Agustin, Jireh N.

Cases 66-68
Legal Question/
Case Title(s) and Problem/Issue Legal Provision/Legal
citation Presented by the Why is this a Problem? Principle or Rule Involved Conclusion
Case(s)

Cruz v. Cristobal Did the petitioners Petitioners Mercedes Cristobal, Article 172 of the Family Yes. “Any other means
validly prove their Anselmo Cristobal, the heirs of Code provides: allowed by the Rules of Court
G.R. No. 140422 filiation? the deceased Socorro Cristobal, and Special Laws,” may
and Elisa Cristobal-Sikat claim Art. 172. The filiation of consist of the child’s
August 7, 2006 that they are the legitimate legitimate children is baptismal certificate, a
children of Buenaventura established by any of the judicial admission, a family
Cristobal during his first marriage following: (1) The record of bible in which the child’s
to Ignacia Cristobal. On the other birth appearing in the civil name has been entered,
hand, private respondents register or a final judgment; common reputation
Norberto, Florencio, Eufrosina or (2) An admission of respecting the child’s
and Jose, all surnamed Cristobal legitimate filiation in a public pedigree, admission by
are also the children of document or a private silence, the testimony of
Buenaventura Cristobal resulting handwritten instrument and witnesses, and other kinds of
from his second marriage to signed by the parent proof of admission under
Donata Enriquez. concerned. Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
On 18 June 1926, Buenaventura In the absence of the In the present case, the
Cristobal purchased a parcel of foregoing evidence, the baptismal certificates of
land with an area of 535 square legitimate filiation shall be Elisa, Anselmo, and the late
meters located at 194 P. Parada proved by: (1) the open and Socorro were presented.
St., Sta. Lucia, San Juan, Metro continuous possession of the Baptismal certificate is one of
Manila, covered by Transfer status of a legitimate child; or the acceptable documentary
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (2) Any other means allowed evidence to prove filiation in
10878-2 (the subject property). by the Rules of Court and accordance with the Rules of
special laws. Court and jurisprudence. In
Buenaventura Cristobal died the case of Mercedes, who
intestate. More than six decades
later, petitioners learned that
private respondents had executed
an extrajudicial partition of the
subject property and transferred
its title to their names.
A Complaint for Annulment of
Title and Damages was filed
before the RTC by petitioners
against private respondents to
recover their alleged pro-indiviso
shares in the subject property.
They sought the annulment of the
Deed of Partition executed by
respondents on 24 February 1948;
the cancellation of TCTs No.
165132, No. 165133, No. 165134
and No. 165135 issued in the
individual names of private
respondents; re-partitioning of the
subject property in accordance
with the law of succession.
To prove their filiation with the
deceased Buenaventura Cristobal,
the baptismal certificates of Elisa,
Anselmo, and the late Socorro
were presented. In the case of
Mercedes who was born on 31
January 1909, she produced a
certification issued by the Office
of the Local Civil Registrar of
was born on 31 January 1909,
she produced a certification
issued by the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of San
Juan, Metro Manila, attesting
to the fact that records of
birth for the years 1901,
1909, 1932 to 1939, 1940,
1943, and 1948 were all
destroyed due to ordinary
wear and tear.
Petitioners likewise
presented Ester Santos as
witness who testified that
petitioners enjoyed that
common reputation in the
community where they reside
as being the children of
BuevaventuraCristobal with
his first wife. Testimonies of
witnesses were also presented
to prove filiation by
continuous possession of the
status as a legitimate child. In
contrast, it bears to point out
that private respondents were
unable to present any proof to
refute the petitioners’ claim
and evidences of filiation to
Buenaventura Cristobal. The
foregoing evidence thus
suffice to convince this Court
that petitioners are, indeed,
 San Juan, Metro Manila, attesting children of the late
to the fact that records of birth for Buenaventura Cristobal
the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to during the first marriage.
1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were Considering that the Deed of
all destroyed due to ordinary wear Partition of the subject
and tear. property does not affect the
right of petitioners to inherit
The trial court dismissed the case, from their deceased father,
ruling that petitioners failed to this Court shall then proceed
prove their filiation with the to divide the subject property
deceased Buenaventura Cristobal between petitioners and
as the baptismal and birth private respondents, as the
certificates presented have scant rule on succession prescribes.
evidentiary value and that
petitioners’ inaction for a long
period of time amounts to laches.

