Hilario vs. Miranda and Belloc

An illegitimate child’s filiation, once established by a final judgment or existing from birth, entitles the child to inherit; a mere unsubstantiated claim of a better status does not shift the burden to the illegitimate child to prove filiation, and a final judgment on filiation in a prior case constitutes res judicata. A party who alleges an affirmative fact must prove it; bare allegations do not suffice.

Antonio Belloc and Dolores Retiza died intestate, leaving real properties in Sibonga, Cebu. Magdalena Varian claimed status as Antonio’s illegitimate daughter and Dolores’ half-sister; Irenea Belloc claimed to be Antonio’s niece and Dolores’ first cousin. In Civil Case No. AV-929, Magdalena sued Thelma Varian-Miranda and Santiago Miranda to nullify five deeds of sale over Dolores’ properties; the RTC declared the properties part of the intestate estates of Antonio and Dolores and recognized Magdalena as Antonio’s illegitimate child, and that Decision became final on May 12, 2001. The Family Code and Civil Code provisions on filiation, intestate succession, and res judicata supply the statutory backdrop.

Antonio Belloc had three children from three different women: Magdalena Varian, whose mother was Balbina dela Cruz; Dolores Retiza, whose mother was Silveria Retiza; and Alberto, whose mother was Hipolita, whose surname was probably Flarnor. Alberto predeceased Antonio and was survived by his only son, Teresito Flamor. Antonio died on August 20, 1974 at the Cebu Community Hospital, while Dolores and Silveria died in 1995 and on December 30, 1994, respectively. Antonio and Dolores died intestate, leaving real properties in Sibonga, Cebu. Magdalena filed Civil Case No. AV-929 against Thelma Varian-Miranda and Santiago Miranda to nullify five deeds of sale over Dolores’ properties, which Magdalena claimed were simulated or fictitious. The RTC found that Antonio never married Silveria; the alleged marriage was highly doubtful because Antonio was comatose and could not give consent, and the marriage contract was not formally offered in evidence. The RTC concluded that Antonio died single, survived by his two illegitimate children, Magdalena and Dolores, and his grandson Teresito Flamor. It also found that Dolores was insane at the time of the alleged sales and was placed under guardianship in 1995; at her death, her only surviving heir was her half-sister Magdalena and her nephew Teresito Flamor. The RTC nullified the deeds of sale and declared the properties part of the intestate estates of Antonio and Dolores, to be inherited by their intestate heirs upon proper proof of filiation or paternity. That Decision became final on May 12, 2001.

On June 22, 2001, Ingrid V. Hilario, Magdalena’s daughter, filed two petitions for the issuance of letters of administration with urgent application for appointment of a special administratrix in SP Nos. A-522 and A-523, involving the properties of Antonio and Dolores. She alleged that Magdalena was the heir of both decedents, who died intestate and left real properties in Sibonga, Cebu, and prayed for her appointment as special administratrix and for letters of administration after notice, publication, and hearing. On July 2, 2001, Ingrid moved for the issuance of letters of administration, alleging that the appointment of a special administratrix would take time and that no one could receive delivery of the properties of Antonio and Dolores, consisting of seven parcels of coconut and corn land with an aggregate area of 147,653 square meters, which the RTC had ordered returned to the estates in Civil Case No. AV-929. On September 10, 2001, the RTC found that both Antonio and Dolores died without a will and left several properties, and that Ingrid was qualified and entitled to letters of administration; it ordered the issuance of letters to Ingrid upon posting an administrator’s bond of P100,000.00. The letters were issued to Ingrid on October 3, 2001.

