Arado vs. Alcoran

A complaint for recovery of specific properties (accion reivindicatoria) cannot prosper where the estates of the decedents through whom the plaintiffs claim ownership have not been partitioned, because before partition, each heir is only an undivided co-owner of the entire estate and cannot claim a definite portion. Additionally, an illegitimate child cannot inherit from the legitimate relatives of his father or mother under Article 992 of the Civil Code, and a will that has not been probated cannot pass any property.

The dispute concerned properties in Negros Oriental that originally belonged to Raymundo Alcoran and his wife Joaquina Arado. Raymundo and Joaquina had one legitimate son, Nicolas, who married Florencia Limpahan but had no legitimate offspring. During the marriage, Nicolas had an extramarital affair with Francisca Sarita, who gave birth to respondent Anacleto Alcoran in 1951. The applicable succession laws varied across time: the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 governed when Raymundo died in 1939, while the Civil Code of the Philippines governed when Nicolas died in 1954 and when Joaquina died in 1981. The Family Code was in effect when the complaint was filed in 1992.

Raymundo Alcoran was married to Joaquina Arado, and their marriage produced a son, Nicolas Alcoran. Nicolas married Florencia Limpahan, but their union had no offspring. During the marriage, however, Nicolas had an extramarital affair with Francisca Sarita, who gave birth to respondent Anacleto Alcoran on July 13, 1951, during the subsistence of Nicolas' marriage to Florencia. In 1972, Anacleto married Elenette Sunjaco. Raymundo died in 1939, Nicolas in 1954, Florencia in 1960, and Joaquina in 1981.

On January 14, 1992, Alejandra Arado, Jesusa Arado, Victoriano Alcoriza, Pedro Arado, and Tomasa Arado filed in the RTC a complaint for recovery of property and damages against Anacleto and Elenette. The properties subject of the action were ten parcels of land, the first eight of which had previously belonged to Raymundo, while the last two had been the paraphernal properties of Joaquina, as later stipulated by the parties. The plaintiffs alleged that when Raymundo died, his properties were inherited by Nicolas alone; that when Nicolas died without issue, half of his properties were inherited by Florencia and the other half by Joaquina; that Florencia was succeeded by her siblings; that Anacleto was not entitled to inherit from Nicolas because Nicolas did not recognize him during his lifetime; and that Joaquina's will was void for not having been executed according to the formalities of the law and was not submitted for probate.

The defendants countered that Anacleto was expressly recognized by Nicolas as the latter's son, as evidenced by Anacleto's certificate of birth; that Anacleto had the right to inherit from Nicolas; that Joaquina executed a last will and testament in Anacleto's favor; and that the plaintiffs' rights, if any, were already lost through laches, estoppel, and prescription. Veronica Limpahan and Sulpicio Limpahan filed their Answer stating that they were not interested in pursuing any claim of ownership and were abandoning their rights in the properties.

The RTC rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim, holding that Anacleto established that he was the acknowledged illegitimate son of Nicolas, citing the certificate of birth, the register of births, the baptismal certificate, a photograph taken during Nicolas' wake, school records, and the marriage contract. The RTC applied Articles 172, 173, and 175 of the Family Code, ruling that Anacleto established his filiation through the record of birth appearing in the civil register. The CA affirmed, additionally ruling that the plaintiffs were barred by estoppel by laches and that Joaquina's will transmitted the properties to Anacleto upon her death in 1981.

• Non-Recognition of Anacleto: Petitioners insisted that Anacleto was not duly recognized as Nicolas' illegitimate son; that because Anacleto was born to Francisca during the subsistence of Nicolas' marriage to Florencia, Anacleto could only be the spurious child of Nicolas; and that there was no law for the acknowledgment of a spurious child.
• Insufficiency of Birth Certificate: Petitioners argued that the appearance of the father's name in the certificate of birth alone, without his actual intervention, was insufficient to prove paternity; that the mere certificate by the civil registrar that the father himself registered the child, without the father's signature, was not proof of the father's voluntary acknowledgment; and that the baptismal certificate was insufficient proof of paternity.
• Prescription: Petitioners argued that if there was ground for Anacleto's recognition, the period to claim recognition already prescribed.
• Invalidity of the Will: Petitioners assailed the validity and due execution of Joaquina's will, which was not submitted for probate; that the joint affidavit executed in favor of Anacleto by Sulpicio, Braulia, and Veronica Limpahan, with Josefina, Gliceria, and Felicisima Arado, was unwarranted; and that the veracity of the affidavit was doubtful because it was purportedly inconsistent with Anacleto's stance that he had inherited the properties in his own right.

• Recognition by Nicolas: Respondents countered that Nicolas recognized Anacleto as his illegitimate child because Nicolas had himself caused the registration of Anacleto's birth.
• No Prescription: Respondents argued that the petitioners' allegation of prescription lacked basis inasmuch as Anacleto was not seeking compulsory recognition.
• Voluntary Recognition: Respondents argued that Anacleto had already been voluntarily recognized by Nicolas as his illegitimate son.