Heirs of Maramag Are the members of The petition alleged that: (1) The only persons entitled to Yes. It is clear from the
v. Maramag the legitimate family petitioners were the legitimate claim the insurance proceeds petition filed before the trial
entitled to the wife and children of Loreto are either the insured, if still court that, although
G.R. No. 181132 proceeds of the Maramag (Loreto), while alive; or the beneficiary, if petitioners are the legitimate
insurance for the respondents were Loreto’s the insured is already heirs of Loreto, they were not
June 5, 2009 concubine? illegitimate family; (2) Eva de deceased, upon the named as beneficiaries in the
Guzman Maramag (Eva) was a maturation of the policy. The insurance policies issued by
concubine of Loreto and a exception to this rule is a Insular and Grepalife. The
suspect in the killing of the latter, situation where the insurance basis of petitioners’ claim is
thus, she is disqualified to receive contract was intended to that Eva, being a concubine
any proceeds from his insurance benefit third persons who are of Loreto and a suspect in his
policies from Insular Life not parties to the same in the murder, is disqualified from
Assurance Company, Ltd. form of favorable stipulations being designated as
(Insular) and Great Pacific Life or indemnity. In such a case, beneficiary of the insurance
Assurance Corporation third parties may directly sue policies, and that Eva’s
(Grepalife); (3) the illegitimate and claim from the insurer. children with Loreto, being
children of Loreto—Odessa, Karl
Brian, and Trisha Angelie—were
entitled only to one-half of the
legitime of the legitimate
children, thus, the proceeds
released to Odessa and those to
be released to Karl Brian and
Trisha Angelie were inofficious
and should be reduced; and (4)
petitioners could not be deprived
of their legitimes, which should
be satisfied first.
Insular admitted that Loreto
misrepresented Eva as his
legitimate wife and Odessa, Karl
Brian, and Trisha Angelie as his
legitimate children, and that they
filed their claims for the
insurance proceeds of the
insurance policies; that when it
ascertained that Eva was not the
legal wife of Loreto, it
disqualified her as a beneficiary
and divided the proceeds among
Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha
Angelie, as the remaining
designated beneficiaries; and that
it released Odessa’s share as she
was of age, but withRULING the
release of the shares of minors
Karl Brian and Trisha Angelie
pending submission of letters of
illegitimate children, are
entitled to a lesser share of
the proceeds of the policies.
They also argued that
pursuant to Section 12 of the
Insurance Code, Eva’s share
in the proceeds should be
forfeited in their favor, the
former having brought about
the death of Loreto. Thus,
they prayed that the share of
Eva and portions of the shares
of Loreto’s illegitimate
children should be awarded to
them, being the legitimate
heirs of Loreto entitled to
their respective legitimes.
Petitioners are third parties to
the insurance contracts with
Insular and Grepalife and,
thus, are not entitled to the
proceeds thereof.
Accordingly, respondents
Insular and Grepalife have no
legal obligation to turn over
the insurance proceeds to
petitioners. The revocation of
Eva as a beneficiary in one
policy and her
disqualification as such in
another are of no moment
considering that the
guardianship. Insular alleged that
the complaint or petition failed to
state a cause of action insofar as
it sought to declare as void the
designation of Eva as beneficiary,
because Loreto revoked her
designation as such in Policy No.
A001544070 and it disqualified
her in Policy No. A001693029;
and insofar as it sought to declare
as inofficious the shares of
Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha
Angelie, considering that no
settlement of Loreto’s estate had
been filed nor had the respective
shares of the heirs been
determined. Insular further
claimed that it was bound to
honor the insurance policies
designating the children of
Loreto with Eva as beneficiaries
pursuant to Section 53 of the
Insurance Code.
designation of the illegitimate
children as beneficiaries in
Loreto’s insurance policies
remains valid. Because no
legal proscription exists in
naming as beneficiaries the
