TWO PARTS

1. Testimonial Evidence of Pedigree (testimony of a family member)

2. Documentary or Object Evidence of Pedigree (entries in family bibles or other family books or
charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like)

TESTIMONY

Recall the case of People vs. Pruna and read the case of People vs. Sariego, GR No. 203322, February
24, 2026, on the matter of proving the age of the offended party in cases of rape where his or her age is
a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.

People vs. Sariego, G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2026

If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or any member of
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130, shall be
sufficient under the following circumstances:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old.

In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother
or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. (Why must it be admitted by the accused? Take note that
the complainant’s testimony relating to her age is hearsay—no personal knowledge as to when she got
out of her mother’s womb.)

FAMILY BIBLES

 Not every Bible belonging to a family, even if handed down from generation to generation, can
be considered as proof of pedigree under Section 42.
 It will be admissible only if it is a Bible that has spaces or notations reserved for recording of
important family events.

ENGRAVINGS ON RINGS

Usually, name (spouse) and date of the wedding is engraved on the wedding rings. It is an heirloom
passed from one generation to another. What if you want to prove 50 years from now that a certain Ms.
Igbalic was married to a certain Mr. Cerro on a particular date—Dec. 2019, but you have no other proof?
Engravings on rings can be used even if nobody has personal knowledge of that anymore (as it is 50-60
years from now when all of us have probably gotten back to dust.)

FAMILY PORTRAITS
(JZE shows a B&W family portrait of a man, a woman, and their daughter. Daughter was already dead
when they took the family portrait, posing as if she is still alive.) If you wanted to prove that this girl is
the daughter of Mr. X and Mrs. Y, the family portrait can be used.

DOCUMENTARY/OBJECT EVIDENCE

Q: Can the following private documents be considered under the 2nd part of Section 42:

 Letters of introduction to possible relatives; recommendation letter for employment from a

putative relative; photograph taken at a birthday party; letter of introduction from Former Vice
President Fernando Lopez (relative of the putative father) addressed to then United States
Consul Vernon McAnnich.

A: NO (Jison vs. CA) It must be in the nature of a family heirloom, or a family possession, or a family’s
joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person.

JISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998

The second portion of this provision [Documentary/Object Evidence], in light of the rule of ejusdem
generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or those articles which
represent, in effect, a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have
been described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the family, or those which, if preserved in
a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects which are
regarded as reflective of a family’s reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on
tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.

Plainly then, the Exhibits, as private documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed
above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40 (now Section 42).

Example:

In a case, ingon nila ninong niya ang isa niya nga uncle. Is that enough to prove pedigree na nipirma sa
iyahang baptismal certificate ang iyahang putative na uncle? If you use Jison vs. CA, of course not
because it cannot be considered a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. It
has to be a family’s joint statement, common ang belief na atoa ning parente si A, or B, or C.

TOMBSTONES

You wanted to prove a certain Gerald Anderson existed, but you don't have his birth certificate
anymore. Your only evidence would be a photograph of his tombstone: born March 21, 1885; died April
16, 1918. Kinsa man nagpabuhat anang tombstone, syempre ang family. When they stated the date of
birth and date of death, it is a family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person.
Remember, pedigree includes date of birth and date of death., place and time which it takes place.

MONUMENTS and COFFIN PLATES

(shows a Coffin Plate: Seth Harding; Died Sept. 29, 1868; Age: 88.) That used to be very prevalent before
in the US, Great Britain, and later on Philipines. Now, instead of a coffin plate, (shows casket ribbon
banners: alaala ng mga magulang xxx) Can that be considered as document/object evidence of
pedigree? It is definitely a joint statement of the family’s belief as to the pedigree of the person. Kanang
gihaya diha amoa nang relative. Kami tanan nakabutang diri, mga igsuon mi, mga apo ni sila tanan or
mga anak ni sila tanan. But the question is, is it in the nature of a family heirloom or family possession
that is kept? No. It may be an admission/a statement of the family’s belief BUT it’s not in the nature of
a family heirloom or family possession. But if wala jud ko lain evidence, I will take a photograph of that
and present it in court.

Distinguish

Section 41
Act or declaration about pedigree
Witness need not be a member of the family
Relation of the declarant and the person subject
of the inquiry must be established by
independent evidence
Testimony is about what the declarant, who is
dead or unable to testify, has said concerning the
pedigree of the family
Section 42
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
Witness is a member of the family
The witness is the one to whom the fact [of
pedigree] relates, it is not necessary for him to
establish by independent evidence his
relationship to the family
Testimony is about family reputation or tradition
covering matters of pedigree

Final note

It is the common reputation in the family , and not the common reputation in community, that is a
material element of evidence which establishes pedigree. Thus, matters of pedigree may be proved by
reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the
pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the community.

