Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals

An illegitimate child who fails to prove open and continuous possession of status may still establish filiation by pedigree declarations of deceased relatives, admitted under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, corroborated by other acts showing paternity. Such proof satisfies Article 283(4) of the Civil Code and Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code allowing filiation by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Casimiro Mendoza was married to Emiliana Barrientos in a childless union, while Brigida Toring was single and worked in a saltbed in Opao. Vicente Toring professed to be Casimiro's only recognized illegitimate child by Brigida. Compulsory recognition at the time was governed by Article 283 of the Civil Code, substantially reproduced in Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, which permit proof by continuous possession of status or by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Teopista Toring Tufiacao alleged she was born on August 20, 1930 to Brigida Toring, then single, and Casimiro Mendoza, then married to Emiliana Barrientos. According to Teopista, her mother told her Casimiro was her father, she called him Papa Miroy, visited him at his house while living with her mother, kissed his hand when they met, and received benefits from him. When she married Valentin Tufiacao, Casimiro allegedly bought a passenger truck and engaged Valentin to drive it for livelihood, later sold the truck and gave the proceeds to the couple, allowed her son Lolito Tufiacao to build a house on his lot in 1977, gave her money to buy her own lot from her brother Vicente Toring, and on February 14, 1977 opened a joint savings account with her as co-depositor at the Mandaue City branch of the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, ordering its return to her after Margarita Bate, his adopted daughter, took the passbook two years later.

Her claim was corroborated by Lolito Tufiacao, who said he treated Casimiro as grandfather, kissed his hand, received money and jackfruits, was invited to his house, and was allowed to build on his land after Casimiro learned he lived on rented land. Gaudencio Mendoza, Casimiro's cousin, testified he acted as go-between for Casimiro's liaison with Brigida, that Casimiro called Brigida his sweetheart, that the liaison resulted in Teopista's birth in 1930, and that Casimiro gave him P20.00 for Teopista's baptism and P5.00 from time to time for Brigida. Isaac Mendoza testified his uncle Casimiro was Teopista's father because his father Hipolito, Casimiro's brother, and his grandmother Brigida Mendoza so informed him, that Casimiro gave him P2.00 to P10.00 with his salary to deliver to Teopista while he worked on Casimiro's boat, and that Casimiro intended to give properties to Teopista.

Casimiro, then 91, did not testify because of advanced age but specifically denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages and attorney's fees. For his part, Vicente Toring professed to be Casimiro's only illegitimate child by Brigida and declared Teopista's father was a carpenter named Ondoy who abandoned her, that he sold a lot to Teopista cheaply because she was his half-sister, that he permitted Lolito to build on Casimiro's lot, that he worked as cook on Casimiro's boat, and that Teopista never visited Casimiro during hospitalization. Julieta Ouano, Casimiro's niece, affirmed Vicente worked on the boat, declared she had never met Teopista although she knew her mechanic husband, and shared that Teopista never visited the hospitalized Casimiro.

The trial court found Teopista continuously lived with her mother and sister Paulina, never with defendant, was never made to carry his surname, received no support for education from him, and received money only off-and-on through third persons at considerable intervals. The Court of Appeals, by contrast, credited Teopista's witnesses as disinterested and unbiased, discredited Vicente as an interested claimant to sole recognized status who had filed theft charges against his sister and libel charges against her husband, and disbelieved Ouano for never having met Teopista despite living in the same barangay since birth.

• Substitution of Deceased Party: Petitioner, through counsel now acting for Vicente Toring, sought the substitution of Vicente for the deceased Casimiro Mendoza in the present petition, to allow the action to proceed against the legal representative or heir.

• Termination of Counsel Authority: Respondent contended that the lawyer-client relationship terminated with Casimiro's death and that Vicente Toring had no personality to substitute him in the present petition.

• Substitution After Death: Whether Vicente Toring may be substituted for Casimiro Mendoza who died during the pendency of the appeal, where no substitution was effected below.
• Continuous Possession of Status: Whether Teopista established open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child by direct acts of Casimiro or his family under Article 283 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code.
• Other Proof of Filiation and Pedigree: Whether Teopista's filiation was nevertheless established by pedigree declarations and other evidence admissible under Article 283(4) of the Civil Code, Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, and Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

• Substitution After Death: Yes. Substitution of Casimiro Mendoza pro hac vice and nunc pro tunc by Vicente Toring was allowed, as a recognition action commenced during the father's lifetime survives against his executor, administrator or legal representative.
• Continuous Possession of Status: No. Continuous possession was not proved, the paternal treatment shown being intermittent, indirect, and lacking permanent intention manifested by continuous and clear paternal affection and care.
• Other Proof of Filiation and Pedigree: Yes. Filiation was established by qualifying pedigree declarations of Casimiro's deceased mother and brother, corroborated by financial doles, employment and proceeds given to Teopista's family, permission to build on land, and a joint savings account.

