8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

TodayisTuesday,August23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.155733January27,2006
INTHEMATTEROFTHEINTESTATEESTATESOFTHEDECEASEDJOSEFADELGADOANDGUILLERMO
RUSTIACARLOTADELGADOVDA.DEDELAROSAandotherHEIRSOFLUISDELGADO,namely,HEIRS
OFCONCHAVDA.DEAREVALO,HEIRSOFLUISADELGADOVDA.DEDANAO,ANGELADELGADO
ARESPACOCHAGA,TERESADELGADOPERLAS,CAROLINADELGADOARESPACOCHAGA,RODOLFO
DELGADO,BENJAMINDELGADO,GLICERIADELGADOandCLEOFASDELGADOandHEIRSOF
GORGONIODELGADO,namely,RAMONDELGADOCAMPO,CARLOSDELGADOCAMPO,CLARITA
DELGADOCAMPOREIZA,YOLANDADELGADOENCINAS,FELISADELGADOCAMPOENCINASand
MELINDADELGADOCAMPOMADARANG,Petitioners,
vs.
HEIRSOFMARCIANARUSTIAVDA.DEDAMIAN,namely,GUILLERMOR.DAMIANandJOSER.DAMIAN
HEIRSOFHORTENCIARUSTIACRUZ,namely,TERESITACRUZSISON,HORACIOR.CRUZ,JOSEFINA
CRUZRODIL,AMELIACRUZENRIQUEZandFIDELR.CRUZ,JR.HEIRSOFROMANRUSTIA,SR.,namely,
JOSEFINARUSTIAALBANO,VIRGINIARUSTIAPARAISO,ROMANRUSTIA,JR.,SERGIORUSTIA,
FRANCISCORUSTIA,LETICIARUSTIAMIRANDAandGUILLERMINARUSTIA,asOppositors1and
GUILLERMARUSTIA,asIntervenor,2Respondents.3
DECISION
CORONA,J.:
Inthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari,petitionersseektoreinstatetheMay11,1990decisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55,4 in SP Case No. 97668, which was reversed and set aside by the Court of
Appealsinitsdecision5datedOctober24,2002.
FACTSOFTHECASE
ThiscaseconcernsthesettlementoftheintestateestatesofGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado.6Themainissue
inthiscaseisrelativelysimple:who, between petitioners and respondents, are the lawful heirs of the decedents.
However,itisattendedbyseveralcollateralissuesthatcomplicateitsresolution.
The claimants to the estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado may be divided into two groups: (1) the
alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, consisting of her half and fullblood siblings, nephews and nieces, and
grandnephewsandgrandnieces,and(2)theallegedheirsofGuillermoRustia,particularly,hissisters,7hisnephews
andnieces,8hisillegitimatechild,9andthedefactoadoptedchild10(ampunampunan)ofthedecedents.
TheallegedheirsofJosefaDelgado
ThedeceasedJosefaDelgadowasthedaughterofFelisa11DelgadobyoneLucioCampo.AsidefromJosefa,five
other children were born to the couple, namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Gorgonio, all surnamed
Delgado. Felisa Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa and her fullblood siblings were all
naturalchildrenofFelisaDelgado.
However,LucioCampowasnotthefirstandonlymaninFelisaDelgadoslife.BeforehimwasRamonOsorio12with
whom Felisa had a son, Luis Delgado. But, unlike her relationship with Lucio Campo which was admittedly one
withoutthebenefitofmarriage,thelegalstatusofRamonOsoriosandFelisaDelgadosunionisindispute.
ThequestionofwhetherFelisaDelgadoandRamonOsorioevergotmarriediscrucialtotheclaimantsbecausethe
answerwilldeterminewhethertheirsuccessionalrightsfallwithintheambitoftheruleagainstreciprocalintestate
succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.13 If Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado had been validly
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