• Filiation of Anacleto: Whether Anacleto Alcoran is the illegitimate son of Nicolas Alcoran.
• Entitlement to Properties: Whether Anacleto is entitled to the properties in litigation.

• Filiation of Anacleto: Yes. Anacleto is the acknowledged illegitimate son of Nicolas, established through the record of birth appearing in the civil register where Nicolas himself supplied the information, pursuant to Articles 172, 173, and 175 of the Family Code.
• Entitlement to Properties: No. Although Anacleto became a co-owner of the properties comprising Nicolas' estate upon Nicolas' death in 1954, and although the petitioners are the collateral relatives entitled to inherit from Joaquina's estate, neither party can claim specific properties because the estates of Raymundo, Nicolas, and Joaquina were never partitioned.

• Filiation of Anacleto: The Court affirmed the holding of the RTC and the CA that the Family Code applied because the complaint was filed, litigated, and decided during its effectivity. Under the Family Code, the classification of children is limited to either legitimate or illegitimate. Illegitimate filiation is proved in accordance with Article 175, which allows illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children, as provided in Articles 172 and 173. The birth certificate of Anacleto appearing in the Register of Births of the Municipality of Bacong showed that Nicolas had himself caused the registration of Anacleto's birth, as evidenced by Nicolas' name appearing in the "Remarks" column, which was the space provided for the name of the informant. Considering that Nicolas, the putative father, had a direct hand in the preparation of the birth certificate, reliance on it as evidence of paternity was fully warranted. The Court, however, attached no probative value to the baptismal certificate, citing Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals that baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible as proof of filiation. The photograph of Anacleto with Joaquina near Nicolas' coffin was also undeserved of weight, citing Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr. that such photographs cannot constitute proof of filiation. The school records and marriage contract, which showed Joaquina's recognition of Anacleto, mattered little because recognition must be made personally by the parent himself, not by any relative, citing Cenido vs. Apacionado. Notwithstanding the lack of probative value of the corroborative evidence, Anacleto's recognition as Nicolas' illegitimate child remained beyond question because Nicolas personally and directly acknowledged him.

• Entitlement to Properties: With Raymundo having died in 1939, the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 governed succession. Under Article 807, Joaquina and Nicolas were the forced heirs who acquired legal title to Raymundo's estate upon his death. Under Article 834, Nicolas was entitled to inherit the entire estate of Raymundo, while Joaquina was entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to the one-third portion available for betterment. When Nicolas died in 1954, the Civil Code of the Philippines was already in effect. Under Article 1000, the heirs entitled to inherit from Nicolas' estate were Joaquina (his mother), Florencia (his surviving spouse), and Anacleto (his acknowledged illegitimate son). These heirs became co-owners of the properties comprising the entire estate of Nicolas prior to partition, in accordance with Article 1078. Anacleto became a pro indiviso co-owner of the first eight properties when Nicolas died in 1954. When Joaquina died in 1981, her hereditary estate included the two remaining properties, as well as her share in Nicolas' estate. Because Joaquina died without any surviving legitimate descendant, ascendant, illegitimate child, or spouse, Article 1003 mandated that her collateral relatives should inherit her entire estate. Contrary to the rulings of the lower courts, Anacleto was barred by law from inheriting from Joaquina's estate. First, Anacleto could not inherit by right of representation of Nicolas under Article 992 of the Civil Code, which provides that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. Second, Anacleto could not inherit by virtue of Joaquina's will because Article 838 of the Civil Code dictates that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court; the will remained ineffective because the records were silent as to whether it had ever been presented for probate. As the petitioners were among the collateral relatives of Joaquina, they are the ones entitled to inherit from her estate. Nonetheless, the petitioners' appeal still failed because the parties did not establish that the estates of Raymundo, Nicolas, and Joaquina had been respectively settled with finality through the appropriate testate or intestate proceedings and partitioned in due course. Citing Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals, the Court declared that unless a project of partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance; without partition, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate. Without the showing that the respective estates had been previously partitioned, none of the parties could lay claim over any of the disputed specific properties.

• Accion reivindicatoria — An action that seeks the recovery of ownership and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought in the proper regional trial court; it is an action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. The Court characterized the petitioners' complaint as an accion reivindicatoria, and held that the burden of proof to establish the averments of the complaint by preponderance of evidence pertained to the petitioners as plaintiffs.

• Preponderance of evidence — The weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, usually considered synonymous with "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence"; it means probability of the truth, being evidence more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that offered in opposition. If a plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence and must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. The Court held that the petitioners did not discharge their burden of proof.

• Establishment of illegitimate filiation under the Family Code — Under the Family Code, the classification of children is limited to either legitimate or illegitimate. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children, pursuant to Article 175, which refers to Articles 172 and 173. 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. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, filiation shall be proved by open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child, or by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Court applied these provisions to hold that Anacleto's filiation was established through the record of birth in the civil register where Nicolas himself supplied the information.

• Recognition must be made personally by the parent — Recognition speaks of a voluntary declaration by the parent, or if the parent refuses, by judicial authority, to establish the paternity or maternity of children born outside wedlock; it must be made personally by the parent himself or herself, not by any brother, sister, or relative. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting the evidentiary value of the school records and marriage contract showing Joaquina's recognition of Anacleto, since recognition by a relative mattered little.

