BALUYOT VS. BALUYOT May an adulterous child file an action for recognition?
FACTS:
In Special Proceedings No. 1835, entitled "Intestate Estate of
Deceased Enrique Baluyut,' filed before the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga, herein petitioners filed on April 29,
1965 a petition for intervention. The petition alleged that
petitioners have a legal interest in the estate of the deceased
Enrique M. Baluyut; that petitioners-minors are the illegitimate
children of the deceased, begotten out of wedlock by said
deceased and petitioners' mother and guardian ad litem Norma
Urbano; that petitioners were conceived and born at the time
when Norma Urbano cohabited with the deceased while the
latter was already married to Felicidad S. Baluyut; that they
were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of
children of the deceased during his lifetime by direct overt acts
of said deceased having supported and maintained them. The
petitioners also alleged that they were deliberately excluded
from the estate of Enrique M. Baluyut (pp. 10-18, Record on
Appeal).
Felicidad S. Baluyut, widow of Enrique and appointed
administratrix of his estate, opposed the petition for
intervention (p. 20, Record on Appeal). On May 8, 1965 (pp.
18-19, Record on Appeal), the trial court issued an order
allowing the petitioners to intervene.
SC RULING:
Proof of filiation of the petitioners to the late Enrique M. Baluyut
is not sufficient to confer upon them any hereditary right in the
estate of the deceased. What is necessary to be established by
an illegitimate not natural child in order that he may be entitled
to successional rights under Article 887 of the New Civil Code,
is not the fact of his bare filiation but a Kalibo Aklan.
filiation acknowledged  by the putative parent
There is no evidence as required by Article 278 which proves
that the petitioners were recognized by the deceased during
his lifetime as his spurious children. The petitioners' records of
birth, although in the name of Enrique Baluyut, were not signed
by the latter. There was no authentic writing presented nor any
statement in a court of record which would prove that the
petitioners were recognized by the deceased.
ILANO VS. CA
FACTS:
Leoncia first met petitioner Artemio G. Ilano while she was
working as secretary to Atty. Mariano C. Virata. Petitioner was
one of the clients of Atty. Virata. Sometime in 1957, Leoncia,
then managing a business of her own as Namarco distributor,
met petitioner again who was engaged in the same business
and they renewed acquaintances. Since then, he would give
her his unsold allocation of goods. Later, he courted her for
more than four years. Their relationship became intimate and
with his promise of marriage, they eloped to Guagua,
Pampanga in April, 1962.
Private respondent Merceditas S. Ilano was born on December
30, 1963 also at the Manila Sanitarium. Her birth was recorded
as Merceditas de los Santos Ilano, child of Leoncia Aguinaldo
de los Santos and Artemio Geluz Ilano. Leoncia submitted
receipts issued by the Manila Sanitarium to show that she was
confined there from December 30, 1963 until January 2, 1964
under the name of Mrs. Leoncia Ilano.
After weighing the contradictory testimonies and evidence of
the parties, the trial court was not fully satisfied that petitioner
is the father of Merceditas, on the basis of the following: 1)
petitioner and Leoncia were not in cohabitation during the
period of Merceditas’ conception; 2) testimony of Melencio that
he frequented the apartment where Leoncia was living, took
care of all the bills and shared the same bed with her; 3) the
birth certificate of Merceditas was not signed by petitioner; 4)
petitioner denied his signature in the monthly report card of
Merceditas; and 5) there is no clear and sufficient showing that
support was given by petitioner to Merceditas. The Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
SC RULING:
Yes. It is now commonplace for an abandoned illegitimate
offspring to sue his father for recognition and support. Since
petitioner had a subsisting marriage to another at the time
Merceditas was conceived, she is a spurious child. In this
regard, Article 287 of the Civil Code provides that illegitimate
children other than natural in accordance with Article 269 and
other than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to
support and such successional rights as are granted in the Civil
Code. The Civil Code has given these rights to them because
the transgressions of social conventions committed by the
parents should not be visited upon them. However, before
Article 287 can be availed of, there must first be a recognition
of paternity either voluntarily or by court action. This arises
from the legal principle that an unrecognized spurious child like
a natural child has no rights from his parents or to their estate
because his rights spring not from the filiation or blood
relationship but from his acknowledgment by the parent. In
other words, the rights of an illegitimate child arose not
because he was the true or real child of his parents but
because under the law, he had been recognized or
acknowledged as such a child. Private respondent’s evidence
to establish her filiation with and the paternity of petitioner is
too overwhelming to be ignored or brushed aside by the highly
improbable and fatally flawed testimony of Melencio and the
inherently weak denials of petitioner.