1/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

married, then their only child Luis Delgado was a legitimate halfblood brother of Josefa Delgado and therefore
excludedfromthelattersintestateestate.Heandhisheirswouldbebarredbytheprincipleofabsoluteseparation
betweenthelegitimateandillegitimatefamilies.Conversely,ifthecouplewerenevermarried,LuisDelgadoandhis
heirswouldbeentitledtoinheritfromJosefaDelgadosintestateestate,astheywouldallbewithintheillegitimate
line.
PetitionersallegethatRamonOsorioandFelisaDelgadowerenevermarried.Insupportthereof,theyassertthatno
evidencewaseverpresentedtoestablishit,notevensomuchasanallegationofthedateorplaceofthealleged
marriage. What is clear, however, is that Felisa retained the surname Delgado. So did Luis, her son with Ramon
Osorio. Later on, when Luis got married, his Partida de Casamiento14 stated that he was "hijo natural de Felisa
Delgado" (the natural child of Felisa Delgado),15 significantly omitting any mention of the name and other
circumstancesofhisfather.16Nevertheless,oppositors(nowrespondents)insistthattheabsenceofarecordofthe
allegedmarriagedidnotnecessarilymeanthatnomarriageevertookplace.
Josefa Delgado died on September 8, 1972 without a will. She was survived by Guillermo Rustia and some
collateral relatives, the petitioners herein. Several months later, on June 15, 1973, Guillermo Rustia executed an
affidavitofself
adjudicationoftheremainingpropertiescomprisingherestate.
ThemarriageofGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado
Sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado17 but whether a marriage in fact took
place is disputed. According to petitioners, the two eventually lived together as husband and wife but were never
married.Toprovetheirassertion,petitionerspointoutthatnorecordofthecontestedmarriageexistedinthecivil
registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of the sponsors referred to her as
"Seorita"orunmarriedwoman.
The oppositors (respondents here), on the other hand, insist that the absence of a marriage certificate did not of
necessitymeanthatnomarriagetranspired.TheymaintainthatGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgadoweremarried
onJune3,1919andfromthenonlivedtogetherashusbandandwifeuntilthedeathofJosefaonSeptember8,
1972.Duringthisperiodspanningmorethanhalfacentury,theywereknownamongtheirrelativesandfriendsto
haveinfactbeenmarried.Tosupporttheirproposition,oppositorspresentedthefollowingpiecesofevidence:
1.CertificateofIdentityNo.9592dated[December1,1944]issuedtoMrs.GuillermoJ.RustiabyCarlosP.
Romulo,thenResidentCommissionertotheUnitedStatesoftheCommonwealthofthePhilippines
2.PhilippinePassportNo.4767issuedtoJosefaD.RustiaonJune25,1947
3. Veterans Application for Pension or Compensation for Disability Resulting from Service in the Active
MilitaryorNavalForcesoftheUnitedStatesClaimNo.C4,004,503(VAForm526)filedwiththeVeterans
Administration of the United States of America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia
himself[swore]tohismarriagetoJosefaDelgadoinManilaon3June191918
4.TitlestorealpropertiesinthenameofGuillermoRustiaindicatedthathewasmarriedtoJosefaDelgado.
TheallegedheirsofGuillermoRustia
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any children. With no children of their own, they took into their
home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These children, never legally adopted by the
couple,werewhatwasknowninthelocaldialectasampunampunan.
During his life with Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate child,19 the intervenor
respondentGuillermaRustia,withoneAmparoSagarbarria.AccordingtoGuillerma,GuillermoRustiatreatedheras
hisdaughter,hisownfleshandblood,andsheenjoyedopenandcontinuouspossessionofthatstatusfromherbirth
in1920untilherfathersdemise.Infact,JosefaDelgadosobituarywhichwaspreparedbyGuillermoRustia,named
the intervenorrespondent as one of their children. Also, her report card from the University of Santo Tomas
identifiedGuillermoRustiaasherparent/guardian.20
Oppositors (respondents here) nonetheless posit that Guillerma Rustia has no interest in the intestate estate of
Guillermo Rustia as she was never duly acknowledged as an illegitimate child. They contend that her right to
compulsory acknowledgement prescribed when Guillermo died in 1974 and that she cannot claim voluntary
acknowledgementsincethedocumentsshepresentedwerenottheauthenticwritingsprescribedbythenewCivil
Code.21

