SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15091            December 28, 1961

GENOVEVA CATALAN PAULINO, assisted by her husband FRANCISCO NIETO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PAZ H. PAULINO, assisted by her husband DALMACIO AQUINO, EUFEMIA H. PAULINO, assisted by her husband ALEJANDRO PARAISO, PEREGRINO H. PAULINO and JUAN H. PAULINO, Defendants-Appellees.

Salonga and Ordoñez for plaintiff-appellant.
Juan H. Paulino for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellee.

PADILLA, J.:

On 4 February 1958 Genoveva Catalan Paulino, assisted by her husband Francisco Nieto, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Third Branch, San Pablo City, against Paz, Eufemia, Peregrino and Juan, all surnamed Paulino, to compel them to give her share of inheritance in the state of the late Marcos Paulino, claiming and alleging that she is the illegitimate (spurious) child of Marcos Paulino, begotten by him and Rustica Catalan on 3 January 1916 in Los Baños, Laguna, while the former was lawfully married to Dionisia Hernandez; that on 5 February 1951 Marcos Paulino died intestate in Manila at the Singian Clinic, leaving an estate consisting of realties listed and described in paragraph 8 of the complaint, the annual income of which was not less than P7,500; that no proceedings for the settlement of the deceased's estate has been commenced in Court; that on 5 February 1953, without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, the defendants, with the consent of the widow who renounced in favor of the defendants her share in the estate of the deceased, "inventoried, divided, partitioned, and distributed" among themselves the said estate, without giving the plaintiff her share in it; that her share is equivalent to 2/5 of the share of a legitimate child or �/10 of the whole estate; that the defendants had refused and failed to deliver to the plaintiff her share in the estate of the deceased including her proportionate share in the annual income of the estate amounting to P7,500, and that the defendants, through Juan H. Paulino, taking advantage of the plaintiff's ignorance, "deliberately, fraudulently and maliciously convinced her to sign a contract of waiver, stating among other things, that the herein plaintiff under the law has no right in the partition of the properties of the deceased." The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be ordered to deliver to her share in the estate of the deceased consisting of �/10 thereof and its income amounting to P7,500 annually from 5 February 1951 and to pay the costs of the suit, and for other just and equitable relief (civil No. SP 140).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On 20 February 1958 the defendants moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it states no cause of action and that, even if it does, the same is barred. In support of their motion they contend that the plaintiff's action does not lie because it is to establish her filiation as an illegitimate (spurious) child of the deceased and brought after the latter's death when she was already 35 years of age. On 19 March 1958 the defendants filed a "supplement to motion to dismiss," quoting an excerpt from the minutes of the public hearing on the proposed Civil Code conducted by the Joint Senate and House Code Committees of Congress relative to article 289. On 31 March 1958 the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendants' motion to dismiss and on 24 April 1958 the defendants, a reply to the plaintiff's objection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On 30 July 1958 the Court entered an order holding that the plaintiff's action to establish her filiation as the illegitimate (spurious) child of the deceased, brought after the latter's death, when she had reached the age of 35 years, is already barred, and dismissing her complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The plaintiff has appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The appellant claims that she is the illegitimate (spurious) child of Marcos Paulino and, relying on the majority opinion in the case of Zuzzuarregui vs. Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. L-10010, 31 October 1957, contends that all she should do to be able to inherit from her putative father is to prove her filiation to him. It is not for her to show that in his lifetime she had brought an action to compel recognition and obtained judgment in her favor. The appellees contend otherwise and further claim that the appellant's action to establish her filiation does not lie it having been brought after the death of her putative father when she was already 35 years of age.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Civil Code provides:

Art. 287. Illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with article 269 and other than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as are granted in this code.

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; chanrobles virtual law library

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and ascendants; chanrobles virtual law library

(3) The widow or widower; chanrobles virtual law library

(4) Acknowledged natural children referred to in article 287.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.chanrobles virtual law library

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code (Emphasis supplied.)

All illegitimate (spurious) child to be entitled to support and successional rights from his putative or presumed parents must prove his filiation to them. Filiation may be established by the voluntary or compulsory recognition of the illegitimate (spurious) child. Recognition is voluntary when "made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing." 1 It is compulsory when by court action the child brings about his recognition. Thus the Civil Code ordains:chanrobles virtual law library

Art. 283. In any of the following cases, the father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural (or spurious) child:

(1) In case of rape, abduction or seduction, when the period of the offense coincides more or less with that of the conception; chanrobles virtual law library

(2) When the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or his family; chanrobles virtual law library

(3) When the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed father; chanrobles virtual law library

(4) When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Art. 284. The mother is obliged to recognize her natural child:chanrobles virtual law library

(1) In any of the cases referred to in the preceding article, as between the child and the mother; chanrobles virtual law library

(2) When the birth and the identity of the child are clearly proved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In her complaint the appellant alleges -chanrobles virtual law library

(3) That the plaintiff is the illegitimate child Don Marcos Paulino, having been born on January 3, 1916 at Los Baños, Laguna out of the common-law relationship of her father with Rustica Catalan who lived publicly as husband and wife at the said place; chanrobles virtual law library

(4) That out of the common-law relationship of plaintiff's parents, two other children were born, namely: Tomas and Alejandro, born on September 3, 1917 and 1918, respectively, and both having died on the year of their birth; chanrobles virtual law library

(5) That plaintiff's father Don Marcos Paulino, was married to Dionisia Hernandez, even before his cohabiting with plaintiff's mother; chanrobles virtual law library

(6) That on February 5, 1951, Don Marcos Paulino, plaintiff's father, died in the Singian Clinic in the City of Manila without any will or testament disposing of his estate; chanrobles virtual law library

(7) That Don Marcos Paulino is survived by his legal wife, Dionisia Hernandez and his four legitimate children, namely, Paz, Eufemia, Peregrino and Juan, all surnamed Paulino, and by the plaintiff Genoveva Catalan Paulino by his common-law relationship with Rustica Catalan; chanrobles virtual law library

(8) That at the time of his death, the deceased Don Marcos Paulino left several properties, among which were his exclusive and undivided one-half share, interest and right to and in the properties and parcels of land hereinbelow described.

chanrobles virtual law library

(9) That after the death of Marcos Paulino, there was no intestate proceeding for the settlement of his estate;chanrobles virtual law library

(10) That the properties of the deceased in the said estate, however, were inventoried, divided, partitioned, and distributed among his alleged compulsory heirs pursuant to the extra-judicial partition dated February 5, 1953, and registered with the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City to the exclusion of the herein plaintiff;

and prays that the appellees be ordered to deliver to her share in the estate of the deceased consisting of �/10 thereof and its income amounting to P7,500 annually from 5 February 1951 and to pay the costs of the suit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is true that by their motion to dismiss the appellees are deemed to have admitted that the appellant is the illegitimate spurious, not natural, child of the deceased Marcos Paulino. Such an admission, however, does not entitle her to inherit from her alleged putative father. It is necessary to allege that her putative father had acknowledged and recognized her as such. Such acknowledgment is essential and is the basis of her right to inherit. There being no allegation of such acknowledgment the action becomes one to compel recognition which can not be brought after the death of the putative father.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bautista Angelo, Barrera, Labrador, Paredes, Concepcion, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., concurs in the result.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs in the result, because action is already barred (Art. 137).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Endnotes:

1 Article 278, Civil Code; Zuzuarregui vs. Zuzurregui, supra.