G.R. No.

L-24989 July 21, 1967

PEDRO GRAVADOR, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
EUTIQUIO MAMIGO, TE DI!TRI"T !UPERVI!OR O# $A%A&AN-!TA. "ATALINA
!"OOL DI!TRI"T,
TE DIVI!ION !UPERINTENDENT O# !"OOL! O# NEGRO! ORIENTAL, TE
DIRE"TOR O# PU$LI" !"OOL! '() TE !E"RETAR% O# EDU"ATION, *'ll
+u,) -( ./,-0 o11-2-'l '() 3,0+o('l 2'3'2-.-,+4, respondents-appellants.
#A"T!5 The petitioner Pedro Gravador was the principal of the Sta. Catalina
Elementary School in Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental on !g!st "#, "$%& when he was
advised 'y the then S!perintendent of Schools ngel Sala(ar, )r., thro!gh the
respondent S!pervisor Teod!lfo E. *ayao, of his separation from the service on the
gro!nd that he had reached the comp!lsory retirement age of %# according to his pre-
war records as a teacher in the p!'lic schools, incl!ding his Employee+s ,ecord Card.
-e was advised of his separation from service .effective immediately !nless yo! can
show valid proof in the form of a 'aptismal or 'irth certificate that yo! are 'elow %#
years of age today/ 0e1cerpt from the advice given2.
On !g!st 3", "$%& the petitioner wrote the *irector of P!'lic Schools, protesting his
forced retirement on the gro!nd that the date of his 'irth is not Novem'er 4%, "5$6 '!t
*ecem'er "", "$7". ttached to his letter was the affidavit, e1ec!ted on )!ly 4%, "$%4,
of 8a(aro 9ando:!illo and Pedro . Sienes 'oth of mlan Negros Oriental, in which
these two affiants declared that they ;new that the petitioner <was 'orn on *ecem'er
"", "$7", in the =!nicipality of mlan formerly ;nown as New y!:!itan Province of
Negros Oriental, Philippines< 'eca!se, <we were the neigh'ors of the late spo!ses,
NEPO=>CENO G,?*O, and G>E* ,EGO,OS @petitionerAs parentsB, and we
were present when said PE*,O G,?*O, was 'ornC f!rthermore,we were also
invited d!ring the 'aptismal party a few wee;s after the 'irth of said PE*,O
G,?*O,.<
DDDOn )!ly %, "$%6 the petitioner as;ed for the dismissal of the appeal on the gro!nd
that the iss!es posed there'y had 'ecome moot with his retirement from the service on
*ecem'er "", "$%% and the payment to him of the corresponding retirement 'enefits.
Ee deem it necessary, however, to review the trial co!rtAs decision on the merits,
considering that the comp!tation of retirement ann!ities is 'ased among other things,
on the n!m'er of years of service of a retiree, and that payment of 'enefits already
made to the petitioner on the 'asis of *ecem'er "", "$7" as the date of his 'irth wo!ld
not e1empt him from the o'ligation to ma;e a ref!nd sho!ld this Co!rt !ltimately r!le
that he was act!ally 'orn Novem'er 4%, "5$6, as the respondents claim.
I!!UE5 EON the trial co!rt erred in placing f!ll reliance on the post-war records to
esta'lish the date of 'irth of the petitioner.
RULING5 NO. The co!rt gave three cogent reasonsF
". s =oran states, altho!gh a person can have no personal ;nowledge of the date
of his 'irth, he may testify as to his age as he learned it from his parents and
relatives and his testimony in s!ch case is an assertion of a family tradition.
4. The import of the declaration of the petitioner+s 'rother, contained in a verified
pleading in a cadastral case way 'ac; in "$4&, to the effect that the petitioner
was then 43 years old, can not 'e ignored. =ade ante litem motam 'y a
deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree
within the intendment and meaning of Section 33 of ,!le "37 of the ,!les of
Co!rt.
3. The parties are agreed that the petitioner has a 'rother, Constantino, who was
'orn on )!ne "7, "5$5 and who retired on )!ne "7, "$%3 with f!ll retirement pay.
The petitioner then co!ld not have 'een 'orn earlier than Constantino, say in
"5$6 as pre-war records indicate, 'eca!se Constantino is admittedly older than
he.