend all the kindred of the
person spoken of.

The term relatives in “Article 992 of New Civil Code” in more restrictive sense than it is
used and intended; is not warranted by any rule of interpretation. Besides, when the
law intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word
collateral, as in Articles 1003 and 1009 of the New Civil Code.