Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
However, on February 16, 1977, the complaint The petitioners submit to the Court the following
as well as petitioners' counterclaim were issues: (a) whether or not prescription barred
dismissed by the trial court, in its decision private respondents' right to demand the
stating thus: partition of the estate of Lupo Mariategui, and
(b) whether or not the private respondents, who
The plaintiffs' right to inherit belatedly filed the action for recognition, were
depends upon the able to prove their successional rights over said
acknowledgment or recognition of estate. The resolution of these issues hinges,
their continuous enjoyment and however, on the resolution of the preliminary
possession of status of children of matter, i.e., the nature of the complaint filed by
their supposed father. The the private respondents.
evidence fails to sustain either
premise, and it is clear that this The complaint alleged, among other things, that
action cannot be sustained. "plaintiffs are the children of the deceased
(Ibid, Rollo, pp. 67-68) spouses Lupo Mariategui . . . and Felipa
Velasco"; that "during his lifetime, Lupo
The plaintiffs elevated the case to the Court of Mariategui had repeatedly acknowledged and
Appeals on the ground that the trial court confirmed plaintiffs as his children and the latter,
committed an error ". . . in not finding that the in turn, have continuously enjoyed such status
parents of the appellants, Lupo Mariategui and since their birth"; and "on the basis of their
Felipa Velasco (were) lawfully married, and in relationship to the deceased Lupo Mariategui
holding (that) they (appellants) are not and in accordance with the law on intestate
legitimate children of their said parents, thereby succession, plaintiffs are entitled to inherit
divesting them of their inheritance . . . " (Rollo, shares in the foregoing estate (Record on
pp. 14-15). Appeal, pp. 5 & 6). It prayed, among others, that
plaintiffs be declared as children and heirs of
On December 24, 1980, the Court of Appeals Lupo Mariategui and adjudication in favor of
rendered a decision declaring all the children plaintiffs their lawful shares in the estate of the
and descendants of Lupo Mariategui, including decedent (Ibid, p. 10).
appellants Jacinto, Julian and Paulina (children
of the third marriage) as entitled to equal shares A perusal of the entire allegations of the
in the estate of Lupo Mariategui; directing the complaint, however, shows that the action is
adjudicatees in the extrajudicial partition of real principally one of partition. The allegation with
properties who eventually acquired transfer respect to the status of the private respondents
certificates of title thereto, to execute deeds of was raised only collaterally to assert their rights
reconveyance in favor, and for the shares, of in the estate of the deceased. Hence, the Court
of Appeals correctly adopted the settled rule that v. Corpus, 85 SCRA 567 [1978]; Saurnaba v.
the nature of an action filed in court is Workmen's Compensation, 85 SCRA 502
determined by the facts alleged in the complaint [1978]; Alavado v. City Gov't. of Tacloban, 139
constituting the cause of action (Republic vs. SCRA 230 [1985]; Reyes v. Court of Appeals,
Estenzo, 158 SCRA 282 [1988]). 135 SCRA 439 [1985]).
It has been held that, if the relief demanded is Courts look upon the presumption of marriage
not the proper one which may be granted under with great favor as it is founded on the following
the law, it does not characterize or determine rationale:
the nature of plaintiffs' action, and the relief to
which plaintiff is entitled based on the facts The basis of human society
alleged by him in his complaint, although it is not throughout the civilized world is
the relief demanded, is what determines the that of marriage. Marriage in this
nature of the action (1 Moran, p. 127, 1979 ed., jurisdiction is not only a civil
citing Baguioro vs. Barrios, et al., 77 Phil. 120). contract, but it is a new relation, an
institution in the maintenance of
With respect to the legal basis of private which the public is deeply
respondents' demand for partition of the estate interested. Consequently, every
of Lupo Mariategui, the Court of Appeals aptly intendment of the law leans
held that the private respondents are legitimate toward legalizing matrimony.
children of the deceased. Persons dwelling together in
apparent matrimony are
Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco were presumed, in the absence of any
alleged to have been lawfully married in or about counterpresumption or evidence
1930. This fact is based on the declaration special to that case, to be in fact
communicated by Lupo Mariategui to Jacinto married. The reason is that such is
who testified that "when (his) father was still the common order of society and
living, he was able to mention to (him) that he if the parties were not what they
and (his) mother were able to get married before thus hold themselves out as
a Justice of the Peace of Taguig, Rizal." The being, they would be living in the
spouses deported themselves as husband and constant violation of decency and
wife, and were known in the community to be of
such. Although no marriage certificate was law . . . (Adong vs. Cheong Seng
introduced to this effect, no evidence was Gee, 43 Phil. 43, 56 [1922] quoted
likewise offered to controvert these facts. in Alavado vs. City Government of
Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230 [1985]).
