Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > September 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20946 September 23, 1966 EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO v. AUREA S. SANTOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20946. September 23, 1966.]

EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUREA S. SANTOS, legal guardian of the minor JESUS SANTOS DEL PRADO, Defendant-Appellee.

L. F. Gabinete and M. Timbang for plaintiff and Appellant.

Jose W. Diokno for defendant and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SUCCESSION; SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. — Where as in this case, the deceased died intestate, without legitimate descendants or ascendants, then his illegitimate child shall succeed to his entire estate (Article 988, New Civil Code), to the exclusion of appellant (brother of the deceased) who is only a collateral relative.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Eugenio C. del Prado filed a complaint to annul a deed executed by Aurea S. Santos, married to Deogracias Demetria, adjudicating to the minor Jesus Santos del Prado, her son allegedly by plaintiff’s deceased brother Anastacio C. del Prado, a parcel of land left by the latter. Plaintiff alleged that he was thus deprived of his rightful share in the estate of his brother. Annulment of the transfer certificate of title issued to the minor by virtue of said deed of adjudication was also prayed for.

In defendant’s answer she averred that her son Jesus Santos del Prado, being an acknowledged natural child of the deceased, was entitled to the property left by the latter; and on the ground that the action had been maliciously filed, she interposed a counterclaim for damages.

On July 3, 1959 the parties entered into the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Come now the parties in the above entitled case, assisted by their respective counsel, and to the Honorable Court respectfully state that, for purposes of this action only, and without in any way constituting an admission for any other purpose and with the understanding that the same may not be used against them in any other proceedings, as provided in Rule 23, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the parties admit that the following facts are true and may be considered by the Court as proved without the need of the introduction of any evidence thereon:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Anastacio C. del Prado, died intestate in the City of Manila on August 11, 1958; at the time of his death, Anastacio C. del Prado was single;

2. Plaintiff Eugenio C. del Prado is a legitimate brother of the late Anastacio C. del Prado;

3. Defendant Aurea S. Santos was legally married to Deogracias Demetria in 1945, but has been in fact separated from him;

4. The deceased Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos cohabited with each other without the benefit of matrimony; as a result of that cohabitation, the late Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos had one son — the minor Jesus S. del Prado — who was born on December 19, 1957, and whom Anastacio C. del Prado admitted to be his son in the latter’s birth certificate;

5. After the death of Anastacio C. del Prado his estate consisting. among others, of a parcel of land situated at Caloocan, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 471848* of the Register of Deeds of Rizal in the name of Anastacio C. del Prado with an assessed value of P750.00, was adjudicated to the minor Jesus del Prado. True copy of the affidavit of adjudication executed by defendant Aurea S. Santos as mother and natural guardian of the said minor is attached as Annex ‘A’ of the complaint, which the parties agree to mark as Exhibit ‘A’;

6. By reason of the aforesaid adjudication the Register of Deeds of Rizal cancelled Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47148 and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61671 in the name of the minor Jesus S. del Prado.

I S S U E

The foregoing facts raises one principal issue of law, namely: ‘who has a better right to the aforesaid parcel of land left by the late Anastacio C. del Prado, plaintiff or the minor Jesus S. del Prado?

The parties hereby agree to present evidence to substantiate their sides on the issue herein agreed upon."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the foregoing stipulation, the parties submitted the case without further evidence.

The lower court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to this Court, the questions involved being purely legal.

The lower court ruled — and this ruling is assigned as error — that since the deceased Anastacio C. del Prado "left no legitimate descendants or ascendants the minor Jesus S. del Prado shall succeed to the entire estate left by his supposed father to the exclusion of the plaintiff who is only a collateral relative."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant contends: Even if said minor is the illegitimate son of the deceased, the latter never recognized him as such, no showing having been made that it was at the instance or with the consent of the deceased that said minor was entered as his son in the civil registry or that the birth certificate where the recognition appears is authentic.

Appellant’s position is untenable. The facts stipulated by him and by appellee are clear: "the deceased Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos cohabited with each other without the benefit of matrimony; as a result of that cohabitation, the late Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos had one son — the minor Jesus S. del Prado — who was born on December 19, 1957, and whom Anastacio C. del Prado admitted to be his son in the latter’s birth certificate."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since Anastacio C. del Prado died in 1958 the new Civil Code applies (Article 2263). Illegitimate children other than natural are entitled to successional rights (Article 287). Where, as in this case, the deceased died intestate, without legitimate descendants or ascendants, then his illegitimate child shall succeed to his entire estate (Article 988), to the exclusion of appellant who is only a collateral relative.

The decision appealed is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Regala, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20745 September 2, 1966 DOLORES GRANADA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20867 September 3, 1966 SALVADOR APRUEBA, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON

  • G.R. No. L-23681 September 3, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORATO GENILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20851 September 3, 1966 JESUS AGUIRRE v. VICTOR S. PHENG

  • G.R. No. L-17009 September 13, 1966 BRITISH-AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19961 September 14, 1966 PILAR REYES v. JOSE M. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-19798 September 20, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALOD MANOBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20645 September 22, 1966 GO TIAN CHAI v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22797 September 22, 1966 MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL. v. FLORA BLAS DE BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-19259 September 23, 1966 GENERAL TRAVEL SERVICE, LTD. v. EDILBERTO Y. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-20946 September 23, 1966 EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO v. AUREA S. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21212 September 23, 1966 CITIZENS LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS

  • G.R. No. L-21413 September 23, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21697 September 23, 1966 FRED ENRIQUEZ v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-22170 September 23, 1966 IN RE: BERTHA ANN RIVERA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22531 September 23, 1966 REMEGIA RIEGO, ET AL. v. PABLO RIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24702 and L-26357 September 23, 1966 FABIAN GARCIA, ET AL. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24873 September 23, 1966 BASILISA ROQUE, ET AL. v. ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20988 September 27, 1966 JACINTO DECENA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21871 September 27, 1966 PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. RODOLFO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26387 September 27, 1966 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ADRIANO V. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21875 September 27, 1966 MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA SEGARRA VDA. DE LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24736 September 27, 1966 FRANCISCO MALVAR, ET AL. v. PABLO PALLINGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20438 September 27, 1966 NEW MANILA LUMBER CO., INC. v. FERMIN CENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21224 September 27, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN PLANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21170 September 27, 1966 LEONARDO CABUDOL, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22031 September 28, 1966 CHAN SHU LOU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-21412 September 28, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966 AIR FRANCE v. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21571 September 29, 1966 MERCY’S INCORPORATED v. HERMINIA VERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21282 September 29, 1946

    CONSOLACION INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-19082 September 29, 1966 IN RE: CASIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19808 September 29, 966

    ELDO J. CARIÑO, ET AL. v. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20609 September 29, 1966 JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS

  • G.R. No. L-21419 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO DE GRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21609 September 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. KER & COMPANY, LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-21967 September 29, 1966 EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA v. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20149 September 29, 1966 IN RE: MANUEL SPIRIG LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23140 September 29, 1966 MARTA MENDOZA, ET AL. v. FELISA DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18760 September 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. KAMAD AKIRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-20483 September 30, 1966 IN RE: YONG SAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20657 September 30, 1966 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BERNARDO P. LANDETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21193 September 30, 1966 IN RE: ANACLETO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21475 September 30, 1966 AMANCIO BALITE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21766 September 30, 1966 FELICISIMA BALLECER, ET AL. v. JOSE BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-21988 September 30, 1968

    ALICIA S. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DISTRICT ENGINEER