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

2/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

OnJanuary7,1974,morethanayearafterthedeathofJosefaDelgado,GuillermoRustiafiledapetitionforthe
adoption22 of their ampunampunan Guillermina Rustia. He stated under oath "[t]hat he ha[d] no legitimate,
legitimated,acknowledgednaturalchildrenornaturalchildrenbylegalfiction."23Thepetitionwasovertakenbyhis
deathonFebruary28,1974.
LikeJosefaDelgado,GuillermoRustiadiedwithoutawill.HewassurvivedbyhissistersMarcianaRustiavda.de
Damian and Hortencia RustiaCruz, and by the children of his predeceased brother Roman Rustia Sr., namely,
Josefina Rustia Albano, Virginia Rustia Paraiso, Roman Rustia, Jr., Sergio Rustia, Francisco Rustia and Leticia
RustiaMiranda.24
ANTECEDENTPROCEEDINGS
OnMay8,1975,LuisaDelgadovda.deDanao,thedaughterofLuisDelgado,filedtheoriginalpetitionforlettersof
administration of the intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia" with the RTC of
Manila, Branch 55.25 This petition was opposed by the following: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely,
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia RustiaCruz26 (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustias late brother,
Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampunampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The opposition was grounded on the
theorythatLuisaDelgadovda.de Danao and the other claimants were barred under the law from inheriting from
theirillegitimatehalfbloodrelativeJosefaDelgado.
In November of 1975, Guillerma Rustia filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, claiming she was the only
surviving descendant in the direct line of Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of the oppositors (respondents
herein),themotionwasgranted.
On April 3, 1978, the original petition for letters of administration was amended to state that Josefa Delgado and
GuillermoRustiawerenevermarriedbuthadmerelylivedtogetherashusbandandwife.
OnJanuary24,1980,oppositors(respondentsherein)filedamotiontodismissthepetitionintheRTCinsofaras
the estate of Guillermo Rustia was concerned. The motion was denied on the ground that the interests of the
petitioners and the other claimants remained in issue and should be properly threshed out upon submission of
evidence.
OnMarch14,1988,CarlotaDelgadovda.dedelaRosasubstitutedforhersister,LuisaDelgadovda.deDanao,
whohaddiedonMay18,1987.
OnMay11,1990,theRTCappointedCarlotaDelgadovda.dedelaRosaasadministratrixofbothestates.27The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionread:
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,petitionerandhercoclaimantstotheestateofthelateJosefaDelgado
listedinthePetitions,andenumeratedelsewhereinthisDecision,areherebydeclaredastheonlylegalheirsofthe
said Josefa Delgado who died intestate in the City of Manila on September 8, 1972, and entitled to partition the
sameamongthemselvesinaccordancewiththeproportionsreferredtointhisDecision.
Similarly, the intervenor Guillerma S. Rustia is hereby declared as the sole and only surviving heir of the late Dr.
GuillermoRustia,andthus,entitledtotheentireestateofthesaiddecedent,totheexclusionoftheoppositorsand
theotherpartieshereto.
TheAffidavitofSelfAdjudicationoftheestateofJosefaDelgadoexecutedbythelateGuillermoJ.RustiaonJune
15,1973isherebySETASIDEanddeclaredofnoforceandeffect.
Astheestatesofbothdece[d]entshavenotasyetbeensettled,andtheirsettlement[is]consideredconsolidatedin
this proceeding in accordance with law, a single administrator therefor is both proper and necessary, and, as the
petitionerCarlotaDelgadoVda.dedelaRosahasestablishedherrighttotheappointmentasadministratrixofthe
estates,theCourtherebyAPPOINTSherastheADMINISTRATRIXoftheintestateestateofthedecedentJOSEFA
DELGADOinrelationtotheestateofDR.GUILLERMOJ.RUSTIA.
Accordingly, let the corresponding LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION issue to the petitioner CARLOTA DELGADO
VDA.DEDELAROSAuponherfilingoftherequisitebondinthesumofFIVEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS
(P500,000.00).
Finally, oppositor GUILLERMINA RUSTIA RUSTIA is hereby ordered to cease and desist from her acts of
administration of the subject estates, and is likewise ordered to turn over to the appointed administratix all her
collectionsoftherentalsandincomedueontheassetsoftheestatesinquestion,includingalldocuments,papers,
records and titles pertaining to such estates to the petitioner and appointed administratix CARLOTA DELGADO
VDA.DEDELAROSA,immediatelyuponreceiptofthisDecision.Thesameoppositorisherebyrequiredtorender
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

