1. GR NO.
167109 FEBRUARY 6, 2007 records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their naturalization and
FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN and MEROPE E.
BRAGANZA, respondents.
YNARES- SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Felicitas married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in
Pangasinan. They then migrated to the US and allegedly became
naturalized citizens. After 38 years of marriage, they divorced in April of
1988.
In June 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Pangasinan.
Petitioner then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with
damages in the RTC against respondents Orlando and Merope on the
contention that it was bigamous.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in-interest but it
was denied.
The RTC rendered judgement in favor of the petitioner, but on
appeal to the CA, the decision was reversed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has the personality to file a petition for
the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the ground of
bigamy?
HELD:
The Court stated that we first need to determine whether the
divorce decree was judicially granted. Both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were naturalized
American Citizens and that they obtained divorce decree. However, the
divorce.
The Court noted that it was the petitioner who alleged in her
complaint that they acquired American Citizenship and that respondent
obtained a judicial divorce decree. It is a settled rule that one who alleges
a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.
Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause
arising after marriage. It has two types: a. absolute divorce or a vinculo
matrimonii; and b. limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind
terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond
in full force.
If the divorce obtained by Felicitas and Orlando falls on the first
type, then the decision of the CA is correct in ruling that petitioner has no
legal personality to file the present case. But if it falls on the second type,
then the decision of the trial court will apply.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of
the foreigner.
Before it can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it
must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part
of the evidence, the Court cannot rule on the issue presented.
Case is REMANDED to the trial court.
2. GR NO. 124862 DECEMBER 22, 1998
FE D. QUITA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Fe and Arturo were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941.
They were not blessed with children. Eventually, Fe and Arturo obtained a
final judgement of divorce. Fe then married two times on different dates
to different persons.
Arturo died on April 1972. He left no will. A certain Lino Inciong
filed a petition with the RTC for issuance of letters of administration
concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company.
Respondent Blandina Dandan claiming to be the surviving spouse of
Arturo and 6 of their children all surnamed Padlan opposed the petition.
They submitted certified photocopies of the July 19, 1950 prtivate writing
and the final judgement of divorce between petition and Arturo. Later, the
brother of the deceased, Ruperto Padlan claimed to be the sole surviving
brother intervened.
At the scheduled hearing, private respondent as well as the 6
children and Ruperto failed to appear despite due notice. The trial court
required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children
within 10 days from receipt of notice but the prescribed period lapsed
without these documents.
The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escano held that a foreign
divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of
the present Civil Code was not entitled to recognition as valid in this
jurisdiction. The trial court disregarded the divorce between petitioner and
Arturo. Neither did it consider the extrajudicial settlement as valid lacking
judicial approval. It opined that there was no showing that marriage
existed between private respondent and Arturo, much less was it shown
that the alleged Padlan children had been acknowledged by the deceased
as his children with her. Only petiutioner Fe and Ruperto were declared
the intestate heirs of Arturo.
On motion for reconsideration, the private respondent were allowed
to present proofs of recognition of the children by the decease as his
legitimate children. Partial recognition was granted declaring five children
except Alexis to /12 of the estate and ½ to Ruperto.
On appeal, the CA declared the decision of the trial court as null
and void and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Fe was still entitled to inherit from the
decedent.
HELD:
No. Petitioner insist that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained
legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. Reading
between the lines, it is implied that petitioner is no longer a Filipino Citizen
at the time of the divorce. This should have prompted the trial court to
conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.
The Supreme Court deduce that the finding on their citizenship
pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not
supplied with sufficient basis to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the
time of the divorce. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino Citizen
at the time of the divorce, Fe would lose her right to inherit from Arturo.
In the case of Private respondent Blandina, she and Arturo were
married while the prior marriage of petitioner and Arturio was subsisting
thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considering void from the
beginning. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse that can inherit
from him.
Petition is DENIED.