marriage exists does not invalidate the
marriage, provided all requisites for its validity So much so that once a man and a woman have
are present (People vs. Borromeo, 133 SCRA lived as husband and wife and such relationship
106 [1984]). is not denied nor contradicted, the presumption
of their being married must be admitted as a fact
Under these circumstances, a marriage may be (Alavado v. City Gov't. of Tacloban,supra).
presumed to have taken place between Lupo
and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a The Civil Code provides for the manner under
woman, deporting themselves as husband and which legitimate filiation may be proven.
wife, have entered into a lawful contract of However, considering the effectivity of the
marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, Family Code of the Philippines, the case at bar
there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and must be decided under a new if not entirely
board is legitimate; and that things have dissimilar set of rules because the parties have
happened according to the ordinary course of been overtaken by events, to use the popular
nature and the ordinary habits of life (Section 5 phrase (Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
(z), (bb), (cc), Rule 131, Rules of Court; Corpus No. 76873, October 26, 1989). Thus, under Title
VI of the Family Code, there are only two long as the heirs for whose benefit prescription
classes of children legitimate and illegitimate. is invoked, have not expressly or impliedly
The fine distinctions among various types of repudiated the co-ownership. In other words,
illegitimate children have been eliminated prescription of an action for partition does not lie
(Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 656 except when the co-ownership is properly
[1989]). repudiated by the co-owner (Del Banco vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 156 SCRA 55
Article 172 of the said Code provides that the [1987] citing Jardin vs. Hollasco, 117 SCRA 532
filiation of legitimate children may be [1982]).
established by the record of birth appearing in
the civil register or a final judgment or by the Otherwise stated, a co-owner cannot acquire by
open and continuous possession of the status of prescription the share of the other co-owners
a legitimate child. absent a clear repudiation of co-ownership duly
communicated to the other co-owners (Mariano
Evidence on record proves the legitimate vs. De Vega, 148 SCRA 342 [1987]).
filiation of the private respondents. Jacinto's Furthermore, an action to demand partition is
birth certificate is a record of birth referred to in imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches
the said article. Again, no evidence which tends (Del Banco vs. IAC, 156 SCRA 55 [1987]). On
to disprove facts contained therein was adduced the other hand, an action for partition may be
before the lower court. In the case of the two seen to be at once an action for declaration of
other private respondents, Julian and Paulina, co-ownership and for segregation and
they may not have presented in evidence any of conveyance of a determinate portion of the
the documents required by Article 172 but they property involved (Roque vs. IAC, 165 SCRA
continuously enjoyed the status of children of 118 [1988]).
Lupo Mariategui in the same manner as their
brother Jacinto. Petitioners contend that they have repudiated
the co-ownership when they executed the
While the trial court found Jacinto's testimonies extrajudicial partition excluding the private
to be inconsequential and lacking in substance respondents and registered the properties in
as to certain dates and names of relatives with their own names (Petition, p. 16; Rollo, p. 20).
whom their family resided, these are but minor However, no valid repudiation was made by
details. The nagging fact is that for a petitioners to the prejudice of private
considerable length of time and despite the respondents. Assuming petitioners' registration
death of Felipa in 1941, the private respondents of the subject lot in 1971 was an act of
and Lupo lived together until Lupo's death in repudiation of the co-ownership, prescription
1953. It should be noted that even the trial court had not yet set in when private respondents filed
mentioned in its decision the admission made in in 1973 the present action for partition (Ceniza
the affidavit of Cresenciana Mariategui Abas, vs. C.A., 181 SCRA 552 [1990]).
