Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

L-42615 August 10, 1976 SALUD D ! NAGRAC A, EM L A D ! NAGRAC A, DOLORES D ! NAGRAC A, ROSAR O D ! NAGRAC A "#$ %UAN TA D ! NAGRAC A, petitioners, vs. %UDGE !ALER O !. RO! RA &# '&s (")"(&t* "s P+,s&$&#g %u$g,, -+"#(' !, Cou+t o. /&+st #st"#(,, 0o&0o C&t*, "#$ CAM LO D ! NAGRAC A, respondents. Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioners. Panfilo B. Enojas for private respondent. A1U NO, J.: he !uestion in this case is "hether an intestate proceedin#, "hich had alread$ been closed, can still be reopened so as to allo" a spurious child to present evidence on his filiation and to clai% his share in the decedent&s estate. he facts are as follo"s' (eliciano Divina#racia died in Iloilo Cit$ on (ebruar$ ), )*+,. -e "as survived b$ his "ife, Salud and their four dau#hters na%ed E%ilia, Dolores, Rosario, and .uanita. he notice of his death "as published in t"o local periodicals and in the Manila ti%es. "o da$s after his death, a petition "as filed in the Court of (irst Instance of Iloilo for the settle%ent of his estate /Spec. Proc. No. )0123. he order settin# the petition for hearin# "as published on 4pril 22 and 2* and Ma$ +, )*+, in the 5uhu%, an En#lish and Ilon#o "ee6l$ circulatin# in Iloilo Cit$ and 7estern Visa$as. E%ilia Divina#racia !ualified as ad%inistratri8 on Ma$ 22, )*+,. She ad%inistered the estate for seven $ears. She paid the estate and inheritance ta8es. In 4pril, )*0) she sub%itted to the court a final accountin# and pro9ect of partition "ith a pra$er for the closure of the proceedin#. hat pleadin#, "hich "as si#ned b$ the "ido" and her four dau#hters, contains, aside fro% the accountin#, /)3 an inventor$ of the assets of the decedent&s estate as of Dece%ber :), )*0; /par. :3' /23 a declaration as to "ho "ere the heirs of the decedent and their respective shares in the estate /par. ,3' /:3 a state%ent that the five heirs /the "ido" and four dau#hters3 had received their respective shares, each consistin# of a one< fifth proindiviso participation in the decedent&s estate /pars. 1 and +3, and /,3 an assu%ption b$ the heirs of the obli#ations of the estate /par. =3. .ud#e Castrense C. Veloso in his order of 4pril )0, )*0) approved the final accountin# and pro9ect of partition and declared the proceedin# >closed and ter%inated, sub9ect to

the condition that the heirs shall assu%e all the outstandin# obli#ations of the estate>. he partition "as dul$ re#istered. On .une =, )*0) or after the order closin# the intestate proceedin# had beco%e final, Ca%ilo Divina#racia filed a %otion to reopen it and to set aside the order of closure. -e alle#ed that he "as an ille#iti%ate child of the decedent' that he "as born on Nove%ber *, )*:;, and that he ca%e to 6no" of the intestate proceedin# onl$ "hen he "as transferred as a #overn%ent e%plo$ee fro% Masbate to Iloilo a fe" da$s before .une =. -e pra$ed for the deter%ination of his share in the decedent&s estate. he ad%inistratri8 in her opposition to the %otion contended that the proceedin# could no lon#er be reopened' that its expediente had alread$ been archived' that there is no alle#ation in the %otion that Ca%ilo&s filiation "as ac6no"led#ed b$ the decedent, and that the .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court of Iloilo has e8clusive ori#inal 9urisdiction to entertain Ca%ilo&s action for ac6no"led#%ent, as held in Paterno vs. Paterno, ?<2:;+;, .une :;, )*+0, 2; SCR4 1=1. he %otion re%ained unresolved for %ore than four $ears. .ud#e Veloso did not act on it before he retired in the earl$ part of )*01. he case "as re<raffled to respondent .ud#e Valerie V. Rovira "ho issued the !uestioned order dated October )=, )*01 reopenin# the intestate proceedin#. he probate court set aside its prior order of closure because it assu%ed that there "as no li!uidation of the con9u#al partnership of the spouses (eliciano Divina#racia and Salud @retaAa that there "as no declaration of heirs, and that an interested part$, "ho "as left out in the partition, should be allo"ed to secure relief in the intestate proceedin# b$ filin# the proper %otion "ithin the re#le%entar$ period. he probate court in its !uestioned order directed the ad%inistratri8 to sub%it a co%plete li!uidation of the con9u#al partnership and an inventor$ of the decedent&s estate after the pa$%ent of its debts. It further directed that the li!uidation and the inventor$ should be set for hearin# "ith notice to %ovant Ca%ilo Divina#racia. hereafter, another hearin# should be held to deter%ine the decedent&s heirs. 4t the hearin#, Ca%ilo could present evidence to prove his clai% that he "as an Id ac6no"led#ed spurious child of the deceased. he lo"er court denied the ad%inistratri8&s %otion for reconsideration of its order reopenin# the intestate proceedin#. 4 cop$ of the order of denial "as received b$ the ad%inistratri8 on .anuar$ 0, )*0+. She filed on .anuar$ :), )*0+ the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition. It is reall$ an appeal under Republic 4ct No. 1,,;.

