Zoleta-San Agustin vs. Sales

A notarized deed of acknowledgment of filiation is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity, serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein, and carries a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution; it may be overthrown only by clear and convincing evidence.

Louis C. Fernandez and his legal wife Marie Louise Fernandez, a French national, had no children of their own. Louis maintained a common-law relationship with Epitacia Sales, a house helper in the Fernandez household, with whom he had two sons, Teodoro and Ernesto. The petitioner, Gloria Zoleta-San Agustin, claimed to be Louis' niece whom the Spouses Fernandez informally adopted as their child when she was two years old. Article 172 of the Family Code governs the proof of filiation, and Article 175 extends the same requirements to illegitimate children.

Teodoro and Ernesto Sales, brothers born in Pasay City on October 22, 1943 and March 20, 1948, respectively, claimed to be the illegitimate children of the late Louis C. Fernandez and his common-law wife Epitacia Sales, who was a house helper in the Fernandez household. Louis was legally married to Marie Louise Fernandez, a French national, but the spouses had no children. The petitioner, Gloria Zoleta-San Agustin, claimed to be Louis' niece whom the Spouses Fernandez informally adopted as their child when she was only two years old.

According to Teodoro and Ernesto, Louis formally recognized them as his children by Epitacia in two public documents bearing his thumb marks: a notarized document dated November 11, 1980, jointly executed by Louis and Epitacia, formally recognizing the brothers as their children, and a document solely executed by Louis on December 2, 1980, denominated as an Acknowledgement of Children. On March 14, 1994, the brothers filed an action for the judicial approval of their recognition as Louis' illegitimate children before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-19781 and raffled to Branch 110. Having no knowledge of any relatives of the Spouses Fernandez, they directed the action against unknown defendants. An Amended Complaint was subsequently filed on March 13, 1996 before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 225.

On May 30, 1994, the petitioner raised her opposition. In her Amended Answer filed on July 26, 1994, she alleged that she is the niece of Louis and that the Spouses Fernandez informally adopted her as their child when she was only two years old. She insisted that the father of Teodoro and Ernesto is Corpus Micabalo, the former houseboy of the Fernandez household, and that the documents presented by the brothers to sustain the complaint were spurious. The documents of recognition were forwarded by the RTC to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. Bayani Palad, a Fingerprint Examiner of the NBI, compared the thumbprint of Louis on the documents of recognition with the other documents containing his thumb marks and concluded that all the thumbprints in the disputed documents belong to Louis.

On February 17, 2001, the petitioner filed a motion to allow deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on Louis, who had already died on January 1, 1987. The RTC, in its Resolution dated June 4, 2001, denied the motion, and the presentation of evidence proceeded. On April 15, 2002, the RTC issued an order denying the admission of the photographs presented by the petitioner seeking to prove that she was treated by the Spouses Fernandez as their own child; her motion for reconsideration was denied on July 10, 2002. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals, ascribing grave abuse of discretion against the RTC judge for declaring the photographs irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of recognition. In a Decision dated September 29, 2003, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit, ruling that even if the photographs were admitted, they remained immaterial and irrelevant to the issue of recognition of Teodoro and Ernesto as the illegitimate children of Louis.

Teodoro died on July 23, 1997 and was substituted by his mother Epitacia, who subsequently died on March 19, 2004, leaving Ernesto the lone respondent in the case.

At the trial, Ernesto testified that Louis was no longer capable of writing his name as he was already blind and bedridden at the time he affixed his thumb mark to the document dated November 11, 1980. The witnesses to the document were Margarita Almeda, the hairdresser of Louis' sister, and Romeo Gadones, Teodoro's acquaintance. The petitioner, for her part, claimed that Louis could still write during the execution and notarization of the documents, rendering incredible the mere affixing of his thumbprints, and presented a school report card and a death certificate showing that Teodoro's surname followed that of Corpus. The RTC found Ernesto's testimony worthy of belief and concluded that Teodoro and Ernesto were the illegitimate children of Louis.