one of the petitioners herein, that " . . . Jacinto,
Julian and Paulina Mariategui ay pawang mga In their complaint, private respondents averred
kapatid ko sa that in spite of their demands, petitioners,
ama . . ." (Exh. M, Record on Appeal, pp. 65- except the unwilling defendants in the lower
66). court, failed and refused to acknowledge and
convey their lawful shares in the estate of their
In view of the foregoing, there can be no other father (Record on Appeal, p. 6). This allegation,
conclusion than that private respondents are though denied by the petitioners in their answer
legitimate children and heirs of Lupo Mariategui (Ibid, p. 14), was never successfully refuted by
and therefore, the time limitation prescribed in them. Put differently, in spite of petitioners'
Article 285 for filing an action for recognition is undisputed knowledge of their relationship to
inapplicable to this case. Corollarily, prescription private respondents who are therefore their co-
does not run against private respondents with heirs, petitioners fraudulently withheld private
respect to the filing of the action for partition so respondent's share in the estate of Lupo
Mariategui. According to respondent Jacinto, heirs prescription can only be deemed to have
since 1962, he had been inquiring from commenced from the time private respondents
petitioner Maria del Rosario about their discovered the petitioners' act of defraudation
(respondents) share in the property left by their (Adille vs. Court of Appeals, supra). Hence,
deceased father and had been assured by the prescription definitely may not be invoked by
latter (Maria del Rosario) not to worry because petitioners because private respondents
they will get some shares. As a matter of fact, commenced the instant action barely two
sometime in 1969, Jacinto constructed a house months after learning that petitioners had
where he now resides on Lot No. 163 without registered in their names the lots involved.
any complaint from petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the
Petitioners' registration of the properties in their assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated
names in 1971 did not operate as a valid December 24, 1980 is Affirmed.
repudiation of the co-ownership. In Adille
vs. Court of Appeals (157 SCRA 455, 461-462 SO ORDERED.
[1988]), the Court held:
Prescription, as a mode of
terminating a relation of co-
ownership, must have been
preceded by repudiation (of the
co-ownership). The act of
repudiation, in turn, is subject to
certain conditions: (1) a co-owner
repudiates the co-ownership; (2)
such an act of repudiation is
clearly made known to the other
co-owners; (3) the evidence
thereon is clear and conclusive;
and (4) he has been in possession
through open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious
possession of the property for the
period required by law.
HELD:
Mariategui vs. CA
The case is really one for partition. The question of
on 7:02 AM in Case Digests, Civil Law the status of the private respondents was raised only
0 collaterally to assert their rights in the estate of the
G.R. No. 57062, Jan. 24, 1992 deceased.
This is a case for partition of several pieces of land Lupo and Felipa were alleged to have been lawfully
belonging to Lupo Mariategui, who died without a married in or about 1930. This fact is based on the
will. declaration communicated by Lupo to his son who
testified that when his father was still living, he was
During his lifetime, Lupo contracted three (3) able to mention to him that he and his mother were
marriages. The first wife died, so he contracted a able to get married before a Justice of the Peace of
second marriage. The second wife also passed away Taguig, Rizal. The spouses deported themselves as
so he contracted a third marriage. The third wife also husband and wife, and were known in the community
preceded Lupo in death. to be such. Although no marriage certificate was
introduced to this effect, no evidence was likewise
The issue in this case arose because at the time of his offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere
death, Lupo left certain properties which he acquired fact that no record of the marriage exists does not
when he was still unmarried. Later, Lupos invalidate the marriage, provided all the requisites
descendants by his first and second marriages for its validity are present.
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby
they adjudicated unto themselves a certain lot of the Under these circumstances, a marriage may be
Muntinglupa Estate and title was issued. Now, presumed to have taken place between Lupo and
Lupos children by his third marriage filed a Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman,
complaint with the lower court, contending that since deporting themselves as husband and wife, have
they were co-heirs of Lupos estate they were entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child
deprived of their respective shares in the lot born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce,
mentioned. In answer, the other party said that the absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that
complaint was not really for annulment of the deed things have happened according to the ordinary
of extrajudicial partition but for recognition of course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.
natural children.
Courts look upon the presumption of marriage with
The lower court ruled in favor of Lupos heirs from great favor as it is founded on the following rationale:
the first and second marriage. Thus, the case was
elevated to the CA, where they raised the issue of
their parents lawful marriage and their legitimacy as The basis of human society throughout the civilized
children. world is that of marriage. Marriage in this
jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new
relation, an institution in the maintenance of which
CA ruled that all the heirs of Lupo were entitled to the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every
equal shares in the estate. Hence, this petition. intendment of the law leans towards legalizing
matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent
ISSUES: matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any
counterpresumption or evidence special to that case,
o Whether or not the action for partition has to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the
prescribed common order of society and if the parties were not
what they thus hold themselves out as being, they
would be living in the constant violation of decency
and of law.
Filiation
Petition dismissed.