Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
[G.R. NO. 12345 : April 20, 2020]
RODOLFO C. AQUINO,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
(Ponente), J,:
A brief background –
1
Miguel, paid for her education from kindergarten to college. On his deathbed, Miguel
also instructed the distribution of the more valuable assets in his estate and specified
that the lot in front the LTA Building be given to Amadea, who he fondly called,
“Maggie”. The lot was delivered to Amadea by her cousin who wrote down their
grandfather’s dying instructions.
Petitioner Amadea also filed a Motion for Distribution of Residue of Estate or for
Allowance to the Heirs contending that she is entitled to a monthly allowance equivalent
to those given to the other heirs. The motion was opposed by Rodolfo and Abdulah.
In an Order dated April 22, 2005, the trial court granted Amadea’s motion
observing that “the other heirs did not deny, challenge or qualify any of the claims of
movant Amadea Aquino. They all are rely on technicalities but not one of them belied
the claims of Amadea all of which support her position that she has been in continuous
possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child of Arturo Aquino.” Thus the
dispositive portion of the RTC Order reads:
From this April 22, 2005 Order, Rodolfo and Abdulah separately moved for
reconsideration although Rodolfo’s motion was later deemed withdrawn. In its Order
dated March 6. 2008, the RTC denied Abdulah’s motion for reconsideration and
maintained that petitioner Amadea is an acknowledged natural child of Arturo Aquino,
entitled to inherit from her grandfather, Miguel.
Meanwhile, in resolving Abdulah’s appeal, the January 31, 2013 Decision of the
st
CA 21 Division overturned the orders of the RTC and declared Amadea disualilfied to
2
inherit from the intestate estate of Miguel. Her motion for reconsideration having been
denied, petitioner Amadea came to this Court on a Petition for Revie on Certiorari.
In a Resolution dated November 11, 2013, this Court resolved to deny the two
consolidated petitions and affirm the Decision of the appellate court, viz.:
The CA did not commit any reversible error in holding that petitioner
Amadea Angela Aquino is disqualified to inherit from the interstate estate
of decedent Miguel T. Aquino, Jurisprudence has consistently held that
Article 992 of the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from inheriting ab
intestado from the legitimate children and relative of his father or mother.
In G.R. No. 209018, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition. A
petition for certiorari may only be availed of when there is no adequate,
plain, or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner Rodolfo
C. Aquino is also guilty of forum shopping and litis pendentia in pursuing
different remedies for a single objective. Moreover, the petition lacked
proof that its copy was served on the lower court concerned in violation of
Section 3, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 of the same rule as well as
Section 5(d) of Rule 59 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner contends in her motion for reconsideration that she had always been in open
and continuous possession of the status as a descendant and heir of the decedent
Miguel and that Article 992 of the Civil Code cannot serve to bar her from inheriting from
her grandfather as the presumed animosity underlying the provision is lacking in the
instant case.
The basic issue presented before this Court is whether or not, under the circumstances
of this case, petitioner is entitled to claim from the estate of her paternal grandfather
Miquel T. Aquino considering that she was openly, publicly, and continuously
recognized by her grandfather and the rest of the Aquino clan prior to the former’s
death.
Before resolving that issue, it is important to note that petitioner Amadea has not during
her lifetime and up to that time when she filed on July 2003 any legal action to establish
her claim of illegitimate filation. It is only after proving her illegitimate filiation that
petitioner may even prove her claim over the estate of what she claims to be her
relatives.
In the case of Dorotea Uyguangco et al, vs. Court of Appeals i, the Supreme Court ruled:
3
The issue before the Court is not the status of the private respondent, who
has been excluded from the family and inheritance of the petitioners. What
we are asked to decide is whether he should be allowed to prove that he
is an illegitimate child of his claimed father, who is already dead, in the
absence of the documentary evidence required by the Civil Code.
xxx
While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of the
documents mentioned in the first paragraph (which are practically the
same documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil Code except for the
"private handwritten instrument signed by the parent himself'''), he insists
that he has nevertheless been "in open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child," which is now also admissible as evidence of
filiation.
Thus, he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973,
receiving support from him during that time; that he has been using the
surname Uyguangco without objection from his father and the petitioners
4
as shown in his high school diploma, a special power of attorney executed
in his favor by Dorotea Uyguangco, and another one by Sulpicio
Uyguangco; that he has shared in the profits of the copra business of the
Uyguangcos, which is a strictly family business; that he was a director,
together with the petitioners, of the Alu and Sons Development
Corporation, a family corporation; and that in the addendum to the original
extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners he was given a share
in his deceased father's estate.
It must be added that the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish
his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws," like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a
family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation
respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of
witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.
Thus, as petitioner Amadea has not proven her claim of illegitimate filiation, she cannot
in anyway raise any claim over an estate of her supposed grandfather as legally
speaking, there is none to speak of.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of the bench and the bar, and in order to finally settle the
issue of claims of illegitimate children to the properties belonging to the relatives of her
illegitimate parents, this Court is inclined to decide on the main issue of this case.
This Court has long decided on the importance of the iron curtain rule found in Article
943 of the old Civil Code and now in Article 992 of the New Civil Code. Thus, in Tomas
Corpus vs. Administratorii, we ruled:
5
Article 943 of the old Civil code provides that "el hijo natural y el legitimado
no tienen derecho a suceder abintestato a los hijos y parientes legitimos
del padre o madre que to haya reconocido, ni ellos al hijo natural ni al
legitimado". Article 943 "prohibits all successory reciprocity mortis causa
between legitimate and illegitimate relatives" 16 Sanchez Roman, Civil
Code, pp. 996-997 cited in Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil. 279, 287.
See 16 Scaevola Codigo Civil, 4th Ed., 455-6). ...
xxx
The rule in article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code which
provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child".
That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn,
hated by the illegitimate child.
The law does not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avod further
grounds of resentment (7 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., pp. 185- 6).
Under articles 944 and 945 of the Spanish Civil Code, "if an acknowledged
natural or legitimated child should die without issue, either legitimate or
acknowledged, the father or mother who acknowledged such child shall
succeed to its entire estate; and if both acknowledged it and are alive,
they shall inherit from it share and share alike. In default of natural
ascendants, natural and legitimated children shall be succeeded by
their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established
for legitimate brothers and sisters." Hence, Teodoro R. Yangco's half
brothers on the Corpus side, who were legitimate, had no right to succeed
to his estate under the rules of intestacy.
Following the rule in article 992, formerly article 943, it was held that the
legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child
(Cacho vs. Udan L- 19996, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 693. See De
Guzman vs. Sevilla, 47 Phil. 991).
6
married, and what is more, his alleged father's first marriage was still
subsisting. At most, petitioner would be an illegitimate child who has no
right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes. (Article 992, Civil Code of the
Philippines.)
Hence, this Court did not err in denying the petition and affirming the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in holding that petitioner Amadea Angela Aquino is disqualified to
inherit from the intestate estate of decedent Miguel T. Aquino.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated November 11,
2013, filed by Petitioner Amadea Angela K. Aquino, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
(Ponented)
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(NAMES OF GROUPMATES)
7
i
G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989.
ii
G.R. No. L-22469, October 23, 1978.
iii
G.R. No. L-51263, February 28, 1983.