Gonzales v.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 117740, October 30, 1998
FACTS:
On 18 April1972, petitioners Carolina Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa
Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco sought the settlement of the intestate
estate of their brother, Ricardo de Mesa Abad. In their petition,
petitioners claimed that they were the only heirs of their brother as he
had allegedly died a bachelor, leaving no descendants or ascendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate. Petitioners amended their petition
by alleging that the real properties listed as belonging to the decedent
were actually only administered by him and that the true owner was
their late mother, Lucila de Mesa.
The trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator of
the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad. Petitioners executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their late mother Lucila de
Mesa in their favor.
On 07 July 1972, private respondents Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia
Abad Empaynado, and Marian Abad Empaynado filed a motion to set
aside proceedings. In their motion, they alleged that Honoria
Empaynado had been the common-law wife of Ricardo Abad for
twenty-seven (27) years before his death, or from 1943 to 1971, and
that during this period, their union had produced two (2) children,
Cecilia Abad Empaynado and Marian Abad Empaynado. They also
disclosed the existence of Rosemarie Abad, a child allegedly fathered
by Ricardo Abad with another woman, Dolores Saracho. As the law
awards the entire estate to the surviving children to the exclusion of
collateral relatives, they charged petitioners with eliberately
concealing the existence of said children in order to deprive the latter
of their rights to the estate of Ricardo Abad.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the three (3) children were entitled to inherit
RULING:
Yes. Evidence presented by private respondents overwhelmingly
proved that they are the acknowledged natural children of Ricardo
Abad. They were able to prove that he stated in his individual income
tax returns as his legitimate dependent children, Cecilia, Marian and
Rosemarie Abad. He insured his daughters on a 20 year endowment
plan. He opened a trust fund account for his daughters.
Finding that private respondents are the illegitimate children of
Ricardo Abad, petitioners should have been precluded from inheriting
the estate of their brother on the basis of the following Civil Code
provisions:
Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the
illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.
Art. 1003. If there are no illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse,
the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased
in
accordance with the following articles
Petitioners contested the filiation of the children by submitting that
the husband of Honoria Empaynado, Jose Libunao, was still alive
when Cecilia and Marian Abad were born. It was undisputed that
prior to her relationship with Ricardo Abad, Honoria Empaynado was
married to Jose Libunao. But while private respondents claim that
Jose Libunao died in 1943, petitioners claim that the latter died
sometime in 1971.
The evidence presented by petitioners to prove that Jose Libunao died memory by dragging to light communications and disclosures made under
in 1971 was inconclusive. The evidence presented was an enrolment the seal of the statute.
form wherein there was failure to indicate that Jose was deceased.
Such proof did not necessarily prove that said parent was still living
during the time the form was being accomplished. The records of
Loyola Memorial Park also showed that a certain Jose Bautista
Libunao was indeed buried there in 1971. Such person was different
from the husband whose full name was Jose Santos Libunao.

As to Dr. Arenas affidavit, the same was objected to by private

respondents as being privileged communication under Section 24 (c),
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.[11] The rule on confidential
communications between physician and patient requires that: a) the
action in which the advice or treatment given or any information is to be
used is a civil case; b) the relation of physician and patient existed
between the person claiming the privilege or his legal representative and
the physician; c) the advice or treatment given by him or any
information was acquired by the physician while professionally
attending the patient; d) the information was necessary for the
performance of his professional duty; and e) the disclosure of the
information would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient.[12]
Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit meets the first four
requisites. They assert, however, that the finding as to Ricardo Abads
sterility does not blacken the character of the deceased. Petitioners
conveniently forget that Ricardo Abads sterility arose when the latter
contracted gonorrhea, a fact which most assuredly blackens his
reputation. In fact, given that society holds virility at a premium,
sterility alone, without the attendant embarrassment of contracting a
sexually-transmitted disease, would be sufficient to blacken the
reputation of any patient. We thus hold the affidavit inadmissible in
evidence. And the same remains inadmissible in evidence,
notwithstanding the death of Ricardo Abad. As stated by the trial court:

In the case of Westover vs. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 99 N.Y. 59, it
was pointed out that: The privilege of secrecy is not abolished or
terminated because of death as stated in established precedents. It is an
established rule that the purpose of the law would be thwarted and the
policy intended to be promoted thereby would be defeated, if death
removed the seal of secrecy, from the communications and disclosures
which a patient should make to his physician. After one has gone to his
grave, the living are not permitted to impair his name and disgrace his