CASE DIGEST

Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

Court Supreme Court, Second Division

Citation G.R. No. L-51263.

Date February 28, 1983

Petitioner CRESENCIANO LEONARDO

Respondents COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA CAILLES, et al.

Ponente De Castro, J.

Relevant topic Intestate Succession - c. Order of Intestate Succession—Arts. 978 – 1017

Page 1 of 6
CASE DIGEST
Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

Prepared by

FACTS:

 The deceased is Francisca Reyes who died intestate in 1942. She was survived by two (2) daughters, Maria and
Silvestra Cailles, and a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the son of her daughter, Pascuala Cailles who predeceased
her.

- Sotero Leonardo died in 1944, while Silvestra Cailles died in 1949 without any issue.

 In 1964, petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo, claiming to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo, filed a complaint
for ownership of properties, sum of money and accounting in CFI Rizal, praying mainly:

-to be declared one of the lawful heirs of the deceased Francisca Reyes, entitled to ½ share in the estate of said
deceased jointly with private respondent herein, Maria Cailles.

Page 2 of 6
CASE DIGEST
Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

 Answering the complaint, Maria Cailles asserted exclusive ownership over the subject properties and alleged that
petitioner is an illegitimate child who cannot succeed by right of representation.

 CFI rendered judgment in favor of the herein petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo.

 The trial court found that the evidence of the herein private respondent is insufficient to prove ownership of the
properties in suit.

 CA reversed the decision of the CFI thereby dismissing Cresenciano’s complaint.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE HELD

W/N the subject properties are exclusive properties of Maria Cailles? YES

RATIO:

Page 3 of 6
CASE DIGEST
Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

 To begin with, the CA found the subject properties to be the exclusive properties of the private respondents.

 Accordingly, petitioner takes issue with the CA on the said findings of fact, forgetting that since the present
petition is one for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised. It is a well-established rule laid
down by the Court in numerous cases that findings of facts by the CA are, generally, final and conclusive upon
the SC. Moreover, the case at bar is not one of the exceptions to the said general rule.

ISSUE HELD

W/N Cresenciano has successfully established his filiation? NO

 Cresenciano claims that he is the son of Sotero Leonardo, the son of one of the daughters (Pascuala) of
Francisca Reyes. His further alleges that since Pascuala predeceased Francisca Reyes, and that his father,
Sotero, who subsequently died in 1944, survived Francisca Reyes, plaintiff can consequently succeed to the
estate of Francisca Reyes by right of representation.

Page 4 of 6
CASE DIGEST
Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

 In support of his claim, Cresenciano submitted in evidence his alleged birth certificate showing that his father
is Sotero Leonardo, married to Socorro Timbol, his alleged mother.

 However the Court ruled that the name of the child described in the birth certificate is not that of the petitioner
but a certain 'Alfredo Leonardo' who was born to Sotero Leonardo and Socorro Timbol. Other than his bare
allegation, plaintiff did not submit any durable evidence showing that the 'Alfredo Leonardo' mentioned in the
birth certificate is no other than he himself.

ISSUE (Relevant to the assigned topic) HELD

W/N Cresenciano as the alleged great grandson of the deceased Francisca NO

Reyes can legally inherit by representation?

Page 5 of 6
CASE DIGEST
Leonardo v. CA
Law 105 - Succession

 Even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still he cannot, by right of representation, claim
a share of the estate left by the deceased Francisca Reyes considering that, as found again by the CA, he
was born outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he was born on September 13, 1938, his alleged
putative father and mother were not yet married.

 What is more, his alleged father's first marriage was still subsisting. At most, petitioner would be an illegitimate
child who has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his father, like the
deceased Francisca Reyes1.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed in this petition is hereby affirmed, with
costs against the petitioner.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
N/A

1
See Article 992, Civil Code of the Philippines.

Page 6 of 6