On July 31, 2002, Magdalena, although not a party to SP Nos. A-522 and A-523, filed an ex-parte motion to be declared sole heir of both Antonio and Dolores. Thelma, Magdalena’s daughter and one of the defendants in Civil Case No. AV-929, opposed. Thelma alleged that Magdalena was not the sole heir of Antonio and could not be an heir of Dolores. According to Thelma, Antonio had three children: Magdalena, Dolores, and Alberto; Magdalena and Alberto were illegitimate; Dolores died without issue; and Alberto was survived by his son, Teresito Flamor, who was entitled to inherit from Antonio’s estate in representation of his father. Thelma further asserted that Dolores’ status was elevated from illegitimate to legitimate by the subsequent marriage of her mother, Silveria Retiza, with Antonio, so that Magdalena, an illegitimate child, could not inherit from Dolores under Article 992 of the Civil Code. On August 26, 2002, Magdalena filed an amended ex-parte motion for declaration as heir of both Antonio and Dolores, insisting that Antonio had no other heir except her and Dolores, and that upon Dolores’ death she became the sole heir of her half-sister. Magdalena stated that she did not furnish Thelma a copy of the motion because Thelma did not show any legal interest in the estates under administration, and she prayed to be declared an heir, no longer “sole” heir, of Antonio and Dolores. Magdalena also filed a motion to strike Thelma’s opposition, which Thelma opposed. On February 27, 2003, the RTC denied the motion to strike and declared that a trial was needed to determine the lawful heirs. On June 9, 2003, Magdalena died. Upon motion, Violet V. Miller, Joseph Varian, Jr., Elizabeth V. Tongson, Ingrid V. Hilario, and Lalaine V. Ong were declared as Magdalena’s legal representatives.

On August 25, 2004, Irenea filed a motion for leave to intervene and an opposition-in-intervention. She claimed to be the daughter of Teodoro Belloc and Eugenia Retiza. Teodoro was the brother of Antonio, while Eugenia was the sister of Silveria, the mother of Dolores. Irenea thus claimed to be the niece of Antonio on his side and the first cousin of Dolores. She claimed that Magdalena could not inherit from Dolores because Magdalena was not a daughter of Antonio; even granting that Magdalena was Antonio’s illegitimate child, she could not inherit from Dolores under Article 992 of the Civil Code because Dolores was a legitimate child. Irenea also alleged that she was the nearest surviving relative of both Antonio and Dolores and was entitled to be appointed as sole administrator of their estate. The RTC granted the motion for intervention on February 3, 2005.

After joint trial, the RTC rendered its Decision on January 25, 2006. It declared Magdalena Varian as heir of Antonio and Dolores, to be represented by Violet V. Miller, Joseph Varian, Jr., Elizabeth V. Tongson, Ingrid V. Hilario, Lalaine V. Ong, and Thelma V. Miranda, who shall inherit the estate in equal shares. It denied Irenea’s claim for declaration as sole heir and her claim for appointment as administratrix. The RTC found that Magdalena had established sufficient proof to be declared an heir of Antonio and Dolores. Magdalena was the daughter of Antonio and Balbina dela Cruz, who were not married to each other, while Dolores was the daughter of Antonio and Silveria. Antonio and Silveria died intestate before Dolores died on January 2, 1995 without children and without a will. Magdalena, as Antonio’s illegitimate daughter and Dolores’ half-sister, was the relative nearest in degree to Antonio and Dolores. The RTC held that Irenea could not be declared sole heir under Article 962 of the Civil Code. Irenea was the niece of Antonio and the first cousin of Dolores, related to Dolores within the fourth civil degree, but Magdalena, being the relative nearest in degree, excluded collateral and distant relatives, including Irenea. The RTC also ruled on the invalidity of the marriage of Antonio and Silveria, considered the May 31, 2000 Decision in Civil Case No. AV-929 well-taken, and noted that it had been affirmed by the CA and the Supreme Court. It further noted that Irenea did not categorically state that she personally witnessed the alleged wedding, did not present any of the persons she mentioned as having attended the wedding, and rested her case without presenting any documentary evidence. The RTC thus found that Irenea failed to substantiate her claim that Antonio and Silveria were legally married. As regards Thelma’s opposition, the RTC held that Thelma was one of Magdalena’s heirs, being one of her children, and was entitled to a share equal to that of one of Magdalena’s legal representatives.