3. GR NO. 112193 MARCH 13, 1996
JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., SIMEONA SAN JUAN ARUEGO, MA. IMMACULADA T.
ALANON, ROBERTO A. TORRES, CRISTINA A. TORRES, JUSTO JOSE
TORRES and AGUSTIN TORRES, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DIVISION and ANTONIA
ARUEGO, respondents.
HERMOSISIMA, JR. J.:
FACTS:
Private respondents, Antonia and Evelyn, represented by their
mother Luz, filed a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement
of Successional Rights before the RTC. Defendants Joe Jr., and five (5)
minor children of the deceased Gloria represented by their father Julio, are
the petitioners.
The complaint avers that the late Jose Sr. had an amorous
relationship with Luz from 1959, until his death on March of 1982. Out of
their relationship were born Antonina and Evelyn. The complaint prayed
for an order that herein private respondents be declared the illegitimate
children of the deceased Jose Sr.; that the petitioners be compelled to
recognize and acknowledge them as compulsory heirs of the deceased and
that their share and participation in the estate of their deceased father be
determined and ordered delivered to them.
The main basis of the action was alleged as the open and
continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children of the deceased
who showered the private respondents with the continuous and clear
manifestations of parental care and affection.
The lower court rendered judgement in favor of the private
respondents declaring Antonia as illegitimate daughter of the deceased and
entitled to a share equal to ½ portion of share of the legitimate children of
Jose Sr.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the decision
alleging loss of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court due to the passage
of EO No. 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines.
This was denied by the lower court. On Petition for Prohibition and
Certiorari before the CA, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the application of the Family Code in the case
prejudice or impair any vested right of the private respondent?
HELD:
Yes. The phrase “vested or acquired rights” under Art. 256 is not
defined by the Family Code, thus leaving it to the courts to determine what
it means as each particular issue is submitted to them.
The SC cited the case of Tayag v. CA as it finds application to the
present case as it involves a similar complaint denominated as “Claim for
Inheritance.” In the case cited, the Court held that the fact of filing of the
petition already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the
same proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at
the time, and such right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the
enactment of the new law.
Accordingly, Article 175 of the Family Code finds no proper
application to the instant case since it will ineluctably affect adversely a
right of private respondent and, consequentially, of the minor child she
represents, both of which have been vested with the filing of the complaint
in court. The trial court is, therefore, correct in applying the provisions of
Article 285 of the Civil Code and in holding that private respondent’s cause
of action has not yet prescribed.
Thus, the present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as
the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested
right of private respondent.
 Petition DENIED.
4. GR NO. 101929 JANUARY 06, 1993
BENJAMIN DIZON, ET. AL , petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents.
PADILLA, J.:
FACTS:
The spouses Hilario and Martina owned two lots in the province of
Pampanga, which was mortgaged to a certain Camilo Angeles. The
spouses have six children. It was alleged that the lot was redeemed by
their son Dionisio Galang and had it in his name despite the fact that the
funds used for the redemption came from his sisters.
On a Cadastral proceeding, the CFI issued a Certificate of Title for
lots 3548 and 3562 in the name solely of Dionisio Galang.
Respondents claim that Galang and his five sisters had partitioned
the subject lots in 1920 as embodied in an unnotarized affidavit executed
by Galang. Galang’s sisters constructed their houses on Lot 3548 which
passed from generations to generations undisturbed until the petitioners
informed them that the lots in question were titled in Galang’s name and
had been partitioned on the basis of an Extrajudicial Partition by the three
children of Galang.
Petitioners contend that the cadastral case which caused the
issuance of the Certificate of Title in favor of Galang was a proceeding in
rem, thus binding to the whole world. It was pointed out that when the
Original Certificates of Titles were issued, respondents did not raise any
objection up until 61 years.
The trial court upheld the title of Galang over the lots stating that
the action of the respondents had long prescribed. The presence or
construction of the houses on Lot No. 3548 was also not considered as
evidence in respondents' favor, since no proof was submitted establishing
respondents' right to occupy the place.
On appeal, the respondent CA reversed the decision of the trial
court. The CA declared co-ownership on the basis of the affidavit executed
by Galang.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence of Co-ownership over
the subject lots.
HELD:
No. Though the affidavit executed by Galang was accepted by the
Court as a fact, it pointed out that there is no reference to Lot Nos. 3548
and 3562. Said affidavit is not therefore a sufficient basis or support for
what is alleged by respondents as a partition among Dionisio and his now
deceased sisters.
The Court agreed with the trial court that in the absence of definite
proof establishing respondents' link/relationship to their alleged
predecessors-in-interest, they do not have any cause of action, and the
suit for partition must necessarily fall. The private respondent failed to
establish their connection or relationship with any of the five sisters save
for their unfounded averment that they are indeed descendants and heirs
of the deceased sisters.
Petition is GRANTED.

