Aguilar vs. Siasat

An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document signed by the parent concerned is sufficient to establish legitimate filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code, without need of a separate court action. The SSS Form E-1 executed under oath by the alleged father, which declared the petitioner as his son and dependent, constitutes such an admission and is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph of Article 172, not merely proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph thereof.

The petitioner, Rodolfo S. Aguilar, claimed to be the only son and sole surviving heir of the deceased spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who died intestate on August 26, 1983 and February 8, 1994, respectively. The subject properties consisted of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070 of the Registries of Deeds of Bago and Bacolod. The respondent, Edna G. Siasat, is the niece of Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who claimed that the subject titles were entrusted to her for safekeeping by her aunt and that the petitioner was not a son of the Aguilar spouses but a mere stranger raised out of generosity.

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar were married on June 22, 1933 in Miag-ao, Iloilo. They died intestate and without debts on August 26, 1983 and February 8, 1994, respectively. Included in their estate were two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070 of the Registries of Deeds of Bago and Bacolod.

In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against respondent Edna G. Siasat before the RTC of Bacolod City. The complaint alleged that petitioner is the only son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he discovered the subject titles were missing and suspected that someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen them; that he executed affidavits of loss and filed the same with the Registries of Deeds; and that during the hearing of his petition for issuance of a second owner's copy of one of the titles, respondent presented the two missing owner's duplicate copies. Petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to surrender the owner's duplicate copies of the subject titles and that damages, attorney's fees, and costs be awarded.

In her Answer, respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses but a mere stranger raised out of generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is not a natural or adopted child; that since Alfredo predeceased his wife, Candelaria inherited his conjugal share; that upon Candelaria's death, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as she had no issue; and that the subject titles were not stolen but entrusted to her for safekeeping by her aunt, Candelaria. She prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees by way of counterclaim.

During trial, petitioner testified and affirmed his relationship to the Aguilar spouses as their son. To prove filiation, he presented his school records at the Don J.A. Araneta Elementary School stating that Alfredo Aguilar is his parent; his Individual Income Tax Return indicating that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar is his mother; Alfredo Aguilar's SSS Form E-1 dated October 10, 1957, a public instrument subscribed and made under oath during his employment with BMMC, bearing his signature and thumb marks and indicating that petitioner, born on March 5, 1945, is his son and dependent; Alfredo Aguilar's Information Sheet of Employment with BMMC dated October 29, 1954 indicating that petitioner is his son; petitioner's Certificate of Marriage to Luz Abendan declaring that the Aguilar spouses are his parents; a letter of the BMMC Secretary introducing petitioner as Alfredo Aguilar's son; and a Certification dated January 27, 1996 issued by the Bacolod City Civil Registry stating that records of births during 1945 to 1946 were "all destroyed by nature," hence no true copies of petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth could be issued. Petitioner also presented the testimonies of his wife, Luz Marie Abendan-Aguilar, and his aunt, Ester Aguilar-Pailano, the latter being the sister of Alfredo Aguilar, who testified that the Aguilar spouses had only one son — the petitioner — and that after their death, she and her siblings did not claim ownership of the subject properties because they recognized petitioner as the sole child and heir.

For her evidence, respondent testified that she is a retired teacher; that she does not know petitioner very well; that she is not related by consanguinity or affinity to petitioner; that she attended to Candelaria while the latter was hospitalized until her death; that Candelaria's hospital and funeral expenses were paid by Nancy Vingno; that Candelaria executed an affidavit to the effect that she had no issue and that she is the sole heir to Alfredo's estate; that she did not steal the subject titles but that the same were entrusted to her by Candelaria; and that a prior planned sale of the subject properties did not push through because petitioner expressed disagreement as to the agreed price. Respondent also presented the testimony of Aurea Siasat-Nicavera, 74 years old, the sister of Candelaria, who stated that she does not know petitioner, although she admitted knowing a certain "Rodolfo" nicknamed "Mait"; that petitioner is not the son of the Aguilar spouses; and that Alfredo has a sister named Ester Aguilar-Pailano. Respondent also offered an Affidavit previously executed by Candelaria (Exhibit "2") announcing that she and Alfredo have no issue and that she is the sole heir to Alfredo's estate.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that no solid evidence was presented to prove that petitioner was either a biological son or legally adopted one, and that Candelaria's affidavit was concrete proof that petitioner was never a son by consanguinity nor a legally adopted one. The CA affirmed, holding that the exhibits relied upon by petitioner deserved scant consideration, that the SSS Form E-1 and Information Sheet of Employment did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of filiation based on open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child, and that petitioner failed to show a clear and unmistakable right that had been violated.

• Sufficiency of SSS Form E-1 under Article 172: Petitioner argued that Alfredo Aguilar's SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code, being a declaration under oath by his father of his status as the latter's son, and that this recognition should be accorded more weight than the presumption of legitimacy since Article 172 itself declares that said evidence establishes legitimate filiation without need of court action.
• Nature of Recognition in Public Instrument: Petitioner contended that recognition in a public instrument such as the SSS Form E-1 is the "highest form of recognition" partaking of the nature of a complete act of recognition bestowed upon him as the son of the late Alfredo Aguilar.
• Lack of Personality to Impugn Legitimacy: Petitioner argued that respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy and cannot collaterally attack his legitimacy, and that the action to impugn his legitimacy has already prescribed pursuant to Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code.
• Entitlement to Relief: Petitioner maintained that having proved his filiation, mandatory injunction should issue and an award of damages is in order.

• Echo of CA Pronouncements: Respondent argued that the Petition is a mere rehash of the CA appeal which has been passed upon succinctly by the appellate court, and simply echoed the pronouncements of the CA regarding the insufficiency of petitioner's evidence to prove filiation.

• Proof of Filiation: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in not considering petitioner's Exhibit "G" (SSS Form E-1, acknowledged and notarized before a notary public, executed by Alfredo Aguilar recognizing petitioner as his son) as a public document that satisfies the requirement of Article 172 of the Family Code in the establishment of the legitimate filiation of the petitioner with his father, Alfredo Aguilar.
• Pure Question of Law: Whether the Petition raises a pure question of law with respect to the application of Article 172 of the Family Code, particularly paragraph 3 thereof, in conjunction with Sections 19 and 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court relating to public documents.

• Proof of Filiation: Yes. The SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code, constituting an "admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned."
• Pure Question of Law: Yes. The Petition raises a pure question of law regarding the application of Article 172 of the Family Code in conjunction with the Rules of Court provisions on public documents, which the Court resolved in favor of the petitioner.

• Proof of Filiation: The Court applied the doctrine in De Jesus vs. Estate of Dizon, which held that filiation of legitimate children is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Court found that petitioner was born on March 5, 1945, during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar and before their respective deaths. Alfredo Aguilar's SSS Form E-1, being a public instrument subscribed and made under oath, constitutes an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document signed by the parent concerned. The Court held that it was erroneous for the CA to treat said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof, being an express recognition in a public instrument. The Court noted that petitioner could not produce his Certificate of Live Birth because all records covering 1945-1946 of the Local Civil Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed, which necessitated the introduction of other documentary evidence. The Court also observed that petitioner could have obtained a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth from the National Statistics Office, since for every registered birth in the country, a copy is submitted to said office.
• Pure Question of Law: The Court addressed petitioner's argument that respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy and that the action to impugn legitimacy has prescribed. Citing Labagala vs. Santiago, the Court held that Article 263 (now Article 170 of the Family Code) refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, but the present case is not one impugning petitioner's legitimacy; respondent is asserting that petitioner is not a child of Alfredo at all. The Court concluded that since petitioner has shown that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses, he is as well heir to the latter's estate, and respondent is left with no right to inherit from her aunt's estate, since succession pertains, in the first place, to the descending direct line under Article 978 of the Civil Code.

• Admission of Legitimate Filiation in a Public Document — Under Article 172 of the Family Code, legitimate filiation is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Alfredo Aguilar's SSS Form E-1, being a public instrument executed under oath, constitutes such an admission and establishes petitioner's legitimate filiation without need of a separate court action.
• Consummated Act of Acknowledgment — The due recognition of a child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. Any authentic writing is treated not just as a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the SSS Form E-1 is an express recognition in a public instrument under the first paragraph of Article 172.
• Presumption of Legitimacy — The presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate is perhaps the most firmly established presumption of law, founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason. This presumption becomes conclusive in the absence of proof of physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days immediately preceding the birth of the child. The Court noted that upon the expiration of the periods set forth in Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code, the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.

• "The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws." — This passage from De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon, quoted by the Court, states the canonical formulation of the modes of establishing filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code and is the controlling doctrine in this case.
• "The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required." — This passage establishes that recognition in an authentic writing is a consummated act of acknowledgment, which the Court applied to hold that the SSS Form E-1 constitutes voluntary recognition without need of judicial approval.
• "It was erroneous for the CA to treat said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof, the same being an express recognition in a public instrument." — This is the Court's direct ruling on the central issue, distinguishing between the two paragraphs of Article 172 and clarifying that a public document signed by the parent falls under the first paragraph.

• De Jesus vs. Estate of Dizon, 418 Phil. 768 (2001) — Controlling precedent cited by the Court for the doctrine on the modes of establishing filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code, including the rule that an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned establishes filiation without need of court action.
• Dela Cruz vs. Gracia, 612 Phil. 167 (2009) — Cited by the Court for the rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in private handwritten instruments, and for the policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of paternity and filiation of children.
• Labagala vs. Santiago, 422 Phil. 699 (2001) — Cited by the Court for the proposition that Article 263 (now Article 170 of the Family Code) refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, but the present case is not one impugning petitioner's legitimacy; respondent is asserting that petitioner is not a child of Alfredo at all.
• Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 439 — Cited by the CA (as quoted in the decision) for the rule that student records or other writings not signed by the alleged father do not constitute evidence of filiation.

• Article 172, Family Code — The provision establishing the modes of proving legitimate filiation: (1) record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned; in the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Court applied this provision in holding that the SSS Form E-1 constitutes an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document.
• Articles 170 and 171, Family Code — Provisions governing the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child and the periods within which such action must be brought. The Court cited these provisions in addressing petitioner's argument that respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy and that the action has prescribed.
• Article 978, Civil Code — The provision on succession pertaining to the descending direct line. The Court cited this provision in concluding that since petitioner has shown he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses, he is heir to their estate, and respondent has no right to inherit from her aunt's estate.
• Sections 19 and 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Provisions relating to public documents as evidence, cited by petitioner in support of his argument that the SSS Form E-1, being a public document, should be given evidentiary weight in establishing filiation.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., J., Mendoza, J., and Leonen, J., concurred in the decision.