Thelma and Irenea filed separate motions for reconsideration. On April 3, 2006, the RTC denied the motions on the ground that the issues raised had already been passed upon in the final and executory May 31, 2000 Decision in Civil Case No. AV-929 and in the January 25, 2006 Decision in SP Nos. A-522 and A-523. Thelma and Irenea elevated the case to the CA, mainly arguing that the RTC erred in declaring Magdalena as an intestate heir of Antonio and Dolores. On October 13, 2009, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and declared Irenea Belloc as the sole heir of Antonio and Dolores. The CA held that Magdalena’s right to inherit depended upon acknowledgment or recognition of her continuous enjoyment and possession of the status of a child of her supposed father, and that no evidence supported either premise. Although Magdalena was Antonio’s spurious daughter, the CA held that she could not inherit from his estate because she was not recognized by him either voluntarily or by court action. The CA noted that actions to establish illegitimate filiation require a high standard of proof, and that if petitions for recognition and support are dismissed for failure to meet that standard, a court cannot declare a person an illegitimate heir without evidence in a proceeding for declaration of nullity of documents. Even if proof of Magdalena’s filiation to Antonio was presented in the nullity case, the CA held that such proof was insufficient to confer hereditary rights because it was necessary to allege that the putative father had acknowledged and recognized her as an illegitimate child. The CA added that Article 887 of the Civil Code requires that, in all cases of illegitimate children, filiation must be duly proved. Since Magdalena’s filiation was not sufficiently established, she was not entitled to successional rights from Antonio or Dolores, and Ingrid could not succeed from their estates. Applying Articles 961 and 962 of the Civil Code, the CA ruled that Irenea, as Antonio’s niece and Dolores’ first cousin, was entitled to inherit from the decedents. The CA also ruled that Thelma was not entitled to inherit from Antonio and Dolores because her filiation with them was not established; the records showed she was the daughter of Magdalena with Joseph Miranda. Ingrid moved for reconsideration. On April 4, 2011, the CA denied the motion and granted the substitution of Irenea’s heirs, the revocation of the letters of administration issued to Ingrid, and the issuance of new letters of administration in favor of Ramon Belloc, Jr., the legal representative of Irenea’s estate. Ingrid then appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Res Judicata: Petitioner argued that the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929 had already settled Magdalena’s and Dolores’ status as illegitimate children of Antonio and their status as intestate heirs, and that the judgment could no longer be challenged.
• Final Judgment as Proof of Filiation: Petitioner maintained that under the Family Code, a “final judgment” is a basis for establishing illegitimate filiation.

• Lack of Recognized Filiation (Thelma): In her comment to the petition, Thelma argued that Magdalena was not a recognized illegitimate daughter of Antonio and therefore could not inherit from Antonio or Dolores.
• Article 992 Bar (Thelma and Irenea): Thelma and Irenea maintained that Magdalena, as an illegitimate child, could not inherit from Dolores because Dolores was allegedly legitimized by the marriage of Antonio and Silveria, invoking Article 992 of the Civil Code.
• Representation by Teresito Flamor (Thelma): Thelma alleged that Antonio had a deceased illegitimate son, Alberto, survived by Teresito Flamor, who was entitled to inherit in representation, so Magdalena was not the sole heir.
• Irenea’s Sole Heirship: Irenea claimed she was the daughter of Teodoro Belloc and Eugenia Retiza, the niece of Antonio and first cousin of Dolores, and thus the nearest surviving relative entitled to be declared sole heir and appointed administrator.

• Irenea’s Claim as Sole Heir: Whether Irenea Belloc is entitled to be declared sole heir of Antonio and Dolores.
• Thelma’s Change of Theory: Whether Thelma V. Miranda is estopped from arguing on appeal that Magdalena was not a recognized illegitimate child of Antonio.
• Magdalena’s Filiation and Right to Inherit: Whether Magdalena is an intestate heir of Antonio and Dolores.
• Res Judicata on Magdalena’s Filiation: Whether the final judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929 established Magdalena’s filiation and constitutes res judicata.

• Irenea’s Claim as Sole Heir: No. Irenea failed to present any evidence proving her alleged relationship to Antonio and Dolores; bare allegations do not prove affirmative facts, and the CA’s declaration had no evidentiary basis.
• Thelma’s Change of Theory: No. A party who adopts a theory in the lower court cannot change it on appeal; Thelma was estopped from arguing that Magdalena was not a recognized illegitimate child after submitting that she was one of Antonio’s heirs.
• Magdalena’s Filiation and Right to Inherit: Yes. Magdalena was an illegitimate child of Antonio, and under the Family Code her status existed from birth; proof of filiation was required only because her status was impugned, and the unsubstantiated claim of a better status did not shift the onus to her.
• Res Judicata on Magdalena’s Filiation: Yes. The final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. AV-929 established Magdalena’s filiation as a matter necessarily decided, and it constitutes res judicata on that issue.