5. GR NO. 163707 SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., Presiding Judge,
RTC, Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and
KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother, REMEDIOS OANES,
respondents.
YNARES- SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent-minors Karen and Kamille Wei, represented by
their mother Remedios Oanes, filed a petition for letters of administration
before the RTC of Makati. They alleged that they are the duly
acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died intestate leaving
an estate valued at P10 million consisting of real and personal properties.
His known heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and 5 children all
surnamed Guy. Private respondents prayed for the appointment of a
regular administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate and
the appointment of petitioner Michael Guy as Special Administrator of the
estate.
In their comment, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the
petition. Michael asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that
his estate can be settled without securing letters of administration. He
further argued that private respondents should have established their
status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of Sima Wei.
On a Manifestation as supplement to the joint motion to dismiss,
petitioner and his co-heir alleged that private respondents already waived
and abandoned their claim when their mother Remedios executed a
Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for financial and
educational assistance received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor
children discharge the estate of Sima Wei from any and all liabilities.
The RTC denied the Joint Motion to dismiss as well as the
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that it had not been stablished
that she was the duly constituted guardian of her minor daughters. Thus,
there is no renunciation.
The CA also denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners argued that private respondents do not have the legal
personality to institute the petition for letters of administration as they
failed to prove their filiation during the lifetime of Sima Wei in accordance
with Art. 17 of the Family Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Release and Waiver of Claim precludes private
respondents from claiming their successional rights - NO
Whether or not private respondents are barred by prescription from
proving their filiation. – NO
HELD:
The SC find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The
Release and Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of its
execution. It merely states that Remedios received P30k and an
educational plan for her minor daughters by way of financial assistance
and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever nature and kind
against the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim. The document did not
specifically mention private respondent’s hereditary share in the estate of
Sima Wei, it cannot be construed as a waiver of successional rights.
Even assuming that Remedios really waived the hereditary rights of
private respondents, such will be void. According to Art. 1044 of the Civil
Code, parents and guardians may not repudiate the inheritance of their
ward without judicial approval. Not having been judicially authorized, the
Release and Waiver of Claim in the instant case is void and will not bar
private respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased.
 With regard to the issue on private respondent’s filiation, the Court
agreed with the CA that a ruling on the same would be premature
considering that private respondents have yet to present evidence.
Before the Family Code took effect, the governing law on actions for
recognition of illegitimate children was Article 285 of the Civil Code.
Under the Family Code, when filiation of an illegitimate child is established
by a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an
admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument signed by the parent concerned, the action for recognition may
be brought by the child during his or her lifetime.
However, if the action is based upon open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the rules
or special laws, it may only be brought during the lifetime of the alleged
parent.
It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends
on the type of evidence to be adduced by private respondents in proving
their filiation.
While the original action filed by private respondents was a petition for
letters of administration, the trial court is not precluded from receiving
evidence on private respondents’ filiation. Its jurisdiction extends to
matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers in
handling the settlement of the estate, including the determination of the
status of each heir. That the two causes of action, one to compel
recognition and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one
complaint.
Petition is DENIED.
6. GR NO. 140422 AUGUST 7, 2006
MERCEDES CRISTOBAL CRUZ, ANSELMO A. CRISTOBAL and ELISA
CRISTOBAL SIKAT, petitioners,
vs.
EUFROSINA CRISTOBAL, FLORENCIO CRISTOBAL, JOSE CRISTOBAL,
HEIRS OF NORBERTO CRISTOBAL and THE COURT OF APPEALS,
respondent
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioners Mercedes, Anselmo Elisa and the heirs of Socorro claim
that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his
first marriage to Ignacia.
Buenaventura entered into a second marriage with Donata and
bore four children, herein respondents, Eufrosina, Florencio, Jose and
Norberto.
Buenaventura purchased a parcel of land with an area of 535 sq
meters covered by TCT No. 10878-2.
Buenaventura died intestate in 1930.
Petitioners only learned of the extrajudicial settlement of the
private respondents over the said property only in 1994 when Petitioner
Elisa was offered by private respondent Eufrocina to choose between a
portion of the subject property or money, as one of the children of private
respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the subject
property.
 Elisa inquired about the status of the property and learned that the
title to the subject property had been transferred to the names of private
respondents to the exclusion of herself and her siblings from the first
marriage.
Petitioners filed a petition in their barangay to attempt to settle the
case between them and private respondents, but no settlement was
reached. Thus, 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.
To prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura, the
baptismal certificate of Elisa, Anselmo and the late Socorro were
presented. In the case of Mercedes, she produced a certification issued by
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the fact that records of
birth for the year 1909 is included to those that were all destroyed due to
ordinary wear and tear.
The trial court rendered a judgement dismissing the case, ruling
that petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased
Buenaventura as the baptismal and birth certificate presented have scant
evidentiary value and that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time
amounts to laches.
Petitioner sought recourse in the CA which decided that the
petitioners were able to prove their filiation with the deceased
Buenaventura thru “other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special
Laws,” but affirmed the ruling of the trial court that petitioners are barred
by laches.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners’ right to question the Deed of Partition
had prescribed
Whether or not petitioners’ right to recover their share of the
property is barred by laches.
HELD:
No. the initial fact that needs to be established is the filiation of
petitioners with the deceased Buenaventura. Art. 172 of the Family Code
provides:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of
the following:
1. The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgement
2. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
1. The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child
2. Any other means allowed by the Rules of court and special laws.
The SC stated that the child’s baptismal certificate, a judicial admission,
a family bible in which the child’s name has been entered are some of the
other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws.
The baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo and the late Socorro
are acceptable documentary evidence to prove their filiation, and in the
case of Mercedes, the certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar was also sufficient.
In contrast, it bears to point out that private respondents were unable
to present any proof to refute the petitioners’ claim and evidence of
filiation to Buenaventura.
As to the validity of the Deed of Partition of the subject property,
under the Rules of Court, it was stated that without the participation of all
persons involved in the proceedings, the extrajudicial settlement is not
binding on said person.
In the case at bar, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura
Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof
by the private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement
of Buenaventura Cristobal’s estate. The partition of the subject property by
the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners
were excluded therefrom. Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of
Partition executed by private respondents among themselves in 1948.

