Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

060 Phil 328:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 40958. August 11, 1934.]

Intestate estate of the deceased Antonio Escobar. THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, administrator. ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LUCIANA DE LOS SANTOS, represented by the executor JOSE SANTOS, claimant-appellee, v. MARIA LUCIANO, claimant-appellant.

Ramon Diokno for Appellant.

Reyes & Reyes and Jose Rivera Yap for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PARENT AND CHILD; CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE STATUS OF NATURAL CHILD. — The continuous possession of the status of a natural child, justified by direct acts of its parents and their family under the legislation prior to the Civil Code, constitutes tacit recognition of paternity (Law 11 of Toro).

2. ID.; ID.; CHILD LEGITIMATED BY SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE. — A child, who has enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of a natural child, justified by direct acts of its parents and their family both before and after their marriage which was celebrated under the prior legislation, is considered as legitimated by subsequent marriage (Law I, Title XIII, Partida IV).

3. ID.; ID.; ID. - The legitimate daughter of a daughter legitimated by subsequent marriage, now deceased, is entitled to inherit from a brother of her mother who is a legitimate son of the same parents who legitimated her mother by subsequent marriage, and who died after the Civil Code took effect.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; MEANING OF THE WORD "LEGITIMATED." — The word "legitimated" employed in Section III, Chapter IV of Book Three of the Civil Code refers to children legitimated by royal concession, and not to those legitimated by subsequent marriage.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the claimant Maria Luciano from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, the court declares that the only heir of the deceased Antonio Escobar was his wife Luciana de los Santos, now deceased, whom her heirs succeeded and whose testamentary proceedings are likewise pending in this court, as above stated, and that neither Maria Luciano nor Petrona Esguerra is entitled to participate in the estate of the deceased Antonio Escobar.

"After this judgment becomes final, the entire estate of the deceased Antonio Escobar shall, by operation of law, pass to the testamentary estate of the deceased Luciana de los Santos. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the record of the testamentary proceedings of the deceased Luciana de los Santos, civil case No. 43599. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of her appeal, the appellant assigns the following sole alleged error as committed by the court a quo in its order to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The lower court erred in not recognizing and declaring Maria Luciano as the sole legal heir of the deceased Antonio Escobar and therefore entitled to the entire intestate estate of the latter."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following facts proven at the trial, some by stipulation of the parties and others by a preponderance of the evidence, are necessary and pertinent to the resolution of the questions raised in this appeal, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On January 1, 1837, a girl four days old, alleged to be a natural daughter of Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra, was baptized in the Ermita church and given the name of Tomasa Escobar (Exhibit 1-Maria Luciano). Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra were married on August 2, 1838 (Exhibit 1), and subsequently had legitimate children named Antonio and Fortunato Escobar. With said spouses and their two legitimate children lived Tomasa, Guia and Nicolas Escobar. All of them called said spouses "tatay" (father) and "nanay" (mother), respectively. Tomasa was called by the other children "manang" (a term accorded in certain regions to the elder sister). Tomasa Escobar grew up and lived under the care of the spouses Leon and Josefa Escobar until she married. Said spouses supported her, treated and presented her as their daughter, and she was publicly known as such. When Tomasa Escobar became a widow, she went back to live with said spouses, together with her only daughter, the herein claimant-appellant Maria Luciano who was born on December 17, 1864 (Exhibit 4). Leon Escobar built a house for Tomasa Escobar and her daughter and the two lived there. Leon Escobar visited them in said house almost every day and sent his sons Antonio and Fortunato to keep them company at night. Upon Tomasa Escobar’s death, Leon Escobar took said Maria Luciano into his home until she married and was taken by her husband to the province. Leon Escobar died on February 12, 1887 (Exhibit 2-Luciana de los Santos). When Fortunato Escobar became ill, his brother Antonio Escobar asked Maria Luciano to come to Manila to nurse him, sending her money for passage. Upon Fortunato Escobar’s death, Antonio Escobar took Maria Luciano into his home where she lived until Antonio’s death.

The claimant-appellant Maria Luciano claims to be the legitimate niece of the deceased Antonio Escobar, alleging that she is the legitimate daughter of Tomasa Escobar, a legitimated sister of said deceased Antonio Escobar by the subsequent marriage of their parents, and therefore the only heir to the estate of her said uncle.

First of all, it is necessary to determine whether or not Tomasa Escobar was a natural daughter of the spouses Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra, legitimated by subsequent marriage of the latter.

We have seen that Tomasa Escobar was born on December 29, 1836, and her alleged parents Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra were married on August 2, 1838, that is under the prior legislation which is Law I, Title XIII, Partida IV. Her status as a legitimated daughter should therefore be determined by said law which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Law I, Title XIII, Partida IV. — Moreover, the children which a man has by a woman whom he keeps as a concubine will be legitimate, if he marries her afterwards; for although children of this kind are not legitimate when they are born, marriage has such force that, as soon as the father and mother are married, the children become for that reason, legitimate. This same rule applies where a man has a child by his female slave and afterwards marries her; for marriage has such extraordinary power that, as soon as this is done, the mother becomes free, and the children legitimate, for this reason."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is a well-established doctrine, both in Spain and in the Philippines, interpreting Law 11 of Toro, that a child is considered natural when at the time of its conception or birth its parents could have married without dispensation and when the father was expressly or tacitly acknowledged it. (Mijares v. Nery, 3 Phil., 195; Llorente v. Rodriguez 3 Phil., 697; Capistrano v. Estate of Gabino, 8 Phil., 135; De Gala v. De Gala, 42 Phil., 771; Larena and Larena v. Rubio, 43 Phil., 1017; Donado v. Menendez Donado, 55 Phil., 861.)