TRINIDAD VS. CA
FACTS:
Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the parents of
three (3) children, namely, Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. When
Patricio died in 1940, survived by the above named children,
he left four (4) parcels of land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon,
Arturio Trinidad, born on July 21, 1943, claimed to be the
legitimate son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. Sometime after
the marriage, he demanded from the defendants to partition
the land into three equal shares and to give him the (1/3)
individual share of his late father, but the defendants refused.
Arturio Trinidad filed, an action for partition of four parcels of
land. Defendants denied that plaintiff was the son of the late
Inocentes Trinidad. Defendants contended that Inocentes was
single when he died in 1941, before plaintiff’s birth. Defendants
also denied that plaintiff had lived with them, and claimed that
the parcels of land described in the complaint had been in their
possession since the death of their father in 1940 and that they
had not given plaintiff a share in the produce of the land.
Arturio presented witnesses to prove his position. Jovita
Gerardo testified that Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato
are the parents of Arturio; that Felix and Lourdes as the uncle
and aunt of Arturio; and also identified pictures where the
respondents were with Arturio and his family.(At this stage of
the trial, Felix Trinidad [died] without issue and he was survived
by his only sister, Lourdes Trinidad.) Another witness, ISABEL
MEREN, 72 years old and a widow testified that she knows
Inocentes Trinidad as the father of Arturio Trinidad; that she
knew Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato as the parents
of Arturio and that she was present when they were married in
New Washington, Aklan, by a protestant pastor by the name of
Lauriano Lajaylajay. She further testified that upon the death of
Inocentes, Lourdes took Arturio and cared for him. ARTURIO
TRINIDAD, himself, was presented as witness. As proof that
he is the son of Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, he
showed a certificate of baptism, and a certificate of loss issued
by the LCR that his birth certificate was burned during World
War 2. He also testified that he lived with Felix and Lourdes
and provided for his needs.
On the other hand, defendants presented Pedro Briones who
testified that Inocentes was not married when he died in 1940s.
Lourdes Trinidad also testified that she was not aware that his
brother married anybody and denied that Arturio lived with
them. Beatriz Sayon also testified that Inocentes died in 1941,
and that Felicidad Molato had never been married to
Inocentes. The trial court rendered a twenty-page decision in
favor of Arturio. The CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner presented sufficient evidence of July 3, 1959 up to September 3, 1961, all of which were duly
his parent’s marriage and his filation. receipted for by Nieves Cruz and/or her children and in which
receipts it is expressly stated that said amounts were "bilang
SC RULING: karagdagan sa ipinagbili naming lupa sa kanila (additional
The partition of the late Patricios real properties requires payments for the land we sold to them)", Exhibits 12, 12-a to
preponderant proof that petitioner is a co-owner or co-heir of 12-z-1. These totalled P27,198.60 which with the P20,000.00
the decedent’s estate. His right as a co-owner would, in turn, previously paid amounted to P47,198.60.
depend on whether he was born during the existence of a valid
and subsisting marriage between his mother (Felicidad) and Pending the proceedings below, plaintiff Nieves Cruz died and
his putative father (Inocentes). was, accordingly, substituted as such by her surviving children,
to wit: Arsenio, Nelo, Jaime, Andres and Amanda, all
When the question of whether a marriage has been contracted surnamed Nery, and Carmen and Armenia both surnamed
arises in litigation, said marriage may be proven by relevant Mendoza.
