Heirs of Gabatan v CA

TOPIC: Proof of fliation of illegitimate children

FACTS:
The respondent alleges that she is the sole owner of a land located in Cagayan
de Oro City which she inherited from her mother, Hermogena, the only child of
Juan Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito.
Respondent alleged that upon the death of Juan Gabatan, his land was entrusted
to his brother, Teolo Gabatan !Teolo", and Teolo#s wife, Rita Gabatan, for
administration.
$t was also claimed that prior to her death Hermogena demanded for the return
of the land but to no a%ail. &fter Hermogena#s death, respondent also did the
same but petitioners refused to heed the numerous demands to surrender the
sub'ect property.
(etitioners denied that respondent#s mother Hermogena was the daughter of
Juan Gabatan with Laureana Clarito and that Hermogena or respondent is the
rightful heir of Juan Gabatan. They further contend that Juan Gabatan died single
in )*+, and without any issue and that Juan was sur%i%ed by one brother and
two sisters, namely- Teolo !petitioners# predecessor.in.interest", /acaria and
Justa.
These siblings and0or their heirs, inherited the sub'ect land from Juan Gabatan
and ha%e been in actual, physical, open, public, ad%erse, continuous and
uninterrupted possession thereof in the concept of owners for more than fty
!12" years and en'oyed the fruits of the impro%ements thereon, to the e3clusion
of the whole world including respondent.
October 42, )**1 5 the RTC rendered a decision in fa%or of respondent
C& a6rmed such decision declaring that respondent#s claim of liation with Juan
Gabatan was su6ciently established during trial.
o The proof was a 7eed of &bsolute 8ale on July +2, )*99 containing such
declaration which was signed by Teolo and the latter#s nearest relati%es by
consanguinity, is a tangible proof that they ac:nowledged Hermogena#s
status as the daughter of Juan Gabatan.
o Teolo formally recogni;ed Hermogena#s right to heirship from Juan Gabatan
which ultimately passed on to respondent.
ISSU: <0= Hermogena Clareto >G&?&T&=> is the child and sole heir of Juan
Gabatan@
H!": =o.
Our laws dictate that the best evidence of such familial tie was
the record of birth appearing the Civil Register, or an authentic
document or a fnal judgment in the absence of these, any
proof that the child enjoyed the continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child only in the absence of these two
classes of evidence is the anyone allowed to present other
porrof admissible under the Rules of Court of the proof of
paternity and fliation
The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot ma:e a
declaration of heirship in the ci%il action for the reason that such a declaration can
only be made in a special proceeding.
To pro%e the relationship of respondent#s mother to Juan Gabatan, our laws dictate
that the best e%idence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearing in the
Ci%il Register, or an authentic document or a nal 'udgment. $n the absence of
these, respondent should ha%e presented proof that her mother en'oyed the
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. Only in the absence of
these two classes of e%idence is the respondent allowed to present other proof
admissible under the Rules of Court of her mother#s relationship to Juan Gabatan.
Howe%er, respondent#s mother#s !Hermogena#s" birth certicate, which would
ha%e been the best e%idence of Hermogena#s relationship to Juan Gabatan, was
ne%er oAered as e%idence at the RTC. =either did respondent present any authentic
document or nal 'udgment categorically e%idencing Hermogena#s relationship to
Juan Gabatan.
Respondent relied on the testimony of her witnesses but none of these
witnesses had personal :nowledge of the fact of marriage of Juan to Laureana or the
fact of birth of Hermogena to Juan and Laureana. They were not yet born or were
%ery young when Juan supposedly married Laureana or when Hermogena was born
and they all admitted that none of them were present at Juan and Laureana#s
wedding or Hermogena#s birth. These witnesses based their testimony on what they
had been told by, or heard from, others as young children. Their testimonies were,
in a word, hearsay.
&side from the testimonies of respondent#s witnesses, both the RTC and the C&
relied hea%ily on a photocopy of a 7eed of &bsolute 8ale presented by respondent
and which appeared to be signed by the siblings and the heirs of the siblings of Juan
Gabatan.
Howe%er, the admission of this 7eed of &bsolute 8ale, including its contents
and the signatures therein, as competent e%idence was %igorously and repeatedly
ob'ected to by petitioners# counsel for being a mere photocopy and not being
properly authenticated. &fter a close scrutiny of the said photocopy of the 7eed of
&bsolute 8ale, the Court cannot uphold the admissibility of the same.
Bnder the best e%idence rule, when the sub'ect of inCuiry is the contents of a
document, no e%idence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself. &lthough the best e%idence rule admits of e3ceptions and there are instances
where the presentation of secondary e%idence would be allowed, such as when the
original is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of
secondary e%idence must still be established. Thus, in 7epartment of Dducation
Culture and 8ports %. 7el Rosario, we held that a party must rst satisfactorily
e3plain the loss of the best or primary e%idence before he can resort to secondary
e%idence. & party must rst present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory
e3planation for non.production of the original instrument.
$n the case at bar, a perusal of the transcript of the testimony of Eelicisima
=agac (acana !who identied the photocopy of the 7eed of &bsolute 8ale" plainly
shows that she ga%e no testimony regarding the whereabouts of the original,
whether it was lost or whether it was recorded in any public o6ce.