ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10474   March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO<br /><br />034 Phil 522

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10474. March 29, 1916. ]

    FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOLEDAD OSORIO and VICENTE FERNANDEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

    Francisco Villanueva for Appellants.

    Jose I. Pinzon for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. NATURAL CHILDREN; RECOGNITION; EVIDENCE TO SHOW FILIATION. — When the object of the action is claim of a minor to recognition as the natural son of his father, by his half sister by said father, the presentation of evidence does not have for its object the investigation of the paternity, but the filiation of the plaintiff, with the sole purpose of proving that the said minor’s deceased father has, by his acts during his lifetime, made it clear to his relatives and to other persons, that he recognized plaintiff as his natural son, begotten by him while a widower, with an unmarried woman whom he might lawfully have married, there being no impediment of any sort to such union.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Recognition of the child must be made if he has been in continuous possession of his filiation, proven by the attendance of his father at his baptism, in the certificate of which appear the name of his father, as a widower, and that of his mother, as an unmarried woman, and when such son, by the direct acts of his father or of his father’s relatives, has been considered, among said relatives and friends, as a natural, recognized son.


    D E C I S I O N


    TORRES, J. :


    An appeal by bill of exceptions, raised by counsel for defendants from the judgment of September 10, 1914, in which the Court of First Instance of Cavite held that plaintiff, Francisco Osorio y Garcia, is a natural, recognized son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes and ordered that the defendant spouses recognize plaintiff as a natural son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes, duly entitled to share in the latter’s estate in the proportion determined by law, and to the enjoyment of such other rights as are inherent in his said status of natural, recognized son; with the costs against defendants.

    On January 29, 1914, counsel for Francisco Osorio y Garcia filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, in which he alleged that plaintiff is a natural son of one Francisco Osorio y Reyes who died in 1896; that said Francisco Osorio y Garcia has been in continuous possession of the status of natural son of said Osorio y Reyes as proven by direct acts of the latter and of his family; that the defendant Soledad Osorio is the lawful daughter and lawful heir of said Francisco Osorio y Reyes and is married to Vicente T. Fernandez, for which reason the latter was included as defendant; and that said Francisco Osorio y Reyes left at his death real and personal property, specified and described in the fourth paragraph of the complaint and now in the possession of Soledad Osorio. Said counsel petitioned that as plaintiff was a minor Joaquin Luciano be appointed by the court as his curator ad litem; that the defendant Soledad Osorio be ordered to recognize plaintiff as a natural son of said Francisco Osorio y Reyes, deceased, and as entitled to share in his father’s estate; and, furthermore, that said defendant be ordered to furnish subsistence to plaintiff in such amount as the court might deem proper to fix.

    The demurrer interposed by counsel for defendants to the aforementioned complaint having been overruled, the latter answered denying each and all the facts therein contained, and in special defense alleged that Francisco Osorio y Reyes during his lifetime did not perform any act tending to show his intention to recognize plaintiff, Francisco Osorio, as his natural son; that in no public document, will, or instrument whatever unquestionably executed by Francisco Osorio y Reyes, had the latter recognized plaintiff as his natural son, wherefore the defendant Soledad Osorio is not obliged to recognize him as such. Said counsel therefore prayed the court to render judgment absolving defendants from the complaint, with the costs against plaintiff.

    After the hearing and the introduction of evidence by both parties, the judgment aforementioned was rendered, to which defendants excepted and by written motion moved for a reopening of the case and a new trial. This motion was overruled and, the proper bill of exceptions having been filed, the same was approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

    This case deals with the claim of the minor Francisco Osorio y Garcia to be recognized as a natural son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes, and we have to determine whether plaintiff has enjoyed the status of natural son who was duly recognized by his father during the latter’s lifetime.

    There is no question of investigating plaintiff’s paternity, and we are confined to deciding whether his father Osorio y Reyes did by his acts lead his relatives and other persons not of his kin to believe that he recognized plaintiff as his natural son.

    The fact is not be gainsaid that after Francisco Osorio y Reyes, the father of the defendant Soledad Osorio, became a widower, he maintained intimate relations with Consolacion Garcia y Morillo, an unmarried woman, from which relations the boy Francisco Abdon Osorio y Garcia was born; therefore, pursuant to article 119 of the Civil Code and the provisions of General Orders No. 68 of the year 1899, the child begotten by said widower, Osorio, and the spinster, Consolacion Garcia, should be reputed to be their natural son and, therefore, as capable of being legitimized or recognized by his parents (art. 119, Civ. Code).

    It is also an unquestionable fact, as evidenced by the baptismal certificate Exhibit A, issued and attested by the former acting parish priest of the pueblo of Cavite, Father Cecilio Damian, and admitted in evidence at the trial, that on August 13, 1893, the presbyter Pedro Mañalac baptized in the parish of Cavite a boy born 15 days before, named Francisco Abdon, the natural son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes, a widower, and Maria Consolacion Garcia y Morillo, a spinster, the filiation of the baptized child appearing in a document found in the files of said parish and signed by said priest and two witnesses.

    Tomasa Osorio, a sister of plaintiff’s father, corroborated the fact that the latter, her brother, while living, supported plaintiff and plaintiff’s mother; that she and her parents respectively considered plaintiff to be their nephew and grandson; that witness considered plaintiff’s mother to be her sister-in-law; and that plaintiff, after the death of his father Francisco Osorio y Reyes, lived in the house of his paternal grandparents and the latter had supported him and provided him with all the necessities of life.

    Plaintiff’s own grandfather, Antonio Osorio, recognized him as such natural, recognized son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes, and, to make his filiation more manifest, bequeathed a part of his property to him, making the following provision in his will, probated as case No. 456 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I also leave to my grandson, Francisco Osorio y Garcia, a natural son my son Francisco Osorio, deceased, the property . . . (described in the will, Exhibit B.)"

    The acts performed by Francisco Osorio are unimpeachable proof that, from the time of his birth, he always considered plaintiff to be his natural son. Plaintiff’s natural filiation has been confirmed by his grandfather and by a daughter of his grandfather, a sister of Francisco, his natural father.

    In a decision rendered by the supreme court of Spain on June 23, 1902, it was said that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Recognition of the child as a natural child must be made if he has been in continuos possession of his filiation, proven by the attendance of his father at his baptism, in the certificate in which his name and that of his mother appear, though the document contains errors, and by his father’s statement to various friends that the boy was his natural son, and by his father’s always having attended to care, education and support of his son."cralaw virtua1aw library

    So that the plaintiff, Francisco Osorio y Garcia, according to the facts proven in this case and the law on the subject, is entitled to have his half sister Soledad Osorio, a legitimate daughter of the father of both of them, recognize him as being the natural, recognized son of Francisco Osorio y Reyes and as entitled to the rights granted him by law in respect to his deceased father’s estate, all which is in possession of the defendant spouses (agreement, p. 19 of the record).

    As for the rest, in view of the fact that appellants took no exception to the order overruling their motion for a new trial, an omission which makes it impossible for this court to review the evidence adduced by the parties, therefore, and conformably to the weight given by the lower court to the evidence, it is by all means proper to affirm the judgment appealed from, and, deeming the errors thereto assigned to have been refuted, we should for the foregoing reasons, affirm, as we do hereby affirm the said judgment, with the costs against appellants. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I agree to an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that the facts set forth in the judgment conforms to the issues raised. No exception whatever having been made to the order denying the motion for a new trial, we cannot examine the evidence.

    G.R. No. 10474   March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO<br /><br />034 Phil 522




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED