CONSOLACION LUMAIN DE
APARICIO VS. HIPOLITO PARAGUYA
G.R. No. L-29771, May 29, 1987
FACTS: Trinidad Montilde had a love
affair with Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and in
the process she conceived. When she
was almost four (4) months pregnant
and in order to conceal her disgrace from
the public, she decided to marry
Anastacio Mamburao. Father Lumain
solemnized their marriage on March 4,
1924. They never lived together as man
and wife. On September 12, 1924, 192
days after marriage, Trinidad gave birth
to Consolacion Lumain. As shown by her
birth certificate her registered parents
are Trinidad and Anastacio. On October
31, 1936, Fr. Lumain died but he left a
last will and testament wherein he
acknowledged Consolacion as his
daughter and instituted her as the sole
and universal heir of all his property
rights and interests.
Soon after reaching the age of majority
Consolacion filed an action against the
defendant for the recovery of certain
parcels of land she claims to have
inherited from her father Fr. Lumain and
for damages.
Defendant was the declared owner of
portions A, B, H, F and G and all its
improvements. Portion G is the land in
question. He also assailed that
Consolacion is not a natural child of the
decedent Rev. Fr. Lumain.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is
entitled to the possession of portion G of
the sketch exhibit “E-1”, with all the
improvements.
2) Whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is
a natural child of the late Rev. Fr.
Lumain.
3) Whether or not the plaintiff-appellee is
liable to pay the defendant-appellant for
moral damages.
HELD:
1) NO. The portion G of Exhibit E-1 which
appellant bought from Pelagio
Torrefranca is outside the land of Roman
Lumain enclosed with black lines of
Exhibit E-1, and thus is outside the land
of Roman Lumain.
2) Under Art. 255 of the Civil Code
stating that: “Children born after 180
days following the celebration of the
marriage and before three hundred days
following its dissolution or the separation
of the spouses shall be presumed to be
legitimate.
Against this presumption no evidence
shall be admitted other than that of
physical impossibility of the husband’s
having access to his wife within the first
120 days of the 300 days which
preceded the birth of the child.
This physical impossibility may be
ceased:
1) By the impotence of the husband;
2) By the fact that the husband and wife
were living separately, in such a way that
access was not possible;
3) By the serious illness of the husband.”
Appellant argues there is no evidence of
physical impossibility on the part of
husband Anastacio. Under Article 265 of
the Civil Code, it is stated that “The
filiation of legitimate children is proved
by the record of birth appearing in the
Civil Register, or by an authentic
document or a final judgment.”
However, the Supreme Court finds it
unnecessary to determine the paternity
of Consolacion. In the last will and
testament of Rev. Fr. Lumain he not only
acknowledged appellee Consolacion as
his natural daughter but designated her
as only heir. As Rev. Fr. Lumain died
without any compulsory heir, appellee is
therefore his lawful heir as duly
instituted in his will. One who has no
compulsory heirs may dispose by will of
all his estate or any part of it in favor of
any person having capacity to succeed.
3) NO. Appellee merely pursued an
honest claim to the property in question.
No bad faith had been imputed nor had
the alleged damages suffered been
established. The essential ingredient of
moral damages is proof of bad faith and
the fact that moral damages was
suffered as shock, mental anguish, or
anxiety although the amount of damages
suffered need not be shown.