children of illicit relationships
by the insured, the shares of
Eva in the insurance
proceeds, whether forfeited
by the court in view of the
prohibition on donations
under Article 739 of the Civil
Code or by the insurers
themselves for reasons based
on the insurance contracts,
must be awarded to the said
illegitimate children, the
designated beneficiaries, to
the exclusion of petitioners. It
is only in cases where the
insured has not designated
any beneficiary, or when the
designated beneficiary is
disqualified by law to receive
the proceeds, that the
insurance policy proceeds
shall redound to the benefit of
the estate of the insured.
Imperial v. Court Is there a renunciation Leoncio Imperial was the
of Appeals of legitime that may registered owner of a 32,837-
be presumed in the square meter parcel of land
G.R. No. 112483 case? covered by Original Certificate of
Title No. 200, also known as Lot
October 8, 1999 45 of the Cadastral Survey of
Albay. Leoncio sold the said lot
for P1.00 to his acknowledged
natural son, petitioner herein,
who then acquired title over the
land and proceeded to subdivide
it into several lots. Petitioner and
private respondents admit that
despite the contract's designation
as one of "Absolute Sale", the
transaction was in fact a
donation.
Barely two years after the
donation, Leoncio filed a
complaint for annulment of the
said Deed of Absolute Sale, on
the ground that he was deceived
by petitioner herein into signing
the said document. The dispute,
however, was resolved through a
compromise agreement, approved
by the Court of First Instance,
under which terms: (1) Leoncio
recognized the legality and
validity of the rights of petitioner
to the land donated; and (2)
petitioner agreed to sell a
The law on succession does
not countenance tacit
repudiation of inheritance.
Rather, it requires an express
act on the part of the heir.
Thus, under Article 1051 of
Civil Code: The repudiation
of an inheritance shall be
made in a public or authentic
instrument, or by petition
presented to the court having
jurisdiction over the
testamentary or intestate
proceedings.
None. No renunciation of
legitime may be presumed
from the foregoing acts. It
must be remembered that at
the time of the substitution,
the judgment approving the
compromise agreement has
already been rendered. Victor
merely participated in the
execution of the compromise
judgment. He was not a party
to the compromise
agreement.
Thus, when Victor substituted
Leoncio in Civil Case No.
1177 upon the latter's death,
his act of moving for
execution of the compromise
judgment cannot be
considered an act of
renunciation of his legitime.
He was, therefore, not
precluded or estopped from
subsequently seeking the
reduction of the donation,
under Article 772. Nor are
Victor's heirs, upon his death,
precluded from doing so, as
their right to do so is
expressly recognized under
Article 772, and also in
Article 1053. If the heir
designated 1,000-square meter should die without having
portion of the donated land, and accepted or repudiated the
to deposit the proceeds thereof in inheritance, his right shall be
a bank, for the convenient transmitted to his heirs.
disposal of Leoncio. In case of
Leoncio's death, it was agreed
that the balance of the deposit
will be withdrawn by petitioner
to defray burial costs. Pending
execution of the above judgment,
Leoncio died, leaving only two
heirs — the herein petitioner,
who is his acknowledged natural
son, and an adopted son, Victor
Imperial, who was substituted in
place of Leoncio in the above-
mentioned case, and it was he
who moved for execution of
judgment. On March 15, 1962,
the motion for execution was
duly granted.

Fifteen years thereafter, or on

July 26, 1977, Victor died single
and without issue, survived only
by his natural father, Ricardo
Villalon, who was a lessee of a
portion of the disputed land. Four
years hence, or on September 25,
1981, Ricardo died, leaving as his
only heirs his two children, Cesar
and Teresa Villalon. Sometime in
1986, Cesar and Teresa filed a
complaint for annulment of the
donation with the Regional Trial
Court of Legazpi City. The trial
court granted the motion to
dismiss, but the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's order
and remanded the case for further
proceedings.