Erlinda Pilapil, et al. Vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones, et al. (G.R. No.

150175) March 10, 2006

Civil Law – Succession
Evidence – Suppression, Presumptions

Succession
Maximino left no will at the time of his death, on 1 May 1952, and his estate was to be settled in
accordance with the rules on legal or intestate succession. The heirs of Maximino, respondents in the
Petition at bar, claimed the right to inherit, together with Donata, from the estate of Maximino, based on
the Articles 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code, which read –
ART. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants, and
illegitimate children and their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the
surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers
and sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be any, under article 1001.

ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow
or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and
sisters or their children to the other half.

Suppression of Evidence
The non-presentation of the CFI Order, contrary to the declaration by the RTC, does not amount
to a willful suppression of evidence that would give rise to the presumption that it would be adverse to
the heirs of Donata if produced. As this Court already expounded in the case of People v. Jumamoy –
x x x We reiterate the rule that the adverse presumption from a suppression of
evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the evidence
suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the
disposal of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Moreover,
if the accused believed that the failure to present the other witnesses was because their
testimonies would be unfavorable to the prosecution, he should have compelled their
appearance, by compulsory process, to testify as his own witnesses or even as hostile
witnesses.

If there is indeed a surviving copy of the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, then there is no
reason to believe that it would be exclusively available only to the heirs of Donata and not to the heirs
of Maximino. It is important to note that two of the documents relating to Special Proceedings No. 928-
R, namely, (1) the Letters of Administration issued in favor of Donata by the CFI, and (2) the Inventory
submitted by Donata to the CFI, were actually produced before the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-5794 by
the heirs of Maximino. It only goes to show that the heirs of Maximino did have access to the records
of Special Proceedings No. 928-R in which the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, was issued. If there
was still a copy of the CFI Order, dated 2 October 1952, in the records of Special Proceedings No. 928-
R, and the contents of such Order were truly adverse to the heirs of Donata, then it would have been
more compelling for the heirs of Maximino to present it before the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-5794,
with the aid of the appropriate court processes if necessary.

Presumptions
The issuance by the CFI of the said Order, as well as its conduct of the entire Special
Proceedings No. 928-R, enjoy the presumption of validity pursuant to the Section 3(m) and (n) of Rule
131 of the Revised Rules of Court, reproduced below –
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory
if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

xxxx
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;

(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or

elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.

By reason of the foregoing provisions, this Court must presume, in the absence of any clear and
convincing proof to the contrary, that the CFI in Special Proceedings No. 928-R had jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the parties, and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect; and it could not
give credence to the following statements made by the Court of Appeals in its Decision –
At the outset, the proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration was
invalid. Firstly, Donata did not include x x x x x….

There was totally no evidentiary basis for the foregoing pronouncements. First of all, the
petition filed by Donata for Letters of Administration in Special Proceedings No. 928-R before the CFI
was not even referred to nor presented during the course of the trial of Civil Case No. CEB-5794 before
the RTC. How then could the Court of Appeals make a finding that Donata willfully excluded from the
said Petition the names, ages, and residences of the other heirs of Maximino? Second, there was also
no evidence showing that the CFI actually failed to send notices of Special Proceedings No. 928-R to
the heirs of Maximino or that it did not require presentation of proof of service of such notices. It should
be remembered that there stands a presumption that the CFI Judge had regularly performed his duties
in Special Proceedings No. 928-R, which included sending out of notices and requiring the presentation
of proof of service of such notices; and, the heirs of Maximino did not propound sufficient evidence to
debunk such presumption. They only made a general denial of knowledge of Special Proceedings No.
928-R, at least until 1985. There was no testimony or document presented in which the heirs of
Maximino categorically denied receipt of notice from the CFI of the pendency of Special Proceedings
No. 928-R.