• Substitution After Death: Under Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, counsel must inform the court of a party's death and the court shall order substitution by the legal representative or heirs where the claim is not extinguished. Pursuant to Masecampo vs. Masecampo, death of the alleged father is no bar to an action for recognition commenced during his lifetime, as it survives against the executor, administrator or other legal representative of the succession.
• Continuous Possession of Status: To establish open and continuous possession, concession of status must not be intermittent while it continues; the father must have treated the child as his own directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity; and permanent intention to consider the child as his own must appear by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care. Here Teopista lived with her mother, not with Casimiro despite his childless marriage where cohabitation would not have been unusual, did not bear his surname, was not supported for education, gave inconsistent testimony on support, and received money only off-and-on through Gaudencio and Isaac Mendoza rather than directly and regularly.
• Other Proof of Filiation and Pedigree: Illegitimate filiation may also be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court, including baptismal certificate, judicial admission, family Bible, common reputation on pedigree, admission by silence, testimonies and other proof under Rule 130. Section 39, Rule 130 admits acts or declarations about pedigree where the declarant is dead or unable to testify, pedigree is in issue, the declarant is a relative, the declaration antedated the controversy, and relationship is shown by other evidence. All requisites concurred: Brigida Mendoza and Hipolito, mother and brother of Casimiro, were dead when Isaac testified; filiation and paternity were the issues; declarations predated the 1981 complaint; and relationship was shown by the extrajudicial partition of Florencio Mendoza's estate mentioning Casimiro as heir. Unrefuted despite opportunity to depose Casimiro, and corroborated by doles to Brigida, hiring and truck proceeds to Teopista's spouses, permission for Lolito to build, and the joint savings account, the declarations warranted recognition, in line with the liberalized policy on investigation of paternity of illegitimate children.

• Open and continuous possession of status of illegitimate child — Requires treatment of the child as his own by the father directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity, evincing a permanent intention by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care; continuity means not intermittent while it lasts, not perpetual. Applied to reject Teopista's claim under this ground because support was off-and-on, coursed through third persons, without cohabitation, surname use, or educational support.
• Other means of proving illegitimate filiation — Under Article 283(4) of the Civil Code and Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way as legitimate filiation, including any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, such as baptismal certificate, judicial admission, family Bible, common reputation on pedigree, admission by silence, and testimonies under Rule 130. Applied to sustain Teopista's filiation despite failure to prove continuous possession.
• Pedigree exception to hearsay; requisites — The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify respecting pedigree of another related by birth or marriage is admissible where made before controversy, with relationship shown by evidence other than the declaration; pedigree includes relationship, genealogy, birth, marriage, death, dates, places, names and intimately connected family history. The requisites are: (a) declarant dead or unable to testify; (b) pedigree in issue; (c) declarant a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue; (d) declaration made before controversy arose; (e) relationship shown by evidence other than the declaration. Applied to admit Isaac Mendoza's testimony on what Brigida Mendoza and Hipolito told him about Teopista being Casimiro's daughter.
• Survival of action for compulsory recognition — An action for recognition commenced during the alleged father's lifetime is not extinguished by his subsequent death and survives against his executor, administrator or other legal representative, with substitution under Rule 3. Applied to allow Vicente Toring's substitution for Casimiro Mendoza pro hac vice and nunc pro tunc.
• Liberalized investigation of paternity of illegitimate children — The Civil Code and Family Code liberalize inquiry into paternity of illegitimate children, without prejudice to the alleged parent's right to resist with his own defenses including modern medical and technological evidence. Invoked to give effect to Teopista's proof despite the father's denial to his dying day.

• "Continuous" does not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues." — Defines continuity for possession of status, used to hold Teopista's intermittent, off-and-on support insufficient.
• "The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own, directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate)." — States the canonical standard for possession of illegitimate status, applied to reject indirect coursing of money through third persons.
• "There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his own, by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care." — Articulates the intent element for continuous possession, which the cited paternal acts taken together failed to show.
• "it is the best the nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from its admission." — Justifies admission of pedigree declarations as an exception to hearsay, supporting reliance on statements of Casimiro's deceased mother and brother.

• Masecampo vs. Masecampo, 11 Phil. 1 — Controlling precedent that death of the alleged father does not bar a recognition action commenced during his lifetime, surviving against executor, administrator or legal representative; followed to allow substitution.
• Paulino vs. Paulino, 113 Phil. 697 — Cited for the rule that Article 283 of the Civil Code on compulsory recognition applies not only to natural children but also to spurious children.
• Divinagracia vs. Rovira, 72 SCRA 307 — Cited for the same proposition extending Article 283 to spurious children.
• De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866 — Source of the definition of continuous possession as not intermittent while it continues; applied to find Teopista's possession lacking.
• Coquia vs. Coquia, CA 50 O.G. 3701 — Cited through Reyes and Puno for the standard that possession means direct, spontaneous treatment without concealment though without publicity; applied to the same finding.

• Article 283, Civil Code — Imposes paternal obligation to recognize where (1) rape, abduction or seduction coincides with conception, (2) child in continuous possession of status by direct acts of father or family, (3) conception during cohabitation with mother, or (4) child has evidence or proof defendant is father; Teopista relied on (2) but succeeded under (4).
• Articles 172 and 175, Family Code — Reproduce the rule that legitimate filiation, and by reference illegitimate filiation, may be proved in absence of record or admission by open and continuous possession or any other means allowed by Rules of Court and special laws; basis for admitting pedigree and corroborative evidence.
• Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3, Rules of Court — Require counsel to report death and the court to order substitution by legal representative or heirs where claim survives; applied to substitute Vicente Toring for deceased Casimiro.
• Section 39, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Admits acts or declarations about pedigree by one deceased or unable to testify, made before controversy, with relationship otherwise proved; applied to admit Isaac Mendoza's account of declarations by Brigida Mendoza and Hipolito.

Narvasa (Chairman), Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.