7e hold that the probate court erred in reopenin# the intestate proceedin#, a proceedin# in re% of "hich Ca%ilo Divina#racia is dee%ed to have had constructive notice /Varela vs. Villanueva, *1 Phil. 2,=3. he order closin# it "as alread$ final and e8ecutor$. he %otion to reopen it "as not filed "ithin the thirt$<da$ re#le%entar$ period counted fro% the date the order of closure "as served on the ad%inistratri8. he closure order could not be disturbed an$%ore /I%perial vs. MuAoB, ?<:;0=0, 4u#ust 2*, )*0,, 1= SCR4 +0=. Co%pare "ith Ra%os vs. OrtuBar, =* Phil. 0:;, 0,)' .ereB vs. Nietes, ?<2+=0+, Dece%ber 20, )*+*, :; SCR4 *;,, *;*' Vda. de ?opeB vs. ?opeB, ?<2:)*1, Septe%ber 2=, )*0;, :1 SCR4 =;, =:, "here the %otion to reopen the intestate proceedin# "as filed "ithin the re#le%entar$ period3. Moreover, the order for the reopenin# of the intestate proceedin# "as predicated on the false assu%ption that there had been no li!uidation of the con9u#al partnership and no declaration of heirs. he truth is that the pro9ect of partition and distribution, "ith final accountin#, "hich "as sub%itted b$ the ad%inistratri8 and approved b$ the probate court, contained a li!uidation of the con9u#al partnership and a state%ent as to "ho "ere the decedent&s heirs and "hat "ere their respective hereditar$ shares. hat pro9ect of partition "as a substantial co%pliance "ith articles )0* et sequentia of the Civil Code. he probate court further erred in entertainin# Ca%ilo Divina#racia&s %otion to reopen the intestate proceedin#. It erred because that %otion involved the deter%ination of his status as the decedent&s spurious child. hat !uestion falls "ithin the e8clusive ori#inal 9urisdiction of the .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court of Iloilo. Republic 4ct No. ,=:,, "hich too6 effect on .une )=, )*++, providesC SEC ION ). he .uvenile and Do%estic Relations court. D here shall be a .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court in the Province of Iloilo, for "hich a 9ud#e "ho shall possess the sa%e !ualifications, en9o$ the sa%e privile#es and receive the sa%e salar$ as 9ud#es of courts of first instance, shall be appointed b$ the President of the Philippines, "ith the consent of the Co%%ission on 4ppoint%ents. Provisions of the .udiciar$ 4ct to the contrar$ not"ithstandin#, the court shall have e8clusive ori#inal 9urisdiction to hear and decide the follo"in# cases after the effectivit$ of this 4ctC 888 888 888 /b3 Cases involvin# custod$, paternit$ and ac6no"led#%ent' 888 888 888 #uardianship, adoption,

If an$ !uestion involvin# an$ of the above %atters /seven classes of cases3 should arise as an incident in an$ case pendin# in the ordinar$ courts, said incident shall be deter%ined in the %ain case. he instant case is si%ilar to the Paterno case, supra, and Bartolo e vs. Bartolo e, ?<2:++), Dece%ber 2;, )*+0, 2) SCR4 ):2,, "here it "as held that cases involvin# paternit$ and ac6no"led#%ent fall "ithin the e8clusive ori#inal 9urisdiction of the .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court. he Paterno and Bartolo e cases involve provisions of the Charter of Manila inserted b$ Republic 4ct No. ),;) in Republic 4ct No. ,;*3, "hich created its .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court. hose provisions are si%ilar to the provisions of Republic 4ct No. ,=:, "hich created the .