3/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

anaccountingofheractualadministrationoftheestatesincontroversywithinaperiodofsixty(60)daysfromreceipt
hereof.
SOORDERED.28
OnMay20,1990,oppositorsfiledanappealwhichwasdeniedonthegroundthattherecordonappealwasnot
filed on time.29 They then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus30 which was dismissed by the Court of
Appeals.31 However, on motion for reconsideration and after hearing the parties oral arguments, the Court of
Appealsreverseditselfandgaveduecoursetooppositorsappealintheinterestofsubstantialjustice.32
InapetitionforreviewtothisCourt,petitionersassailedtheresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,onthegroundthat
oppositors failure to file the record on appeal within the reglementary period was a jurisdictional defect which
nullifiedtheappeal.OnOctober10,1997,thisCourtallowedthecontinuanceoftheappeal.Thepertinentportionof
ourdecision33read:
As a rule, periods prescribed to do certain acts must be followed. However, under exceptional circumstances, a
delayinthefilingofanappealmaybeexcusedongroundsofsubstantialjustice.
xxxxxxxxx
The respondent court likewise pointed out the trial courts pronouncements as to certain matters of substance,
relatingtothedeterminationoftheheirsofthedecedentsandthepartyentitledtotheadministrationoftheirestate,
whichweretoberaisedintheappeal,butwerebarredabsolutelybythedenialoftherecordonappealupontoo
technicalgroundoflatefiling.
xxxxxxxxx
Inthisinstance,privaterespondentsintentiontoraisevalidissuesintheappealisapparentandshouldnothave
beenconstruedasanattempttodelayorprolongtheadministrationproceedings.
xxxxxxxxx
Areviewofthetrialcourtsdecisionisneeded.
xxxxxxxxx
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,theCourtherebyAFFIRMStheResolutiondatedNovember
27,1991oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.23415,fortheAPPROVALoftheprivaterespondentsRecord
onAppealandtheCONTINUANCEoftheappealfromtheManila,BranchLVRegionalTrialCourtsMay11,1990
decision.
SOORDERED.
Acting on the appeal, the Court of Appeals34 partially set aside the trial courts decision. Upon motion for
reconsideration,35 the Court of Appeals amended its earlier decision.36 The dispositive portion of the amended
decisionread:
Withthefurthermodification,ourassaileddecisionisRECONSIDEREDandVACATED.Consequently,thedecision
of the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby RENDERED declaring: 1.) Dr. Guillermo
Rustia and Josefa Delgado Rustia to have been legally married 2.) the intestate estate of Dr. Guillermo Rustia,
JacobaDelgadoEncinasandthechildrenofGorgonioDelgado(Campo)entitledtopartitionamongthemselvesthe
intestateestateofJosefaD.Rustiainaccordancewiththeproportionreferredtointhisdecision3.)theoppositors
appellantsasthelegalheirsofthelateDr.GuillermoRustiaandtherebyentitledtopartitionhisestateinaccordance
withtheproportionreferredtohereinand4.)theintervenorappelleeGuillermaS.Rustiaasineligibletoinheritfrom
thelateDr.GuillermoRustiathusrevokingherappointmentasadministratrixofhisestate.
ThelettersofadministrationoftheintestateestateofDr.GuillermoRustiainrelationtotheintestateestateofJosefa
Delgado shall issue to the nominee of the oppositorsappellants upon his or her qualification and filing of the
requisitebondinthesumofFIVEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P500,000.00).
OppositorappellantGuillerminaRustiaRustiaisherebyorderedtoceaseanddesistfromheractsofadministration
ofthesubjectestatesandtoturnovertotheappointedadministratorallhercollectionsoftherentalsandincomes
dueontheassetsoftheestatesinquestion,includingalldocuments,papers,recordsandtitlespertainingtosuch
estatestotheappointedadministrator,immediatelyuponnoticeofhisqualificationandpostingoftherequisitebond,
and to render an accounting of her (Guillermina Rustia Rustia) actual administration of the estates in controversy
withinaperiodofsixty(60)daysfromnoticeoftheadministratorsqualificationandpostingofthebond.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