The fact that before and after their marriage the spouses Leon. Escobar and Josefa Esguerra had Tomasa Escobar with them and their legitimate children; the fact that they supported her, took care of her, and treated and presented her to society as their daughter, and the fact that they built a house for her and her daughter, all show that said spouses Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra acknowledged her as their daughter. Pursuant to the provisions of Law 11 of Toro, cited above, such acknowledgment, in addition to the freedom of her parents to marry without dispensation at the time of her conception or birth, gave Tomasa Escobar the status of a natural child of Leon Escobar and Josefa Esguerra (Requejo v. Rabalo, 34 Phil., 14), and according to Law I, Title XIII, Partida IV, quoted above, the subsequent marriage of the latter legitimated her. (Cosio v. Pili, 10 Phil., 72; Requejo v. Rabalo, supra.)

The question now arises whether or not the claimant-appellant Maria Luciano, as legitimate daughter, born under the prior legislation, of Tomasa Escobar, a child legitimated by subsequent marriage, is entitled to inherit from the intestate estate of a brother of her mother who is a legitimate son of said Tomasa Escobar’s parents, and who died on July 21, 1932, under the present law.

The twelfth transitory provision of the Civil Code reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"12. Rights to the inheritance of a person who may have died, with or without a will, before this Code was in force, shall be governed by the prior legislation. The inheritance of those who died after that time, with or without a will, shall be allotted and divided in accordance with this Code, but in harmony, in so far as the latter permits it, with the testamentary dispositions. Therefore the legitimes, betterments, and legacies shall be respected; but their amounts shall be reduced when it is not possible in any other manner to give to each participant in the inheritance the share pertaining to him, according to this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to the above quoted transitory provision, inasmuch as Antonio Escobar died after the Civil Code took effect, his inheritance should be allotted and divided in accordance with said Code.

Article 953 of the Civil Code provides that should children of brothers or sisters exist, the surviving spouse shall, concurrently with said children, be entitled to receive the part of the inheritance in usufruct assigned him or her in article 837, that is, one-half of the estate in usufruct. When Antonio Escobar died intestate on July 21, 1932, his niece, the herein claimant-appellant Maria Luciano, daughter of his sister legitimated by subsequent marriage of their parents, was entitled to inherit the full ownership of one-half of his estate and the naked ownership of the other half, the usufruct of which belonged to the surviving spouse. However, the usufructuary right of the widow Luciana de los Santos was extinguished upon her death which took place on December 27, 1932 (article 513 of the Civil Code), thereby consolidating the naked ownership with the usufruct of the other half in the herein claimant-appellant Maria Luciano.

The court a quo, in rejecting the claim of the claimant-appellant Maria Luciano to the estate of her uncle Antonio Escobar, based its opinion on article 943 of the Civil Code which provides that "a natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who was acknowledged it; nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from the natural or legitimated child," interpreting the word "legitimated" to mean a child legitimated by royal concession as well as one legitimated by subsequent marriage. Such interpretation could not have been the intention of the legislator, inasmuch as article 122 of said Code considers a child legitimated by subsequent marriage to be in parity with a legitimate child and grants the former the same Code grants a child legitimated by royal concession only those rights conferred upon acknowledged natural children by article 134. If children legitimated by subsequent marriage have the same rights as legitimate children, and those legitimated by royal concession only have the same rights as acknowledged natural children, the word "legitimated" employed in article 943 et seq. of Section III, Chapter IV of Book Three of the Civil Code, alternately with the word "natural", with reference to the hereditary portion to which the child of one class or another is entitled, refers only to a child legitimated by royal concession and not to one legitimated by subsequent marriage. Therefore, the provisions of the above cited article 943 of the Civil Code are not applicable to the herein claimant-appellant Maria Luciano, and the provisions of article 953 of the same Code are the ones applicable to her.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold: (1) That the continuous possession of the status of a natural child, justified by direct acts of its parents and their family under the legislation prior to the Civil Code, constitutes tacit recognition of paternity (Law 11 of Toro); (2) that a child; who has enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of natural child, justified by direct acts of its parents and their family both before and after their marriage which was celebrated under the prior legislation, is considered as legitimated by subsequent marriage (Law I, Title XIII, Partida IV); (3) that the legitimate daughter of a daughter legitimated by subsequent marriage, now deceased, is entitled to inherit from a brother of her mother who is a legitimate son of the same parents who legitimated her mother by subsequent marriage, and who died after the Civil Code took effect; and (4) that the word "legitimated" employed in Section III, Chapter IV of Book Three of the Civil Code, refers to children legitimated by royal concession and not to those legitimated by subsequent marriage.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is reversed and the claimant-appellant Maria Luciano is declared to be the sole heir to the intestate estate of Antonio Escobar, with the costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.




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






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511