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court of Iloilo. It "as clarified in the Paterno case that the rule prohibitin# the splittin# of a cause of action /Sec. ,, Rule 2, Rules of Court3 is not violated b$ the holdin# that the action to establish plaintiff&s filiation as an ille#iti%ate child should be filed in the .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court and cannot be 9oined to the action of the ille#iti%ate child for partition and recover$ of his hereditar$ share in his putative father&s estate, "hich is co#niBable b$ the Court of (irst InstanceC It is true that under the afore!uoted section ) of Republic 4ct No. ,=:, a case involvin# paternit$ and ac6no"led#%ent %a$ be ventilated as an incident in the intestate or testate proceedin# /See @alu$ot vs. Ines ?uciano, ?<,22)1, .ul$ ):, )*0+3. @ut that le#al provision presupposes that such an ad%inistration proceedin# is pendin# or e8istin# and has not been ter%inated. here is a rule that the re%ed$ of a natural child, "ho has not been voluntaril$ ac6no"led#ed /4rt. 20=, Civil Code3 but "ho can 9ustifiabl$ co%pel reco#nition. is either /a3 a separate action a#ainst his parent to co%pel reco#nition, or, if the parent is dead, a#ainst all the potential heirs "ho "ould be pre9udiced b$ his reco#nition to#ether "ith an action for the enforce%ent of his ri#hts a#ainst his parent or the latter&s heirs' or /b3 he %a$ intervene in the ad%inistration proceedin# for the settle%ent of his deceased parent&s estate and there as6 for reco#nition and at the sa%e ti%e enforce his hereditar$ ri#hts /@riB vs. @riB and Re%i#io, ,: Phil. 0+:' SuareB vs. SuareB, ,: Phil. *;:' ?opeB vs. ?opeB, += Phil. 220' Ealdarria#a vs. MariAo, ?<)*1++, Ma$ 21, )*+,, )) SCR4 ,=' Friarte vs. Court of (irst Instance of Ne#ros Occidental, ?<2)*:=, :: SCR4 2123. his rule, "hich %a$ be applied to the spurious child&s action to establish his filiation and assert his hereditar$ ri#hts, is

#ood in provinces "here there are no .uvenile and Do%estic Relations Court and "here the ad%inistration proceedin# has not been instituted or is alread$ closed. In this connection, a revie" of the rules #overnin# the filiation of a spurious child %a$ be useful in ascertainin# the re%ed$ open to Ca%ilo Divina#racia. he so<called spurious children, or ille#iti%ate children other than natural children, co%%onl$ 6no"n as bastards include adulterous children or those born out of "edloc6 to a %arried "o%an cohabitin# "ith a %an other than her husband or to a %arried "o%an cohabitin# "ith a "o%an other than his "ife. he$ are entitled to support and successional ri#hts /4rt. 2=0, Civil Code3. @ut their filiation %ust be dul$ proven / !bid, 4rt. ==03. -o" should their filiation be provenG 4rticle 2=* of the Civil Code allo"s the investi#ation of the paternit$ or %aternit$ of spurious children under the circu%stances specified in articles 2=: and 2=, of the Civil Code. he i%plication is that the rules on co%pulsor$ reco#nition of natural children are applicable to spurious children /Pactor vs. PestaAo, );0 Phil. +=1' Edades vs. Edades, infra' Re$es vs. EuBuarre#ui );2 Phil. :,+, :1,3. Spurious children should not be in a better position than natural children. he rules on proof of filiation of natural children or the rules on voluntar$ and co%pulsor$ ac6no"led#%ent for natural children %a$ be applied to spurious children /Paulino and Nieto vs. Pauline, )): Phil. +*0, 0;;3. hat does not %ean that spurious children should be ac6no"led#ed, as that ter% is used "ith respect to natural children. 