4/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

The issue of the validity of the affidavit of selfadjudication executed by Dr. Guillermo Rustia on June 15, 1973 is
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the extent of the shares of Jacoba Delgado
EncinasandthechildrenofGorgonioDelgado(Campo)affectedbythesaidadjudication.
Hence,thisrecourse.
Theissuesforourresolutionare:
1.whethertherewasavalidmarriagebetweenGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado
2.whothelegalheirsofthedecedentsGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgadoare
3.whoshouldbeissuedlettersofadministration.
ThemarriageofGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado
Apresumptionisaninferenceoftheexistenceornonexistenceofafactwhichcourtsarepermittedtodrawfrom
proofofotherfacts.Presumptionsareclassifiedintopresumptionsoflawandpresumptionsoffact.Presumptionsof
laware,inturn,eitherconclusiveordisputable.37
Rule131,Section3oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradictedandovercomebyotherevidence:
xxxxxxxxx
(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage
xxxxxxxxx
In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo
RustiaandJosefaDelgado.Theircohabitationofmorethan50yearscannotbedoubted.Theirfamilyandfriends
knew them to be married. Their reputed status as husband and wife was such that even the original petition for
lettersofadministrationfiledbyLuisaDelgadovda.deDanaoin1975referredtothemas"spouses."
Yet,petitionersmaintainthatJosefaDelgadoandGuillermoRustiahadsimplylivedtogetherashusbandandwife
without the benefit of marriage. They make much of the absence of a record of the contested marriage, the
testimonyofawitness38attestingthattheywerenotmarried,andabaptismalcertificatewhichreferredtoJosefa
Delgadoas"Seorita"orunmarriedwoman.39
Wearenotpersuaded.
First, although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof
thatnomarriageinfacttookplace.40Oncethepresumptionofmarriagearises,otherevidencemaybepresentedin
supportthereof.Theevidenceneednotnecessarilyordirectlyestablishthemarriagebutmustatleastbeenoughto
strengthenthepresumptionofmarriage.Here,thecertificateofidentityissuedtoJosefaDelgadoasMrs.Guillermo
Rustia,41 the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia,42 the declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo
Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado43 and the titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia
married to Josefa Delgado," more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public
documentswhichareprimafacieevidenceofthefactsstatedtherein.44Noclearandconvincingevidencesufficient
toovercomethepresumptionofthetruthoftherecitalsthereinwaspresentedbypetitioners.
Second,Elisavda.deAnson,petitionersownwitnesswhosetestimonytheyprimarilyreliedupontosupporttheir
position,confirmedthatGuillermoRustiahadproposedmarriagetoJosefaDelgadoandthateventually,thetwohad
"livedtogetherashusbandandwife."Thisagaincouldnotbutstrengthenthepresumptionofmarriage.
Third,thebaptismalcertificate45wasconclusiveproofonlyofthebaptismadministeredbythepriestwhobaptized
thechild.Itwasnoproofoftheveracityofthedeclarationsandstatementscontainedtherein,46suchasthealleged
singleorunmarried("Seorita")civilstatusofJosefaDelgadowhohadnohandinitspreparation.
PetitionersfailedtorebutthepresumptionofmarriageofGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado.Inthisjurisdiction,
everyintendmentofthelawleanstowardlegitimizingmatrimony.Personsdwellingtogetherapparentlyinmarriage
arepresumedtobeinfactmarried.Thisistheusualorderofthingsinsocietyand,ifthepartiesarenotwhatthey