• Bar against illegitimate child inheriting from legitimate relatives (Article 992, Civil Code) — An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; in the same manner, such children or relatives shall not inherit from the illegitimate child. The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. The Court applied this provision to hold that Anacleto could not inherit from Joaquina by right of representation of Nicolas.

• Probate of will is mandatory — No will shall pass either real or personal property unless the same is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court; in order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized, or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Joaquina's will remained ineffective because the records were silent as to whether it had ever been presented for probate and allowed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

• No partition, no claim to specific portions — Unless a project of partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance; without partition, either by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that because the estates of Raymundo, Nicolas, and Joaquina had not been partitioned, none of the parties could lay claim over any of the disputed specific properties.

• "The petitioners did not discharge their burden of proof." — This statement encapsulates the Court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim of ownership over the specific properties, which was the central basis for affirming the dismissal of the complaint.

• "Anacleto's recognition as Nicolas' illegitimate child remained beyond question in view of the showing that Nicolas had personally and directly acknowledged Anacleto as his illegitimate son." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the filiation issue, emphasizing that the birth certificate, where Nicolas himself supplied the information, was sufficient to establish acknowledgment.

• "Contrary to the rulings of the lower courts, Anacleto was barred by law from inheriting from the estate of Joaquina." — This passage corrects the lower courts' erroneous rulings and introduces the Court's application of Article 992 of the Civil Code, which bars an illegitimate child from inheriting from the legitimate relatives of his father.

• "Without the showing that the respective estates of Raymundo, Nicolas and Joaquina had been previously partitioned, the Court concludes and holds that none of the parties herein can lay claim over any of the disputed specific properties." — This passage states the ultimate ratio decidendi for affirming the dismissal of the complaint, applying the doctrine that without partition, heirs cannot claim specific portions of an estate.

• Caneza vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 170189, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 580 — Cited as authority defining accion reivindicatoria as an action seeking recovery of ownership and full possession of a parcel of land.

• Amoroso vs. Alegre, Jr., G.R. No. 142766, June 15, 2007, 524 SCRA 641 — Cited as authority defining the concept of preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove his claim by competent evidence.

• Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998, 286 SCRA 495 — Cited as authority for the rule that a certificate of live birth identifying the putative father is competent evidence of paternity when there is a showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate, such as supplying the information himself.

• Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004, 441 SCRA 96 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that a baptismal certificate, while a public document, can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child's paternity, and is per se inadmissible as proof of filiation.

• Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr., G.R. No. 146737, December 10, 2001, 371 SCRA 711 — Cited as authority for the rule that a photograph with a person near a coffin cannot constitute proof of filiation, lest it set a dangerous precedent encouraging fraudulent claims.

• Cenido vs. Apacionado, G.R. No. 132474, November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 688 — Cited as authority for the rule that recognition must be made personally by the parent himself or herself, not by any brother, sister, or relative.

• Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66574, February 21, 1990, 182 SCRA 427 — Cited as authority for the rule that the right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent.

• Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, No. L-29300, June 21, 1978, 83 SCRA 676 — Cited as authority for the rule that in order for a will to take effect, it has to be probated, legalized, or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding; the probate of the will is mandatory.

• Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-44426, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 237 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that unless a project of partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance, and without partition, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate.

• Article 172, Family Code — Provides that the filiation of legitimate children is established by the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or by an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned; in the absence of such evidence, filiation shall be proved by open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child or by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Applied to establish Anacleto's filiation through the record of birth in the civil register.

• 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. Applied in conjunction with Article 175 to determine the period for establishing illegitimate 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. Applied to allow Anacleto to establish his illegitimate filiation through the record of birth.

• Article 807, Civil Code of 1889 — Defines forced heirs, including legitimate children and descendants with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants, and in default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate children and descendants. Applied to determine the heirs of Raymundo upon his death in 1939.

• Article 834, Civil Code of 1889 — Provides that a widower or widow who is not divorced shall be entitled to a portion in usufruct equal to that corresponding by way of legitime to each of the legitimate children or descendants who has not received any betterment; if only one legitimate child or descendant survives, the widower or widow shall have the usufruct of the third available for betterment. Applied to determine Joaquina's share in Raymundo's estate.

• Article 1000, Civil Code — Provides that if legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that the widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate and the illegitimate children the other fourth. Applied to determine the heirs of Nicolas upon his death in 1954.

• Article 1003, Civil Code — Provides that if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Applied to determine that Joaquina's collateral relatives, including the petitioners, were entitled to inherit her estate.

• Article 992, Civil Code — Provides that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother, and such children or relatives shall not inherit from the illegitimate child. Applied to bar Anacleto from inheriting from Joaquina by right of representation of Nicolas.

• Article 838, Civil Code — Provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless the same is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Applied to hold that Joaquina's unprobated will was ineffective to transmit properties to Anacleto.

• Article 1078, Civil Code — Provides that where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. Applied to establish that the heirs of Nicolas became co-owners of his estate prior to partition.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred in the decision.