SINFOROSO DE GALA v.

PEDRO DE GALA

TOPIC: factum probandum; factum probans

FACTS:

 An action was commenced in CFI – Tayabas by Sinforoso (son) to compel the defendant Pedro to
recognize the former as his natural son. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had been in the
uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child of the defendant, justified by the conduct
of the latter and that of his family  to this complaint, defendant interposed a general denial
 CFI dismissed the complaint and absolved the defendant from all liability  Sinforoso appealed to
SC
o During pendency of appeal, Pedro died  substituted by surviving spouse Josefa and his
only legitimate son, Generoso de Gala
 Sinforoso alleges that CFI erred in: (1) not admitting plaintiff’s Exhibit C in evidence; (2) in finding
that the facts are very similar to those in Buenaventura v. Urbano; (3) in finding that the facts in the
present case do not show that plaintiff has been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a
natural child of defendant
o Exhibit C is a transcript of stenographic notes taken during trial of an election protest case
(Nadres v. Javier) 2 years before trial of the present case
 During the Nadres trial, Generoso, testifying as a witness, declared in open
court that the plaintiff Sinforoso was his brother
 Exhibit C was offered in evidence by plaintiff during the trial  defendant objected upon the ground
that it was “impertinent”  CFI sustained the objection (Generoso was not an interested party in
this case; being declared as Generoso’s brother does not entitle Sinforoso to be recognized as a
natural son of Pedro)

ISSUE:

(1) Whether Exhibit C is impertinent? – NO [more relevant]

(2) Whether the facts of the case show that the plaintiff has been in the uninterrupted possession of
the status of a natural child of defendant Pedro? – YES

(3) Whether this case is similar to the Buenaventura case? – NO

HELD:

On Exhibit C being impertinent:

 Generoso, is the only legitimate son of the defendant Pedro. Being a member of the latter’s family,
his spontaneous admission, publicly made, in open court, that plaintiff Sinforoso was his
brother, cannot be said to be “impertinent” for the purpose of proving the plaintiff’s claim
o The admission was a “conduct” on his part which tends to confirm the status claimed by
the alleged natural child
o On the CFI’s reasoning that Generoso is not an interested party. He is in fact a party
appellee herein, and he is a forced heir of the defendant, and the latter’s recognition of the
plaintiff as a natural son would diminish his hereditary rights
 While it is true that such admission of the defendant’s only legitimate son would not, of itself, be
sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a compulsory recognition by the defendant as his natural child,
yet it should have been admitted in evidence as a factum probans, which would help to
establish the factum probandum (the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child)
o Such status cannot be proved by a single specific act or conduct of the defendant or of his
family. It must be necessarily be proved by showing a series of acts, conduct, and
circumstances indicative of the intention of the putative father to acknowledge his alleged
natural child. Thus, to reject evidence of a single act, conduct, or circumstance as
being insufficient to prove the status claimed, would be to prevent the claimant from
proving it at all.
On the uninterrupted possession:

 The purpose of presenting Exhibit C was to show that the plaintiff had been “in the uninterrupted
possession of the status of a natural child of the defendant father, justified by the conduct of the
father himself or that of his family
o Considering the fact that the plaintiff was born in the year 1879, the provisions of la Ley de
Toro may govern (before adoption of Civil Code) in the solution of the question of
recognition
o Under the old law, a natural child might be recognized tacitly and the recognition was open
to such proof as would support the fact
o Defendant did not only make a tacit, but an express recognition of the plaintiff as his
natural child, both before and after the adoption of the Civil Code
 Instances that prove recognition by the father (also emphasized by nephew of Pedro through his
testimony as a witness):
o During plaintiff’s infancy and childhood, he lived with his mother in the same barrio as the
defendant
o Defendant not only frequented the house where plaintiff lived with his mother, but also
provided sustenance for both
o Defendant sent plaintiff to a school and paid for such
o Enrolled in school as Sinforoso Dimatulac (surname of mother) but called by the name
Sinforoso de Gala – with acquiescence of defendant
o Defendant continued to give money to the plaintiff even during the latter’s mature years
o Defendant built a house for plaintiff
o Plaintiff always addressed defendant as “father” (tatay), to which the defendant responds
o Plaintiff was in constant company with defendant in the cockpit
 A perusal of the testimony for the defense is impressed with its inherent weakness – being purely
negative. It is a general rule of evidence that all other things being equal, affirmative
testimony is stronger than negative.
o The fact that the defendant disowned the plaintiff during the trial of this cause, cannot divest
plaintiff of the right to recognition which had theretofore been vested in him.

On the similarity to the Buenaventura case:

 The facts in the said case are not similar in form of recognition
 There were clear indications that the putative father did not intend to recognize his alleged natural
child: (1) child never lived with the father while the other natural children did; (2) father did not
recognize son as his natural child while the other natural children were; (3) father wrote a letter to
the son but did not sign it
 In the present case, it clearly appears that defendant intended to recognize plaintiff as his
natural son; and Generoso had also treated him as his brother
 The facts proven in the present case clearly establish the uninterrupted possession by the plaintiff
of the status of a natural son of the defendant Pedro
 The fact that the plaintiff did not live with the defendant is explained by the circumstance that the
latter shortly after birth of plaintiff, married a woman other than the mother. It does not appear theat
the defendant kept other natural children in his house (as in the case of Buenaventura)
 The fact that the defendant disowned the plaintiff during the trial of this cause, cannot divest the
latter of the right to recognition, which had theretofore been vested in him

Judgment of the lower court is revoked. It is ordered that a judgment be entered requiring appellees to
recognize and acknowledge the appellant Sinforoso as the natural son of the deceased Pedro de Gala.