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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45736   May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ<br /><br />068 Phil 227

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45736. May 26, 1939.]

    In the matter of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Emeterio Lopez. CONCEPCION LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ADELA LOPEZ ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.

    Simplicio B. Pena for Appellants.

    Vamenta & Vamenta for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PARENT AND CHILD; ACTION FOR RECOGNITION; INTERVENTION IN THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. — It is a well-settled rule that a person claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of a deceased need not maintain a separate action for recognition but may simply intervene in the intestate proceedings, by alleging and proving therein his or her status as such, and claiming accordingly the right to share in the inheritance.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Inasmuch as the recognition of the status of the petitioner as a natural child is a prerequisite to her right o heirship, her prayer that she be declared universal heirs implies a like prayer that she be recognized as an acknowledged natural child. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule of pleadings, applicable to motions or petitions, that the prayer for relief, though part of the pleading, is not part of the cause of action or defense alleged therein, and the pleader is entitled to as much relief as the facts duly pleaded may warrant.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF PETITION AND OF DATE SET FOR HEARING. — Appellants claim that they had no notice either of the petition for the declaration of heirs or of the date set for the hearing thereof. We find in the record no evidence affirmatively showing that they had no such notice; therefore, the presumption of regularity of proceedings should stand. In the motion for reconsideration filed by them, the lack of notice is alleged; but the motion is not even vernned. Besides, according to the record of Attorney S. B. P. was the counsel for both the administrator and the oppositors-appellants. The petition for declaration of heirs, although signed by Attorney S. B. P. as ’abogado del administrador’, was, in fact, a petition filed in behalf of the oppositors-appellants as their right to succession is therein asserted and prayed for. Under these circumstances, there exists sufficient ground for holding, as w e do hold, that the oppositors-appellants had notice of the petition as well as of the hearing where the said attorney was present.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    The primary issue raised in this appeal is whether or not Concepcion Lopez is an acknowledged natural daughter of Emeterio Lopez who died intestate, leaving no legitimate descendants, ascendants or widow.

    Concepcion Lopez filed a petition in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Emeterio Lopez, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased and praying that she be declared his universal heiress entitled to a summary award of his estate, same being valued at less than six thousand pesos (P6,000). The oppositors-appellants, thru Attorney Simplicio B. Peña, filed an opposition, denying petitioner’s claim and praying that, as they are nephews and nieces of the deceased, they be adjudged entitled to the property let by him. Concepcion Lopez filed later an amended petition, alleging that, according to a new assessment, the estate was worth nine thousand pesos (P9,000) and that, therefore, its distribution could not be made summarily but thru regular administration proceedings. Accordingly, an administrator was appointed who, thru Attorney Simplicio B. Peña, filed later a motion for a declaration of heirs and prayed that the oppositors-appellants be so adjudged. After hearing, the court issued an order declaring the petitioner an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased entitled to the rights accorded her by law. The oppositors appealed.

    Contrary to appellants’ contention it is a well-settled rule that a person claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of a deceased need not maintain a separate action for recognition but may simply intervene in the intestate proceedings, by alleging and proving therein his or her status as such, and claiming accordingly the right to share in the inheritance. (Conde v. Abaya, 13 Phil., 249; Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil., 343, 348; Gaas v. Fortich, 54 Phil., 196.)

    The petition filed by Concepcion Lopez in the intestate proceedings is alleged to be insufficient. It is said that there is no prayer therein that she be declared an acknowledged natural child, but only that she be adjudged universal heiress, of the deceased. In the body of the petition there is an allegation that she is a natural child of the based and has been in an uninterrupted possession of such status. And inasmuch as the recognition of her status is a prerequisite to her right to heirship, her prayer that she be declared universal heiress implies a like prayer that she be recognized as an acknowledged natural child. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule of pleadings, applicable to motions or petitions, that the prayer for relief, though part of the pleading, is no part of the cause of action or defense alleged therein, and the pleader is entitled to as much relief as the facts duly pleaded may warrant. (Rosales v. Reyes and Ordoveza, 25 Phil., 495; Aguilar v. Rubiato and Gonzales Vila, 40 Phil.; 570; Yañez de Barnuevo v. Fuster, 29 Phil., 606; Allarde v. Abaya, 57 Phil., 909; Cf. Cohen and Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., 31 Phil., 526, 533.)

    The facts found by the lower court as basis for the declaration that the petitioner had been in an uninterrupted possession of the status of natural child of the deceased, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "De las pruebas practicadas por la representacion de dicha Concepcion Lopez se han establecido los siguientes hechos: Que Concepcion Lopez es hija natural del finado Emeterio Lopez habida con Juana Cuison, quienes desde el nacimiento de aquella han estado conviviendo como marido y mujer, siendo ambos solteros, hasta fallecio dicha Juana Cuison; que Concepcion Lopez nacio el año 1890 en Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, habiendo sido desde entonces mantenida por su padre, quien durante su vida ha costeado todas las necesidades de Conception Lopez, tratandola como su verdadera hija, pues cada vez que aquel le llamaba a esta lo hacia llamandola con el apodo de ’Siong’ y Concepcion, a su vez, le contestaba a su padre ’papa;’ que dicha Concepcion Lopez ha estado siempre viviendo con su difunto padre Emeterio Lopez hasta que este fallecio el 24 de junio de 1931."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In previous cases, similar facts were held to be sufficient to entitle a natural child to recognition. (Cf. Dizon v. Ullmann, 13 Phil., 88; Allarde v. Abaya, supra; Dalistan "JS. Armas, 32 Phil., 648; see also decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of Nov. 7, 1896.)

    Appellants claim that they had no notice either of the petition for the declaration of heirs or of the date set for the hearing thereof. We find in the record no evidence affirmatively showing that they had no such notice; therefore, the presumption of regularity of proceedings should stand. In the motion for reconsideration filed by them, the lack of notice is alleged; but the motion is not even verified. Besides, according to the record Attorney Simplicio B. Peña was the counsel for both the administrator and the oppositors-appellants. The petition for declaration of heirs, although signed by Attorney Simplicio B. Peña as "abogado del administrador", was, in fact, a petition filed in behalf of the oppositors-appellants as their right to succession is therein asserted and prayed for. Under these circumstances, there exists sufficient ground for holding, as we do hold, that the oppositors-appellants had notice of the petition as well as of the hearing where the said attorney was present.

    Order is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45736   May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ<br /><br />068 Phil 227


    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