De Aparicio vs.

Paraguya (1987)

Plaintiff-appellee: Consolacion Lumain De Aparicio

Defendant-appellant: Hipolito Paraguya

Facts:
� Trinidad Montilde had a love affair with a priest, Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and
in the process she conceived.
� When she was almost 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.
� 192 days after the marriage, Trinidad gave birth to Consolacion. 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
defendant for the recovery of certain parcels of land she claims to have e Manila
Chronicle on August 4, 1987 (1988 being a leap year).
The contention of petitioner that it should be considered a family home from the
time it was occupied by petitioner and his family in 1969 is not well-taken. Under
Article 162 of the Family Code, it is provided that "the provisions of this Chapter
shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said provisions are
applicable." It does not mean that Articles 152 and 153 of said Code have a
retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been
constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code and are exempt from execution for the payment of
obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code. Article 162 simply
means that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity of the
Family Code, are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the
benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code. Article 162 does not
state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect.
Is the family home of petitioner exempt from execution of the money judgment
aforecited? No. The debt or liability which was the basis of the judgment arose or
was incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on March 16, 1976 and the money
judgment arising therefrom was rendered by the appellate court on January 29, 1988.
Both preceded the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. This case does
not fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code. (at pp.
771-772).
Verily, according to petitioner, his debt was incurred in 1987 or prior to the
effectivity on August 3, 1988 of the Family Code (page 17, petition; page 22,
Rollo). This fact alone will militate heavily against the so-called exemption by
sheer force of exclusion embodied under paragraph 2, Article 155 of the Family Code
cited in Modequillo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, with costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
PATERNITY AND FILIATION
G.R. No. L-29771 May 29, 1987
CONSOLACION LUMAHIN DE APARICIO, Accompanied by her husband BENITO APARICIO,
plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HIPOLITO PARAGUYA, defendant-appellant.
150 SCRA 279
Trinidad Montilde had a love affair with a priest, Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and in
the process she conceived. When she was almost 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. 192 days after the marriage, Trinidad gave birth to Consolacion.
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 defendant for the recovery of
certain parcels of land she claims to have inherited from her father Fr. Lumain.
Defendant was declared owner of portions A, B, H, F and G and all its improvements.
Portion G is the land being questioned. He also assails that Consolacion is not a
natural child of the late Fr Lumain.
Issues:
� WON Consolacion is the legitimate child of spouses Anastacio Mamburao and
Trinidad Montilde according to ART 255 as she was born 192 days after the
celebration of marriage
� WON she is entitled to inherit the property of the deceased Fr. Lumain
� WON she is entitled to the possession of Portion G
Held/Ratio:
Appellant argues there is no evidence of physical impossibility on the part of
husband Anastacio to have access to his wife Trinidad in the first 120 days of the
300 days which preceded the birth of the child. Under Article 265 of the Civil
Code, it is provided 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. (The trial court held the plaintiff a natural child of
the late Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain.)
YES. In the last will and testament of Fr. Lumain he not only acknowledged appellee
Consolacion as his natural daughter but designated her as his only heir. Said will
was duly probated in Court. As Fr. Lumain died without any compulsory heir,
appellee Consolacion 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.
NO. Portion G 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.
G.R. No. L-49162 July 28, 1987
JANICE MARIE JAO, represented by her mother and guardian ad litem, ARLENE S.
SALGADO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PERICO V. JAO,
respondents.
152 SCRA 359
FACTS: Arlene Salgado, Janice Marie's mother, filed a case for recognition and
support against Perico V. Jao. Jao denied the paternity so they agreed to a blood
grouping test which was in due course conducted by the NBI. The test came out
indicating that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and
Arlene. Upon Arlene's motion for reconsideration, the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court declared the child the offspring of Jao. Jao appealed to the CA,
arguing that the blood grouping test could have been conclusive and disputable
evidence of his non-paternity, because there was no showing of irregularity or
mistake in the conduct of the tests. CA upheld Jao's contention and reversed the
trial court decision.
ISSUE:Whether or not the result of blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive
to prove paternity.
RULING:
Yes. SC denied the petition for review.
Supreme Court had given weight to the findings of the NBI in its blood grouping
test. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the competency of the NBI to conduct blood
grouping tests has been recognized as early as the 1950's. (Co Tao vs. CA, 101
Phil. 188)
In this jurisdiction, the result of blood tests, among other evidence, to, affirm
paternity was dealt with in Co Tao v. CA. In said case, the NBI expert"s report of
the blood tests stated that "from their blood groups and types, the defendant Co
Tao is a possible father of the child." From this statement the defendant contended
that the child must have been the child of another man. The Court noted: "For
obvious reasons, the NBI expert cannot give assurance that the appellant was the
father of the child; he can only give his opinion that he is a "possible father."
This possibility, coupled with the other facts and circumstances brought out during
the trial, tends to definitely establish that appellant is the father of the
child."
Where the issue is admissibility and conclusiveness of blood grouping tests to
disprove paternity, rulings have been much more definite in their conclusions. For
the past three decades, the use of blood typing in cases of disputed parentage has
already become an important legal procedure. There is now almost universal
scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity,
although inconclusive as to paternity � that is, the fact that the blood type of
the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does not
conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood type
of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother and that
of the alleged father are crossmatched, then the child cannot possibly be that of
the alleged father.
In the United States jurisdiction, the admissibility of blood tests results to
prove non-paternity has already been passed upon in several cases. The positive
results of blood tests excluding paternity, in a case in which it was shown that
proper safeguards were drawn around the testing procedures, were recognized as
final on the question of paternity (Gilpin v. Gilpin). Evidence of non-paternity
consisting of the result of blood grouping tests was admitted despite a finding
that the alleged father had cohabited with the mother within the period of
gestation (Cuneo v. Cuneo). The Court said that the competent medical testimony was
overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff, and to reject such testimony would be
tantamount may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any
person having capacity to succeed.

3. NO. Portion G 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.