Pursuant to Art. 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner shall be obliged 7. GR NO. 181132 JUNE 5, 2009
to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime
the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is HEIRS OF LORETO C. MARAMAG, represented by surviving spouse
concerned. In Budlong v. Bondoc, the SC has interpreted said provison of VICENTA PANGILINAN MARAMAG, petitioners,
law to mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be vs.
barred by prescription.
EVA VERNA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG, ODESSA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG,
It appears that the 535 square meters subject property was a KARL BRIAN DE GUZMAN MARAMAG, TRISHA ANGELIE MARAMAG, THE
conjugal property of Buenaventura Cristobal and Donata Enriquez, the INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., and GREAT PACIFIC LIFE
second wife, as the property was purchased in 1926, during the time of ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
their marriage. Both deaths of Buenaventura and Donata occurred before
th enactment of the New Civil Code in 1950, all the four children of the NACHURA, J.:
first marriage and the 4 children of the second marriage shall share equally FACTS:
in the subject property in accordance with the Old Civil Code. Absent a
Will and Testament, the subject property shall be divided into eight equal
parts pursuant to Arts. 921 and 931.

Respondents were not barred by laches because there is no

negligence or omission on the part of the petitioners. When Elisa had
knowledge of the extrajudicial settlement with the exclusion of herself and
her 3 other siblings, they immediately lodged a complaint before the
evidence showing failure or neglect on their part.

Petition is GRANTED.
8. GR NO. 112483 OCTOBER 8, 1999 9. GR NO. 197310 JUNE 23, 2021

ELOY IMPERIAL, petitioner, DAIEL RIVERA AND ELPIDIO RIVERA, petitioners

vs. v.

COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGASPI CITY, CESAR FLORA VILLANUEVA, RUPERTO PACHECO, VIRGILIO PACHECO and the
VILLALON, JR., TERESA VILLALON, ANTONIO VILLALON, AUGUSTO HEIRS F DONATO PACHECO JR., namely, ESTELITA, RONALD, ANILO AND
VILLALON, ROBERTO VILLALON, RICARDO VILLALON and ESTHER EDMOND ALL SURNAMED PACHECO
VILLALON, respondents
CARANDANG, J.:
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
FACTS:
FACTS: