Ara vs. Pizarro

A claim of illegitimate filiation made after the death of the alleged parent must be supported by a record of birth appearing in the civil register, a final judgment, or an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned; the action based on the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code (open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child) may be brought only during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

Petitioners Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia, and respondents Dra. Fely S. Pizarro and Henry Rossi, all claimed to be children of the late Josefa A. Ara, who died on November 18, 2002. Josefa was married to Vicente Salgado, who died during World War II, and later to Alfredo Garcia on January 24, 1952. The dispute concerned the partition of Josefa's estate, which included a lot in Valencia City, Bukidnon, a Tamaraw FX, and an RCBC Bank Passbook. The parties referred the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation, but no amicable settlement was reached, leading to the issuance of a Certification to File Action.

Petitioners Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia, along with Ramon A. Garcia and respondent Henry Rossi, verbally sought the partition of properties left by the deceased Josefa A. Ara, which were in the possession of respondent Dra. Fely S. Pizarro. The properties consisted of a lot in Poblacion, Valencia City, Bukidnon covered by Katibayan ng Original na Titulo No. T-30333, a Tamaraw FX, and an RCBC Bank Passbook with a deposit of Php 108,000.00. Respondent Pizarro refused to partition these properties, prompting the referral of the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation, which failed, leading to the issuance of a Certification to File Action dated April 3, 2003.

Plaintiffs a quo filed a Complaint dated April 9, 2003 for judicial partition before the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 9. In her Answer, respondent Pizarro averred that, to her knowledge, she was the only legitimate and only child of Josefa, and denied that any of the plaintiffs were her siblings. She also alleged that the late Josefa left other properties mostly in the possession of plaintiffs a quo, which were omitted from the partition (Additional Properties). At the pre-trial, Ara, Garcia, and Ramon claimed a property of respondent Rossi as part of the estate, which was not alleged in the original complaint, compelling Rossi to engage separate counsel due to a conflict of interest.

In a Pre-trial Order issued on October 1, 2003, the Trial Court admitted that all the fathers of the children were deceased, that the Additional Properties were part of the partition case, and that all the properties were acquired after the death of Vicente Salgado and presumably were exclusive properties of Josefa. After trial, the Trial Court issued a Decision on February 20, 2006, awarding the Baguio property to Henry Rossi, the Valencia property, Tamaraw FX, and RCBC Bank Deposit Passbook to Fely S. Pizarro, and declaring other properties under co-ownership of all plaintiffs and defendant in equal shares.

Respondent Pizarro appealed, claiming the Trial Court erred in finding petitioners Ara and Garcia to be children of Josefa. Petitioners Ara and Garcia, as well as respondent Rossi, also filed their own appeals. The Court of Appeals, on August 1, 2008, held that only respondents Pizarro and Rossi, as well as plaintiff a quo Ramon, were the children of the late Josefa, entitled to shares in her estate. The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's finding that petitioners were illegitimate sons of Josefa, ruling that the Trial Court erred in allowing petitioners to prove their status as illegitimate sons after her death.

Petitioners presented the following evidence to establish their filiation: Garcia's Baptismal Certificate listing Josefa as his mother; Garcia's Certificate of Marriage listing Josefa as his mother; a picture of Garcia's wedding with Josefa and other relatives; the Certificate of Marriage of Alfredo and Josefa; Garcia's Certificate of Live Birth from Paniqui, Tarlac, issued on October 23, 2003, which was a late registration of his birth; a group picture of all the parties; a statement in Rossi's Comment that Garcia and Ara were half-brothers of Rossi, their mother being Josefa; Ara's testimony that he was a son of Josefa and Gray; and the testimony of Nelly Alipio, a first-degree cousin of Josefa, that Ara was a son of Josefa and Gray. Respondent Pizarro, on the other hand, submitted petitioners' certificates of live birth showing that Garcia's parents were Pedro Garcia and Carmen Bugarin, and that Ara was the son of spouses Jose Ara and Maria Flores.

• Erroneous Application of Article 285 of the Civil Code: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied Article 285 of the Civil Code, which requires that an action for the recognition of natural children be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parents, subject to certain exceptions.
• Acknowledgment During Josefa's Lifetime: Petitioners asserted that during Josefa's lifetime, Josefa acknowledged all of them as her children directly, continuously, spontaneously, and without concealment.
• Non-Application of Article 172, Second Paragraph: Petitioners claimed that the Court of Appeals did not apply the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, which states that filiation may be established even without the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or an admission of filiation in a public or handwritten document.
• Asymmetric Application of the Rule: Petitioners averred that the Court of Appeals erred in its asymmetric application of the rule on establishing filiation, finding that respondent Pizarro was a daughter of Josefa Ara and Vicente Salgado without basis, and that there was no direct evidence to prove respondent Rossi's filiation to Josefa except for his Baptismal Certificate.

• Filiation of Petitioners: Respondent Pizarro argued that William Garcia obtained his Certificate of Live Birth more than six months after the case was filed, and that he likely applied for late registration when he learned from respondent's Answer that she was the only child of Josefa Ara, suggesting that Garcia already knew he had a record of birth showing his mother was not Josefa Ara.
• Filiation of Respondents: Respondents' filiation with Josefa was not put in question before the Trial Court, and even petitioners admitted in their Complaint that respondents were Josefa's children.

• Establishment of Illegitimate Filiation After Death: Whether petitioners may prove their filiation to Josefa through their open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children, found in the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, after the death of the alleged parent.
• Evidentiary Weight of Delayed Registration of Birth: Whether petitioner Garcia's Certificate of Live Birth obtained through late registration constitutes a record of birth appearing in the civil register under Article 172 of the Family Code, sufficient to establish filiation.
• Admission of Filiation: Whether the evidence presented by petitioners constitutes an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned, as required under Article 172 of the Family Code.

• Establishment of Illegitimate Filiation After Death: No. Petitioners could no longer be allowed to introduce evidence of their open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children after the death of Josefa, as the action must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent under Article 175 in relation to Article 172 of the Family Code.
• Evidentiary Weight of Delayed Registration of Birth: No. The delayed registration of birth, made after the death of the putative parent, is tenuous proof of filiation and was not accorded the same evidentiary weight as regular birth certificates, especially considering that one of the reports of birth was made only after initiating the case.
• Admission of Filiation: No. The evidence presented by petitioners, such as group pictures, testimonies, baptismal certificates, and certificates of marriage, did not show any act, declaration, or omission attributable directly to Josefa, and thus did not constitute an admission of filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code.

• Establishment of Illegitimate Filiation After Death: The Court reasoned that under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children, but the action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. Citing Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a person who seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a putative parent must do so via a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation. Since Josefa passed away in 2002, petitioners could no longer introduce evidence of open and continuous illegitimate filiation to her. The Court emphasized that an alleged parent is the best person to affirm or deny a putative descendant's filiation, and absent the required evidence, a deceased person will have no opportunity to contest a claim of filiation. The limitation acknowledges that there may be other persons whose rights should be protected from spurious claims, including other children whose statuses are supported by strong evidence of a categorical nature.
• Evidentiary Weight of Delayed Registration of Birth: The Court acknowledged that birth certificates offer prima facie evidence of filiation, but the circumstances surrounding the delayed registration prevented the Court from according it the same weight as any other birth certificate. Citing Act No. 3753 and NSO Administrative Order No. 1-93, the Court noted that the rules require that facts of the report be certified by an attendant at birth within 30 days from birth, ensuring that the report is a factual reporting of birth. The Court found that the delayed registration of Garcia's birth, made after the death of the putative parent and after the case was filed, was tenuous proof of filiation. Citing Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals and Berciles vs. Government Service Insurance System, the Court held that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father is not competent evidence of paternity. The Court also cited People vs. Villar, which sustained the rejection of a delayed registration of birth as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
• Admission of Filiation: The Court held that an admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party on a relevant fact, which may be used in evidence against him. The evidence presented by petitioners, such as group pictures with Josefa and testimonies, did not show that Josefa is their mother, as they did not contain any acts, declarations, or omissions attributable directly to Josefa. Although Garcia's Baptismal Certificate, Certificate of Marriage, and Certificate of Live Birth obtained via late registration all state that Josefa is his mother, they do not show any act, declaration, or omission on the part of Josefa, as she did not participate in making any of them. The Court also noted that the Court of Appeals properly gave credence to the birth certificates submitted by respondent Pizarro, which named Carmen Bugarin and Maria Flores as the respective mothers of petitioners Garcia and Ara, and that these were matters of appreciation of evidence that cannot be subject to inquiry in a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Establishment of Illegitimate Filiation — Under Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172 (open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child), in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. After the death of the putative parent, filiation may only be established through a record of birth appearing in the civil register, a final judgment, or an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned.
• Evidentiary Weight of Delayed Registration of Birth — A delayed registration of birth, made after the death of the putative parent, is tenuous proof of filiation. While birth certificates offer prima facie evidence of filiation, the circumstances surrounding delayed registration, such as the absence of the putative parent's participation and the timing of the registration relative to the filing of the case, prevent the certificate from being accorded the same evidentiary weight as regular birth certificates.
• Admission of Filiation — An admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party on a relevant fact, which may be used in evidence against him. To constitute an admission of filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code, the evidence must show an act, declaration, or omission attributable directly to the parent concerned, pertaining to the parent's filiation with the child. Evidence such as group pictures, testimonies, baptismal certificates, and certificates of marriage that do not involve the parent's participation do not constitute an admission of filiation.

• "For a claim of filiation to succeed, it must be made within the period allowed, and supported by the evidence required under the Family Code." — This opening statement articulates the core principle of the decision, emphasizing the dual requirements of timeliness and evidentiary support for claims of filiation.
• "The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent." — This passage from Article 175 of the Family Code is the controlling rule that barred petitioners' claim, as they sought to prove filiation through open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children after Josefa's death.
• "A delayed registration of birth, made after the death of the putative parent, is tenuous proof of filiation." — This statement establishes the Court's ruling on the evidentiary weight of Garcia's late-registered Certificate of Live Birth, which was not accorded the same weight as regular birth certificates.
• "An alleged parent is the best person to affirm or deny a putative descendant's filiation. Absent a record of birth appearing in a civil register or a final judgment, an express admission of filiation in a public document, or a handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned, a deceased person will have no opportunity to contest a claim of filiation." — This passage explains the rationale behind the limitation that an action to prove filiation as an illegitimate child be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent, protecting the rights of other persons from spurious claims.

• Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, 258-A Phil. 467 (1989) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that a person who seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a putative parent must do so via a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation, and that the action based on the second paragraph of Article 172 may be brought only during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
• Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals, 300 Phil. 131 (1994) — Cited for the rule that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father is not competent evidence of paternity, and that a birth certificate of an illegitimate child, when signed only by the mother, is incompetent evidence of fathership.
• Berciles vs. Government Service Insurance System, 213 Phil. 48 (1984) — Cited for the rule that a birth certificate not signed by either the father or the mother, with no participation or intervention by the alleged father, is not evidence of paternity, and that a birth certificate does not constitute recognition in a public instrument.
• People vs. Villar, 193 Phil. 203 (1981) — Cited to sustain the rejection of a delayed registration of birth as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, as the local civil registrar merely receives the information submitted to him and does not inquire into its veracity.
• Heirs of Cabais vs. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 681 (1999) — Cited for the rule that birth certificates offer prima facie evidence of filiation, and that to overthrow the presumption of truth contained in a birth certificate, a high degree of proof is needed.

• Article 172, Family Code — Provides the modes of establishing the filiation of legitimate children: (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 of the foregoing evidence, legitimate 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. The Court applied this provision to determine that petitioners' evidence did not fall under the first paragraph, and that the action based on the second paragraph could no longer be brought after Josefa's death.
• Article 173, Family Code — Provides that the action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity, with the heirs having a period of five years within which to institute the action. This provision was cited in relation to the period for bringing an action to establish filiation.
• Article 175, Family Code — Provides that illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children, and that the action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. This provision was the controlling rule that barred petitioners' claim.
• Article 285, Civil Code — Provides that the action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, subject to exceptions. The Court of Appeals applied this provision, and the Supreme Court noted that the exceptions under this provision have been omitted by Articles 172, 173, and 175 of the Family Code.
• Section 5, Act No. 3753 — Provides for the registration and certification of births, requiring the declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, to be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth. The Court cited this provision to explain the high evidentiary value of birth certificates.
• Rule 21, NSO Administrative Order No. 1-93 — Provides the persons responsible to report the event of birth, including the administrator of a hospital or clinic, the attendant at birth, or either or both parents of the child. The Court cited this rule to explain the requirements for the registration of births.
• Rule 25, NSO Administrative Order No. 1-93 — Provides the requirements for delayed registration of birth, including the accomplished Affidavit for Delayed Registration and documentary evidences. The Court cited this rule to explain the circumstances surrounding Garcia's late registration of birth.
• Rule 130, Section 26, Rules of Court — Defines an admission as an act, declaration, or omission of a party on a relevant fact, which may be used in evidence against him. The Court applied this definition to determine that petitioners' evidence did not constitute an admission of filiation.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.