• Misapprehension of Facts: Petitioner argued that the CA grossly misapprehended the facts and manifestly ignored the undisputed and overwhelming evidence she presented which, if properly considered, would have justified a different conclusion.
• Weight of the Notarized Documents: Petitioner maintained that the CA gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the two "notarized" documents submitted by Ernesto despite her overwhelming contrary documentary evidence, claiming that the circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of the documents were highly suspicious and that Louis could still write at the time, rendering incredible the mere affixing of his thumbprints.
• Credibility of the Expert Witness: Petitioner argued that the CA gravely erred in giving credence to the testimony of Ernesto's so-called expert witness.
• DNA Testing: Petitioner contended that the CA arbitrarily refused or failed to rule on her Application for DNA Testing despite its earlier pronouncement that it would resolve the same as an assigned error, and that such failure was a substantial departure from the Supreme Court's decisions favoring DNA testing and contrary to the CA's own Resolution dated February 10, 2009.

• Objection to DNA Testing: Respondent Ernesto filed a Comment objecting to the proposed DNA testing of Louis.

• Weight and Credibility of the Notarized Deeds of Recognition: Whether the CA erred in giving weight and credence to the two notarized documents of recognition executed by Louis despite the petitioner's contrary documentary evidence.
• Credibility of the Expert Witness: Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of Ernesto's expert witness.
• DNA Testing: Whether the CA erred in failing to rule on the petitioner's Application for DNA Testing.

• Weight and Credibility of the Notarized Deeds of Recognition: No. The notarized deeds of acknowledgment are public documents that enjoy the presumption of regularity and serve as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein; the petitioner's bare allegations did not constitute the clear and convincing evidence required to overturn that presumption.
• Credibility of the Expert Witness: No. The authenticity of the documents of recognition and the credibility of the expert witness are questions of fact involving the probative value of evidence, which are beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• DNA Testing: No. The trial court had already arrived at a definitive conclusion that Teodoro and Ernesto are the illegitimate children of Louis, rendering the petitioner's request for DNA testing immaterial.

• Weight and Credibility of the Notarized Deeds of Recognition: The petitioner called for the relaxation of the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, the findings of fact of the CA — especially those upholding the trial court — being final and conclusive and not reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court. The recognized exceptions were enumerated, and none was found to exist in the case. At the center of the controversy were the documents executed by Louis evidencing his voluntary recognition of Teodoro and Ernesto as his illegitimate children. Under Article 172 of the Family Code, legitimate filiation may be 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 these, 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. Article 175 extends these requirements to illegitimate children. The petitioner argued that the circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of the documents were highly suspicious because Louis could still write at the time, rendering incredible the mere affixing of his thumbprints. This contention was rejected: Ernesto testified that Louis was no longer capable of writing his name as he was already blind and bedridden when he affixed his thumb mark to the November 11, 1980 document. A thumb mark has been repeatedly considered a valid mode of signature, and Dr. Yason vs. Arciaga held that a signature may be made by a person's cross or mark. Finding no cogent reason to deviate from the RTC's conclusion that Ernesto's testimony was worthy of belief, the Court adopted such testimony, reiterating that the findings of fact of trial courts are given weight on appeal because they are in a better position to examine the real evidence and observe the demeanor of the witnesses. The other inconsistencies cited by the petitioner were of no importance and insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in favor of the notarized documents. A notarized document is a public document and enjoys the presumption of regularity which can only be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence; it serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. The petitioner's bare allegations could not qualify as clear and convincing evidence. As to the claim that the real father of Teodoro and Ernesto was Corpus, the use of Corpus' surname by Teodoro did not in itself negate the brothers' illegitimate filiation. Louis' existing marriage to Marie Louise must have prevented him from making any declaration that would have exposed his relationship with Epitacia, and the use of Louis' surname by his children during the lifetime of Marie Louise would have run counter to his intention to cover such relationship. It was no less than the putative father who voluntarily recognized Teodoro and Ernesto as his illegitimate children, and it is the law, and only the law, that determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children.
• Credibility of the Expert Witness: The authenticity of the documents of recognition executed by Louis, as well as the credibility of the expert witness Palad, were questions of fact, for they involved the examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts, while a question of fact concerns itself with the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. A petition for review on certiorari covers only questions of law.
• DNA Testing: The petitioner sought the conduct of DNA testing to resolve the issue of paternity. However, the RTC had already arrived at a definitive conclusion that Teodoro and Ernesto are the illegitimate children of the deceased Louis, rendering the petitioner's request for DNA testing immaterial.

• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Documents — A notarized document is a public document and enjoys the presumption of regularity, which can only be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence. It serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. The Court applied this doctrine to the deeds of acknowledgment executed by Louis, holding that the petitioner's bare allegations of spuriousness did not amount to the clear and convincing evidence required to overturn the presumption.
• Proof of Filiation under the Family Code — Under Article 172 of the Family Code, legitimate filiation may be 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 these, filiation may be proven 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. Article 175 provides that these requirements likewise apply to establish the filiation of illegitimate children. The Court applied the second mode, the notarized deeds of acknowledgment executed by Louis having satisfied the requirement of an admission of filiation in a public document.
• Thumb Mark as Valid Signature — A signature may be made by a person's cross or mark, and a thumb mark has been repeatedly considered a valid mode of signature. The Court applied this rule to uphold the affixing of Louis' thumb marks on the deeds of acknowledgment, particularly since he was blind and bedridden at the time.
• Findings of Fact of Trial Courts — The findings of fact of trial courts are given weight on appeal because they are in a better position to examine the real evidence and observe the demeanor of the witnesses and therefore discern whether they are telling the truth. The Court adopted the RTC's finding that Ernesto's testimony was worthy of belief.
• Rule 45 — Only Questions of Law — A petition for review on certiorari covers only questions of law. A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts, while a question of fact concerns itself with the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The Court applied this rule in holding that the authenticity of the documents of recognition and the credibility of the expert witness were questions of fact beyond the scope of the petition.
• DNA Testing Immaterial Where Filiation Already Established — Where the trial court has already arrived at a definitive conclusion of filiation, a request for DNA testing is rendered immaterial. The Court applied this rule in denying the petitioner's application for DNA testing.
• Law Determines Legitimacy — It is the law, and only the law, that determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children, for one's legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised. The Court applied this principle in holding that the use of Corpus' surname by Teodoro did not negate the illegitimate filiation established by Louis' voluntary recognition.

• "A notarized document is a public document and as such it enjoys the presumption of regularity which can only be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the evidentiary weight of the notarized deeds of acknowledgment and is the controlling formulation of the presumption of regularity applied to defeat the petitioner's attack on the documents' authenticity.
• "A thumb mark has been repeatedly considered as a valid mode of signature." — This passage defines the rule on the validity of thumb marks as signatures, which the Court applied to uphold the affixing of Louis' thumb marks on the deeds of acknowledgment notwithstanding the petitioner's claim that he could still write at the time.
• "It is emphatically underscored that it is the law and only the law that determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for one's legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised." — This passage articulates the principle that legitimacy is a legal status fixed by law rather than by the parties' conduct, and it supported the rejection of the petitioner's reliance on Teodoro's use of the surname Corpus.
• "The petitioner sought the conduct of DNA Testing to resolve the issue of paternity. However, the RTC already arrived at a definitive conclusion that Teodoro and Ernesto are the illegitimate children of the deceased Louis rendering the petitioner's request for DNA Testing immaterial." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the immateriality of DNA testing where filiation has already been definitively established by the trial court.

• Dr. Yason vs. Arciaga, 490 Phil. 338 (2005) — Cited for the rule that a signature may be made by a person's cross or mark, supporting the validity of Louis' thumb marks on the deeds of acknowledgment.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Mangotara, et al., 638 Phil. 353, 421-422 (2010) — Cited for the enumeration of the exceptions to the rule that the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Castillo vs. CA, 329 Phil. 150, 160 (1996) — Cited for the rule that the findings of fact of trial courts are given weight on appeal because they are in a better position to examine the real evidence and observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
• Heirs of Spouses Arcilla vs. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 560 (2008) — Cited for the rule that a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity which can only be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence.
• Chua vs. Westmont Bank, et al., 683 Phil. 56, 66 (2012) — Cited for the rule that a notarized document serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution.
• Concepcion vs. CA, 505 Phil. 529, 537 (2005) — Cited for the rule that it is the law and only the law that determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children.
• Sps. Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88, 97 (2010) — Cited for the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact.

• Article 172, Family Code of the Philippines — Provides the modes of establishing legitimate filiation: (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; and in the absence of these, (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 notarized deeds of acknowledgment executed by Louis satisfied the second mode.
• Article 175, Family Code of the Philippines — Provides that the requirements for establishing legitimate filiation likewise apply to establish the filiation of illegitimate children. The requirements of Article 172 thus governed the establishment of Teodoro and Ernesto's illegitimate filiation.

• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson)
• Diosdado M. Peralta
• Jose Portugal Perez
• Francis H. Jardeleza