IMPORTANT CASES

TECSON EL AL vs. COMELEC, FPJ, GR Nos. 161434, 161634 & 161824, March 3, 2004

What proof of pedigree allowed FPJ to run for president despite questions regarding his citizenship?

The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his citizenship status should thus be
deemed independent from and not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. The
Civil Code or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation or paternity, although good law, do not have
preclusive effects on matters alien to personal and family relations. The ordinary rules on evidence could
well and should govern. For instance, the matter about pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being
applicable by the Civil Code or Family Code provisions.

For the Sec. 39 (now Sec. 41), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to apply, it would be necessary that (a) the
declarant is already dead or unable to testify, (b) the pedigree of a person must be at issue, (c) the
declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question, (d) declaration must be made
before the controversy has occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and the person
whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe
submitted as Exhibit 20 before the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F. Poe,
recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e, living together with Bessie Kelley and his children
(including respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one family.

TISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997

Read this for Sections 41 and 42

This is a case of an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land and an apartment. Teodora Guerrero died
and left a parcel of land and an apartment. Her husband Martin Guerrero adjudicates the said land to
him and consequently sold to Teodora Domingo. The nephews and nieces Tison et al seek to inherit by
right of representation from the property disputed property presenting documentary evidence to prove
filial relation. The respondent contended that the documents/evidence presented is inadmissible for
being hearsay since the affiants were never presented for cross-examination.

I: WON the evidence presented is hearsay evidence and is inadmissible.

H: The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative
common to both claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's estate,
the relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself.
There must be some independent proof of this fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be
other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it is
sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his
declarations to the property of some other member of the family.

We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one instance where the general
requirement on evidence aliunde may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate of
the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner
Corazon is her niece, is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, notwithstanding
the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration is
rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of justice. 20
More importantly, there is in the present case an absolute failure by all and sundry to refute that
declaration made by the decedent.

From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely concluded, on the sole basis of the decedent's
declaration and without need for further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew of
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. As held in one case, where the subject of the declaration is the declarant's
own relationship to another person, it seems absurb to require, as a foundation for the admission of the
declaration, proof of the very fact which the declaration is offered to establish. The preliminary proof
would render the main evidence unnecessary.

Applying the general rule in the present case would nonetheless produce the same result. For while the
documentary evidence submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform to the rules on their
admissibility, we are however of the considered opinion that the same may be admitted by reason of
private respondent's failure to interpose any timely objection thereto at the time they were being
offered in evidence. It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged
inadmissible document is offered in evidence, otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since
the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.

As explained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., it has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a
protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, otherwise
it will be deemed to have been waived. The proper time is when from the question addressed to the
witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the inadmissibility of the
evidence is, or may be inferred.

Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform with the statute is a waiver if the
provisions of the law. That objection to a question put to a witness must be made at the time the
question is asked. An objection to the admission of evidence on the ground of incompetency, taken after
the testimony has been given, is too late. Thus, for instance, failure to object to parol evidence given on
the stand, where the party is in a position to object, is a waiver of any objections thereto.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that counsel for private respondent unreservedly cross-examined
petitioners, as the lone witness, on the documentary evidence that were offered. At no time was the
issue of the supposed inadmissibility thereof, or the possible basis for objection thereto, ever raised.
Instead, private respondent's counsel elicited answers from the witness on the circumstances and
regularity of her obtention of said documents: The observations later made by private respondent in her
comment to petitioners' offer of exhibits, although the grounds therefor were already apparent at the
time these documents were being adduced in evidence during the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison
but which objections were not timely raised therein, may no longer serve to rectify the legal
consequences which resulted therefrom. Hence, even assuming ex gratia argumenti that these
documents are inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account of herein private respondent's failure to
object thereto, the same may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein
asserted.

Accordingly, the Certificate of Marriage (Exhibit S) wherein it is indicated that the parents of Teodora
Dezoller are Isabelo Dezoller and Cecilia Calpo, as well as the Certificates of Baptism of Teodora Dezoller
(Exhibit H) and Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit J) which both reflect the names of their parents as Isabelo
Dezoller and Cecilia Calpo, to show that Hermogenes Dezoller is the brother of Teodora Dezoller
Guerrero; and the Death Certificate of Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit K) the entries wherein were made
by petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison as his daughter, together with the Joint Affidavits of Pablo Verzosa
and Meliton Sitjar (Exhibits N and P), to prove that herein petitioners are the children of Hermogenes
Dezoller — these can be deemed to have sufficiently established the relationship between the declarant
and herein petitioners. This is in consonance with the rule that a prima facie showing is sufficient and
that only slight proof of the relationship is required. Finally, it may not be amiss to consider as in the
nature of circumstantial evidence the fact that both the declarant and the claimants, who are the
subject of the declaration, bear the surname Dezoller.

COMMON REPUTATION [old rules] [as an exception to the hearsay rule]

Section 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting
facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral character,
may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation. (35)