• Irenea’s Claim as Sole Heir: The CA’s declaration of Irenea as sole heir rested solely on her bare declarations. The record contained no evidence that she was Antonio’s niece or Dolores’ first cousin; the RTC found that she rested her case without documentary evidence and presented no corroborating witnesses. Under the basic rule that a party alleging an affirmative fact bears the burden of proving it, mere allegation is not evidence. Since Irenea failed to prove her relationship to the decedents, the CA ruling had no evidentiary basis and could not be affirmed. Far East Bank & Trust Company vs. Chante was cited for this burden-of-proof rule.
• Thelma’s Change of Theory: Thelma originally opposed Magdalena’s motion on two grounds: that Magdalena was not the sole heir because Antonio had a grandchild from a deceased illegitimate son, and that Magdalena could not inherit from Dolores under Article 992 because Dolores had been legitimized. In her comment to the Supreme Court, she changed her stance and argued that Magdalena was not a recognized illegitimate daughter of Antonio. A party who deliberately adopts a theory in the lower court cannot change it on appeal; doing so would deprive the adverse party of the opportunity to present evidence material to the new theory and offend fair play, justice, and due process. Thelma was thus estopped. In any event, her interest in the properties had been settled in Civil Case No. AV-929, which nullified the deeds in her and her husband’s favor and had become final.
• Magdalena’s Filiation and Right to Inherit: The RTC consistently found Magdalena to be Antonio’s illegitimate child and intestate heir, both in Civil Case No. AV-929 and in SP Nos. A-522 and A-523; the CA itself concluded that Magdalena was Antonio’s child, albeit spurious. The CA erred in finding her spurious without explaining how. Under the Civil Code, natural children are born of parents who had legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of conception, natural children by legal fiction are those conceived or born of marriages void from the beginning, and spurious children have doubtful origins. There was no evidence Magdalena was spurious: Antonio had three children from three different women but never married any of them; no one claimed to be his legitimate child; and Magdalena was known in the community as one of his illegitimate children. She may thus be considered a natural child. The CA also erred in requiring proof of recognition. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children under Article 172. Article 172 paragraph 1 allows establishment by a record of birth in the civil register or a final judgment, or by an admission of filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent; paragraph 2 allows open and continuous possession of status or other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, but an action based on paragraph 2 must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. The law itself establishes the status of a child from birth; proof of filiation is necessary only when legitimacy is questioned. This applies to illegitimate children. Magdalena had no need to file a recognition action because her status as Antonio’s illegitimate child was settled. She was compelled to present a higher standard of proof only because of Irenea’s unsubstantiated claim of a better status; such unsubstantiated claim is no claim at all and did not shift the onus to Magdalena. The policy of the Family Code is to liberalize investigation of paternity and filiation, especially for illegitimate children. The evils sought to be prevented by the time limit for paragraph 2 grounds—protection of the legitimate family—were absent because Antonio had no legitimate family and Dolores died without issue; for more than 20 years since Dolores’ death, no claimants appeared but Magdalena, Thelma, and Irenea, and Thelma did not claim to be an heir while Irenea’s claim was unsubstantiated.
• Res Judicata on Magdalena’s Filiation: The final judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929 established Magdalena’s filiation. Under Article 172 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, “final judgment” is a means of establishing filiation and refers to a decision of a competent court finding the child legitimate or illegitimate. Although Civil Case No. AV-929 was for declaration of nullity of documents, the ruling on Magdalena’s filiation was not obiter dictum because the RTC determinedly discussed and settled that issue as a means to decide the main issue. Being final, it constitutes res judicata. Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, or a thing settled by judgment; a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the rights of the parties or their privies in later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. It rests on the principle that parties should not litigate the same issue more than once and serves reason, justice, fairness, expediency, practical necessity, public tranquillity, judicial orderliness, economy of judicial time, and the interest of litigants. The CA itself held that the declaration of nullity of Antonio and Silveria’s marriage in Civil Case No. AV-929 was settled by res judicata; the same principle applies to Magdalena’s filiation settled by the same Decision.