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

5/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety.
Semperpraesumiturpromatrimonio.Alwayspresumemarriage.47
TheLawfulHeirsOfJosefaDelgado
TodeterminewhothelawfulheirsofJosefaDelgadoare,thequestionedstatusofthecohabitationofhermother
FelisaDelgadowithRamonOsoriomustfirstbeaddressed.
As mentioned earlier, presumptions of law are either conclusive or disputable. Conclusive presumptions are
inferenceswhichthelawmakessoperemptorythatnocontraryproof,nomatterhowstrong,mayoverturnthem.48
Ontheotherhand,disputablepresumptions,oneofwhichisthepresumptionofmarriage,canbereliedononlyin
theabsenceofsufficientevidencetothecontrary.
LittlewassaidofthecohabitationorallegedmarriageofFelisaDelgadoandRamonOsorio.Theoppositors(now
respondents)chosemerelytorelyonthedisputablepresumptionofmarriageeveninthefaceofsuchcountervailing
evidenceas(1)thecontinuedusebyFelisaandLuis(hersonwithRamonOsorio)ofthesurnameDelgadoand(2)
Luis Delgados and Caridad Concepcions Partida de Casamiento49 identifying Luis as "hijo natural de Felisa
Delgado"(thenaturalchildofFelisaDelgado).50
Allthingsconsidered,werulethatthesefactorssufficientlyovercametherebuttablepresumptionofmarriage.Felisa
DelgadoandRamonOsoriowerenevermarried.Hence,allthechildrenborntoFelisaDelgadooutofherrelations
with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his halfblood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba,
GorgonioandthedecedentJosefa,allsurnamedDelgado,51werehernaturalchildren.52
Pertinenttothismatteristhefollowingobservation:
Suppose,however,thatAbegetsXwithB,andYwithanotherwoman,CthenXandYwouldbenaturalbrothers
andsisters,butofhalfbloodrelationship.Cantheysucceedeachotherreciprocally?
The law prohibits reciprocal succession between illegitimate children and legitimate children of the same parent,
even though there is unquestionably a tie of blood between them. It seems that to allow an illegitimate child to
succeedabintestato(from)anotherillegitimatechildbegottenwithaparentdifferentfromthatoftheformer,would
beallowingtheillegitimatechildgreaterrightsthanalegitimatechild.Notwithstandingthis,however,wesubmitthat
successionshouldbeallowed,evenwhentheillegitimatebrothersandsistersareonlyofthehalfblood.Thereason
impellingtheprohibitiononreciprocalsuccessionsbetweenlegitimateandillegitimatefamiliesdoesnotapplytothe
case under consideration. That prohibition has for its basis the difference in category between illegitimate and
legitimate relatives. There is no such difference when all the children are illegitimate children of the same parent,
even if begotten with different persons. They all stand on the same footing before the law, just like legitimate
childrenofhalfbloodrelation.Wesubmit,therefore,thattherulesregardingsuccessionoflegitimatebrothersand
sistersshouldbeapplicabletothem.Fullbloodillegitimatebrothersandsistersshouldreceivedoubletheportionof
halfbloodbrothersandsistersandifallareeitherofthefullbloodorofthehalfblood,theyshallshareequally.53
Here,theabovenamedsiblingsofJosefaDelgadowererelatedtoherbyfullblood,exceptLuisDelgado,herhalf
brother.Nonetheless,sincetheywereallillegitimate,theymayinheritfromeachother.Accordingly,allofthemare
entitledtoinheritfromJosefaDelgado.
Wenote,however,thatthepetitionersbeforeusarealreadythenephews,nieces,grandnephewsandgrandnieces
ofJosefaDelgado.UnderArticle972ofthenewCivilCode,therightofrepresentationinthecollaterallinetakes
place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently, it cannot be
exercisedbygrandnephewsandgrandnieces.54Therefore,theonlycollateralrelativesofJosefaDelgadowhoare
entitledtopartakeofherintestateestateareherbrothersandsisters,ortheirchildrenwhowerestillaliveatthetime
ofherdeathonSeptember8,1972. They have a vested right to participate in the inheritance.55 The records not
beingclearonthismatter,itisnowforthetrialcourttodeterminewhowerethesurvivingbrothersandsisters(or
their children) of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death. Together with Guillermo Rustia,56 they are entitled to
inheritfromJosefaDelgadoinaccordancewithArticle1001ofthenewCivilCode:57
Art.1001.Shouldbrothersandsistersortheirchildrensurvivewiththewidoworwidower,thelattershallbeentitled
toonehalfoftheinheritanceandthebrothersandsistersortheirchildrentotheotheronehalf.
SinceJosefaDelgadohadheirsotherthanGuillermoRustia,GuillermocouldnothavevalidlyadjudicatedJosefas
estate all to himself. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is clear. Adjudication by an heir of the decedents
entireestatetohimselfbymeansofanaffidavitisallowedonlyifheisthesoleheirtotheestate:
SECTION1.Extrajudicialsettlementbyagreementbetweenheirs.Ifthedecedentleftnowillandnodebtsandthe
heirsareallofage,ortheminorsarerepresentedbytheirjudicialorlegalrepresentativesdulyauthorizedforthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