evidence. To prove the fact of marriage, the following would
constitute competent evidence: the testimony of a witness to In due season, the trial court — finding for plaintiff Nieves Cruz
the matrimony, the couple’s public and open cohabitation as and her buyer, Barbara Lombos Rodriguez, and against
husband and wife after the alleged wedlock, the birth and the defendants.
baptismal certificates of children born during such union, and
the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents. SC RULING:
Inasmuch as rescission of the contract between Nieves Cruz
In the case at bar, petitioner secured a certification from the and the petitioner herein was decreed by the respondent Court,
Office of the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of births, the latter should be entitled to restitution as a matter of law. It is
deaths and marriages were lost, burned or destroyed during of no moment that herein petitioner did not file any cross-claim
the Japanese occupation of said municipality. Although the for restitution against the plaintiff, for her answer was directed
marriage contract is considered the primary evidence of the to the defendants' claim which was in the nature of a third-party
marital union, petitioner’s failure to present it is not proof that complaint. She was neither a co-defendant nor a co-third-party
no marriage took place, as other forms of relevant evidence defendant with Nieves Cruz; nor were Nieves Cruz and the
may take its place. In place of a marriage contract, two herein petitioner opposing parties a quo, for they joined in
witnesses were presented by petitioner: Isabel Meren and maintaining the validity of their contract. Section 4 of Rule 9,
Jovita Gerardo. It further gives rise to the disputable therefore, has no application to the petitioner's right to
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as restitution.
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage. Petitioner also presented his baptismal certificate in We declare, consequently, that the estate of Nieves Cruz is
which Inocentes and Felicidad were named as the child’s liable to Barbara Lombos Rodriguez for the return to the latter
father and mother, and family pictures. of the sum of P77,216, less the amount which Atanacio
Valenzuela, et al. had deposited with the trial court in
The totality of petitioner’s positive evidence clearly accordance with the decision of respondent Court. We cannot
preponderates over private respondent’s self- serving order the heirs of Nieves Cruz to make the refund. As we
negations. observed above, these heirs are liable for restitution only to the
extent of their individual inheritance from Nieves Cruz. Other
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed actions or proceedings have to be commenced to determine
Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The the liability accruing to each of the heirs of Nieves Cruz.
trial courts decision is REINSTATED.
ACCORDINGLY, the present petition for mandamus and
certiorari is denied, at petitioner's cost.
RODRIGUEZ VS. CA
FACTS:
On December 31, 1958, in Parañaque, Rizal, by virtue of a
document denominated "Kasunduan" written in the vernacular
and ratified before Notary Public Lazaro C. Ison of that locality,
Nieves Cruz, now deceased, authorized the spouses Atanacio
Valenzuela, and Maximina Victorio and Liberate Santos to sell
a certain parcel of land of about 44,634 square meters
belonging to her and situated in Sitio Matatdo, Barrio San
Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, the identity of which is not now in
dispute. Among, the anent conditions of this authority were that
the price payable to Nieves Cruz for the land would be P1.60
per square meter and any overprice would pertain to the
agents; that Nieves Cruz would receive from said agents, by
way of advance payment on account of the purchase price to
be paid by whomsoever may buy the land, the sum of
P10,000.00 upon the execution of the agreement aforesaid,
and another P10,000.00 on January 5, 1959; that the balance
on the total purchase price would be payable to Nieves Cruz
upon the issuance of the Torrens title over the property, the
obtention of which was undertaken by the agents who also
were bound to advance the expense therefor in the sum of
P4,000.00 which would be deductible from the last amount due
on the purchase price; and that should the agent find no buyer
by the time that Torrens title is issued, Nieves Cruz reserved
the right to look for a buyer herself although all sums already
received from the agents would be returned to them without
interest.

As confirmed by Nieves Cruz in a "recibo", Exhibit 2, bearing

the date "... ng Enero ng 1959," the stipulated "advance
payment (paunang bayad)" of P20,000.00 was duly made to
her. Contrary to the agreement that the balance on the
purchase price would be paid upon the issuance of the Torrens
title over the land (September 9, 1960), Nieves Cruz and her
children, however, collected from the agents, either thru
Maximina Victorio or thru Salud G. de Leon, daughter of
Liberate Santos, various sums of money during the period from