• Res Judicata — A final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. It rests on the principle that parties should not litigate the same issue more than once and serves public policy, judicial orderliness, economy of judicial time, and public tranquillity. In this case, the final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. AV-929, which declared Magdalena an illegitimate child of Antonio, constituted res judicata on the issue of her filiation, even though the main subject of that case was the nullity of certain deeds of sale, because the filiation issue was necessarily and determinedly decided.
• Filiation of Illegitimate Children under the Family Code — Article 175 of the Family Code allows illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children under Article 172. Article 172 paragraph 1 permits establishment by a record of birth in the civil register or a final judgment, or by an admission of filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent; paragraph 2 permits proof by open and continuous possession of status or other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, but an action based on paragraph 2 must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Court held that the law establishes the status of a child from birth; proof of filiation is necessary only when legitimacy is questioned. An illegitimate child need not file a recognition action if already recognized or if status is established; only an effective impugnation shifts the burden.
• Status of Illegitimate Children from Birth — The law itself establishes the status of a child from the moment of birth. Proof of filiation is necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being questioned. This rule applies to illegitimate children. Applied to Magdalena, her illegitimate status existed from birth, and the unsubstantiated claim of a better status by Irenea was not an effective impugnation that required Magdalena to establish her filiation.
• Burden of Proof on Affirmative Allegation — A party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation is not evidence; the party who asserts, not the one who denies, must prove. Applied to Irenea, who alleged she was Antonio’s niece and Dolores’ first cousin but presented no documentary evidence or corroborating witnesses, so her claim as sole heir failed.
• Estoppel / Theory of the Case — A party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change that theory on appeal. This rule prevents unfairness to the adverse party, who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, and upholds fair play, justice, and due process. Applied to Thelma, who was estopped from arguing that Magdalena was not a recognized illegitimate child after having submitted in the trial court that she was one of Antonio’s heirs.
• Classification of Illegitimate Children under the Civil Code — Under the Civil Code, there are three kinds of illegitimate children: natural children, natural children by legal fiction, and spurious children. Natural children are those born of parents who had legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of conception; natural children by legal fiction are those conceived or born of marriages void from the beginning; spurious children are those with doubtful origins, where no marriage, valid or otherwise, gives any semblance of legality to the child’s existence. The Court found no evidence Magdalena was spurious and concluded she may be considered a natural child.
• Liberal Policy on Paternity and Filiation — It is the policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on investigation of paternity and filiation of children, especially illegitimate children. The time limit for proving filiation under paragraph 2 of Article 172 is intended to protect the legitimate family; where no legitimate family exists and the estate has been without other claimants for more than 20 years, that rationale does not apply. The Court applied this policy in favor of Magdalena’s heirs.

• "The law itself establishes the status of a child from the moment of his birth. Proof of filiation is necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being questioned." — This states the ratio decidendi on why Magdalena did not need a separate recognition action; it is the Court’s core justification for treating her illegitimate status as already established.
• "We hold, however, that such unsubstantiated claim is no claim at all. It is not an effective impugnation that shifts to Magdalena the onus to establish her filiation." — This defines the effect of Irenea’s bare claim and explains why the burden did not shift to Magdalena.
• "Under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the Family Code, 'final judgment' is a means of establishing filiation. It refers to a decision of a competent court finding the child legitimate or illegitimate." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of how a final judgment operates as proof of filiation under the Family Code.
• "While the subject of Civil Case No. AV-929 is the declaration of nullity of certain documents, the ruling on Magdalena's filiation cannot be considered obiter dictum since the RTC determinedly discussed and settled that issue as a means to decide the main issue brought for its disposition. Being a final judgment, the Decision in Civil Case No. AV-929 constitutes res judicata." — This passage explains why the filiation ruling in the prior nullity case was not merely incidental and why it barred relitigation.