6/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

purpose,thepartiesmay,withoutsecuringlettersofadministration,dividetheestateamongthemselvesastheysee
fitbymeansofapublicinstrumentfiledintheofficeoftheregisterofdeeds,andshouldtheydisagree,theymaydo
soinanordinaryactionofpartition.Ifthereisonlyoneheir,hemayadjudicatetohimselftheestatebymeans
ofanaffidavitfiledintheofficeoftheregisterofdeeds.xxx(emphasissupplied)
TheLawfulHeirsOfGuillermoRustia
Intervenor(nowcorespondent)GuillermaRustiaisanillegitimatechild58ofGuillermoRustia.Assuch,shemaybe
entitledtosuccessionalrightsonlyuponproofofanadmissionorrecognitionofpaternity.59She,however,claimed
thestatusofanacknowledgedillegitimatechildofGuillermoRustiaonlyafterthedeathofthelatteronFebruary28,
1974atwhichtimeitwasalreadythenewCivilCodethatwasineffect.
UndertheoldCivilCode(whichwasinforcetillAugust29,1950),illegitimatechildrenabsolutelyhadnohereditary
rights.Thisdraconianedictwas,however,laterrelaxedinthenewCivilCodewhichgrantedcertainsuccessional
rightstoillegitimatechildrenbutonlyonconditionthattheywerefirstrecognizedoracknowledgedbytheparent.
Underthenewlaw,recognitionmaybecompulsoryorvoluntary.60Recognitioniscompulsoryinanyofthefollowing
cases:
(1)incasesofrape,abductionorseduction,whentheperiodoftheoffensecoincidesmoreorlesswiththatof
theconception
(2)whenthechildisincontinuouspossessionofstatusofachildoftheallegedfather(ormother)61bythe
directactsofthelatterorofhisfamily
(3)whenthechildwasconceivedduringthetimewhenthemothercohabitedwiththesupposedfather
(4)whenthechildhasinhisfavoranyevidenceorproofthatthedefendantishisfather.62
Ontheotherhand,voluntaryrecognitionmaybemadeintherecordofbirth,awill,astatementbeforeacourtof
recordorinanyauthenticwriting.63
Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on two grounds: first, compulsory recognition through the open and
continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and second, voluntary recognition through authentic
writing.
Therewasapparentlynodoubtthatshepossessedthestatusofanillegitimatechildfromherbirthuntilthedeathof
herputativefatherGuillermoRustia.However,thisdidnotconstituteacknowledgmentbutameregroundbywhich
shecouldhavecompelledacknowledgmentthroughthecourts.64Furthermore,any(judicial)actionforcompulsory
acknowledgmenthasaduallimitation:thelifetimeofthechildandthelifetimeoftheputativeparent.65Onthedeath
ofeither,theactionforcompulsoryrecognitioncannolongerbefiled.66Inthiscase,intervenorGuillermasrightto
claimcompulsoryacknowledgmentprescribeduponthedeathofGuillermoRustiaonFebruary28,1974.
Theclaimofvoluntaryrecognition(Guillermassecondground)mustlikewisefail.Anauthenticwriting,forpurposes
