Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MANILA
[G.R. NO. 12345 : April 20, 2020]

AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO,

Petitioner,

-versus- G.R. No. 208912

RODOLFO C. AQUINO,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
Fajardo, J,:

For consideration of this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution

of this Court dated November 11, 2013 filed by the Petitioner.

A brief background –

The present controversy started on May 7, 2003 when Rodolfo C. Aquino

(Rodolfo) filed a Petition for intestate estate of the late Miguel T. Aquino (Miguel) before
the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The petition enumerated the names of the
surviving heirs of Miguel: (1) Enerie Aquino, Miguel’s second wife; (2) son Abdulah
Aquino (Abdulah); (3) son Rodolfo; and (4) the surviving wife and children of son
Wilfredo Aquino. The petition also mentioned the name of another son, Arturo Aquino
(Arturo), who predeceased his father Miguel, but made no mention of any surviving heir
who shall represent him in the estate of Miguel.

On July, 2003, petitioner Amadea Angela Aquino (Amadea) filed a Motion to be

Included in the Distribution and Partition of Estate. She alleged that she was the natural
child of Susan Kuan and Arturo, born on October 9, 1978, less than nine months from
the death of her putative father. She claimed her parents had planned to marry but her
father was killed before the intended wedding and before her birth. Amadea also
claimed that she was even given the name of her paternal grandmother “Amadea” and
since her birth, she has been recognized by the Aquino clan as the natural child of
Arturo. From the very start, Amadea continued, she and her mother lived in the Aquino
ancestral house where she is presently residing. When she was baptized, her father’s
brother, Abdulah, stood as her godfather. Amadea further narrated that her grandfather,

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 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:

ACCORDINGLY, Amadea Angela K. Aquino is hereby considered

and declared an acknowledged natural child or legitimated child of Arturo
C. Aquino for purposes of determining her share in the estate of her
grandfather, Miguel T. Aquino, in representation of her father Arturo C.
Aquino and pending the distribution of the residual estate, the
Administrator is hereby directed to immediately give her a monthly
allowance of P64,000 upon the latter’s posting of a bond of P100,000.00.

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.

Undeterred, respondent Abdulah interposed an appeal with the appellate court.

The recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. C.V. No. 01633 and raffled to the Twenty-First
(21st) Division of the CA. In the meantime, Rodolfo also assailed the RTC orders via
petition for certiorari which was docketed in the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 02269-MIN and
raffled to the Twenty-Second (22nd) Division of the appellate court.

On August 23, 2012, in CA-G.R. SP No. 0269-MIN, the CA rendered a Decisio,

denying Rodolfo’s petition on the ground of litis pendentia, forum shopping, and for
being the wrong mode of remedy. Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Rodolfo came to this Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari, which was docketed as
G.R. No. 209018.

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.

Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration.

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 Motion for Reconsideration should fail.

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

Under the Family Code, it is provided that:

Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation

in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

The following provision is therefore also available to the private

respondent in proving his illegitimate filiation:

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of

the following:

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final

judgment; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document

or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate

filiation shall be proved by:

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a

legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and

special laws.

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.

The problem of the private respondent, however, is that, since he seeks to

prove his filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family
Code, his action is now barred because of his alleged father's death in
1975. The second paragraph of this Article 175 reads as follows:

The action must be brought within the same period specified in

Article 173, except when the action is based on the second
paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be
brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (Italics supplied.)

It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this

time to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession
of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation
through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special
laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already
dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's
illegitimate filiation. (Emphasis supplied)

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).

Further in Cresenciano Leonardo vs. Court of Appealsiii, we ruled:

Referring to the third assignment of error, even if it is true that petitioner is

the child of Sotero Leonardo, still he cannot, by right of representation,
claim a share of the estate left by the deceased Francisca Reyes
considering that, as found again by the Court of Appeals, he was born
outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he was born on
September 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and mother were not yet

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.

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.