• Baluyut vs. Baluyut, G.R. No. 33659, June 14, 1990, 186 SCRA 506 — Cited by the CA for the rule that an illegitimate (spurious) child must prove filiation to claim support and successional rights, which may be established by voluntary or compulsory recognition. The Supreme Court did not apply it to bar Magdalena because her illegitimate status was established and the claim impugning it was unsubstantiated.
• De Santos vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 206 — Described spurious children as those with doubtful origins and discussed the Civil Code classifications of illegitimate children. The Court used it to reject the CA’s finding that Magdalena was spurious absent evidence.
• Paulino vs. Paulino, G.R. No. L-15091, December 28, 1961, 3 SCRA 730 — Held that acknowledgment of the putative father is essential and is the basis of an illegitimate child’s right to inherit; an action to compel recognition cannot be brought after the putative father’s death. The Court cited it but held Magdalena did not need a recognition action because her status was established.
• Vda. de Clemeña vs. Clemeña, G.R. No. L-24845, August 22, 1968, 24 SCRA 720 — Explained the rationale for the time limit on actions for compulsory recognition: to protect the legitimate family from belated claims and blackmailing suits. The Court noted that this rationale was absent because Antonio had no legitimate family.
• Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 438 — Cited for the rule that the law establishes the status of a child from birth and proof of filiation is necessary only when legitimacy is questioned. The Court applied this to illegitimate children.
• Aguilar vs. Siasat, G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015, 748 SCRA 555 — Cited for the policy of the Family Code to liberalize the investigation of paternity and filiation, especially of illegitimate children. The Court relied on this policy in upholding Magdalena’s status.
• Geronimo vs. Santos, G.R. No. 197099, September 28, 2015, 771 SCRA 508 — Cited in relation to Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code for the proposition that a “final judgment” is a means of establishing filiation. The Court used it to treat the AV-929 Decision as proof of Magdalena’s filiation.
• Degayo vs. Magbanua-Dinglasan, G.R. No. 173148, April 6, 2015, 755 SCRA 1 — Cited for the definition and rationale of res judicata. The Court applied it to the final judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929.
• Far East Bank & Trust Company vs. Chante, G.R. No. 170598, October 9, 2013, 707 SCRA 149 — Cited for the rule that the party alleging an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it. The Court applied it to Irenea’s unproven relationship.
• Maxicare PCIB Cigna Healthcare vs. Contreras, G.R. No. 194352, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 763 — Cited for the rule that a party cannot change the theory adopted in the lower court. The Court applied it to Thelma.

• Article 172, Family Code — Provides that the 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 private handwritten instrument signed by the parent; in the absence thereof, 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 held that the final judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929 established Magdalena’s filiation under paragraph 1.
• 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 based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case it may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Court applied this to hold that Magdalena could establish her filiation as an illegitimate child through the final judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929.
• Article 173, Family Code — Provides the period for the action to claim legitimacy, which may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and transmitted to heirs, with a five-year period for heirs in certain cases. The Court referenced it in relation to Article 175.
• Article 256, Family Code — Provides that the Family Code has retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested acquired rights under the Civil Code or other laws. The Court noted this in applying the Family Code.
• Article 887, Civil Code — States that in all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. The CA cited this to deny Magdalena’s successional rights, but the Supreme Court held that Magdalena’s filiation was duly established by the final judgment and her status from birth.
• 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, nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. This was invoked by Thelma and Irenea against Magdalena’s inheritance from Dolores, but the Court did not apply it because Dolores was not established as legitimate and Magdalena’s status was established.
• Article 961, Civil Code — Provides that in default of testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the deceased, the surviving spouse, and the State. The CA cited it in ruling that Irenea could inherit.
• Article 962, Civil Code — Provides that in every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. The RTC and CA cited it on the question of who was nearest in degree; the Supreme Court did not affirm Irenea’s claim because her relationship was unproven.
• Article 277, Civil Code — Defines natural children as those born of parents who had legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of conception. The Court cited it in classifying Magdalena as possibly a natural child.
• Article 287, Civil Code — Cited for the three kinds of illegitimate children under the Civil Code. The Court used it to analyze the CA’s finding that Magdalena was spurious.
• Article 89, Civil Code — Defines natural children by legal fiction as those conceived or born of marriages void from the beginning. The Court cited it in its classification discussion.
• Article 285, Civil Code — Provides that the action for recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in certain cases. The Court compared it to Article 175 of the Family Code.

Bersamin, C.J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur. Tijam, JJ., on official business.