7hat is si%pl$ %eant is that the #rounds or instances for the ac6no"led#%ent of natural children are utiliBed to establish the filiation of spurious children /@arles vs. Ponce Enrile, );* Phil. 1223. 4 spurious child %a$ prove his filiation b$ %eans of a record of birth, a "ill, a state%ent before a court of record, or in an$ authentic "ritin#. hese are the %odes of voluntar$ reco#nition of natural children /4rt. 20=, Civil Code3. In case there is no evidence on the voluntar$ reco#nition of the spurious child, then his filiation %a$ be established b$ %eans of the circu%stances or #rounds for co%pulsor$ reco#nition prescribed in the afore%entioned articles 2=: and 2=, Noble vs. Noble, +, O.H. )01:' Edades vs. Edades, ** Phil. +01' Sotto vs. Sotto, ?<2;*2), Ma$ 2,, )*++, )0 SCR4 2,:' Republic vs. 7or6%en&s Co%pensation Co%%ission, ?<)**,+, (ebruar$ 2+, )*+1, ): SCR4 202' Haleon vs. Haleon, ?<:;:=;, (ebruar$ 2=, )*0:, ,* SCR4 1)+' Paterno vs. Paterno, supra3.

he prescriptive period for filin# the action for co%pulsor$ reco#nition in the case of natural children, as provided for in article 2=1 of the Civil Code, applies to spurious children /Vda. de Cle%eAa vs. Cle%eAa, ?<2,=,1, 4u#ust 22, )*+=, 2, SCR4 02;' VeleB vs. VeleB, ?<2==0:, .ul$ :), )*0:, 12 SCR4 )*;' @arles vs. Ponce Enrile, supra3. In the instant case, Ca%ilo Divina#racia did not disclose "hether he has an$ evidence of voluntar$ reco#nition of his filiation. here is no alle#ation in his %otion that "ould sustain his clai% for co%pulsor$ ac6no"led#%ent of his filiation. /Cf. Pactor vs. PestaAo, );0 Phil. +=13. In vie" of the fore#oin# considerations, the probate court&s order of October )=, )*01, reopenin# the intestate proceedin# for the settle%ent of the estate of (eliciano Divina#racia, is set aside. Costs a#ainst private respondent. SO ORDERED. S,)"+"t, O)&#&o#s -ARREDO, J., concurrin#C I concur in the scholarl$ and co%prehensive opinion of Mr. .ustice 4!uino resolvin# the issues of 9urisdiction and procedure raised in the petition and in the resultin# 9ud#%ent rendered b$ hi%. -o"ever, I do not feel prepared at this ti%e to share his vie"s as to the %odes open to spurious children to establish their ille#iti%ate paternit$ as basis for entitlin# the% to the successional and other ri#hts #ranted to the% b$ the Civil Code. I have $et to be convinced that allo"in# spurious children to prove such paternit$ b$ %eans other than those indispensabl$ prescribed for natural children places the for%er >in a better position> than the latter. Presentl$, I feel that spurious children "ho are certainl$ "ithout fault, as also are natural children, in their bein# born as such are %ore unfortunate than the latter, if onl$ because there is bound to be %ore anta#onis% a#ainst the% fro% the le#iti%ates and naturals and it is an unusual philanderer "ho openl$ and for%all$ ac6no"led#es spurious children. 4nd if "ithout such direct ac6no"led#%ent, a spurious child can no lon#er prove his paternit$ other"ise, no %atter ho" convincin# his evidence %a$ be, "ould that not a%ount to practicall$ dilutin#, if not nullif$in# indirectl$, the co%%endable ob9ective of the Civil Code of #ivin# to all innocent children %ore in la" than "hat their indiscreet and perhaps inconsiderate parents care to besto" on the%, for obvious reasons of convenienceG "ernando, #., concur.