of voluntary recognition, is understood as a genuine or indubitable writing of the parent (in this case, Guillermo
Rustia). This includes a public instrument or a private writing admitted by the father to be his.67 Did intervenors
reportcardfromtheUniversityofSantoTomasandJosefaDelgadosobituarypreparedbyGuillermoRustiaqualify
asauthenticwritingsunderthenewCivilCode?Unfortunatelynot.ThereportcardofintervenorGuillermadidnot
bearthesignatureofGuillermoRustia.Thefactthathisnameappearsthereasintervenorsparent/guardianholds
noweightsincehehadnoparticipationinitspreparation.Similarly,whilewitnessestestifiedthatitwasGuillermo
Rustia himself who drafted the notice of death of Josefa Delgado which was published in the Sunday Times on
September 10, 1972, that published obituary was not the authentic writing contemplated by the law. What could
havebeenadmittedasanauthenticwritingwastheoriginalmanuscriptofthenotice,inthehandwritingofGuillermo
Rustia himself and signed by him, not the newspaper clipping of the obituary. The failure to present the original
signedmanuscriptwasfataltointervenorsclaim.
The same misfortune befalls the ampunampunan, Guillermina Rustia Rustia, who was never adopted in
accordancewithlaw.AlthoughapetitionforheradoptionwasfiledbyGuillermoRustia,itnevercametofruitionand
wasdismisseduponthelattersdeath.WeaffirmtherulingofboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsholding
heralegalstrangertothedeceasedspousesandthereforenotentitledtoinheritfromthemabintestato.Wequote:
Adoptionisajuridicalact,aproceedinginrem,which[created]betweentwopersonsarelationshipsimilartothat
whichresultsfromlegitimatepaternityandfiliation.Onlyanadoptionmadethroughthecourt,orinpursuancewith
theprocedurelaiddownunderRule99oftheRulesofCourtisvalidinthisjurisdiction.Itisnotofnaturallawatall,
butiswhollyandentirelyartificial.Toestablishtherelation,thestatutoryrequirementsmustbestrictlycarriedout,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

7/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

otherwise, the adoption is an absolute nullity. The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively
[proven]bythepersonclaimingitsexistence.68
Premises considered, we rule that two of the claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, namely, intervenor
Guillerma Rustia and the ampunampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia, are not lawful heirs of the decedent. Under
Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving
spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of
GuillermoRustiaaretheremainingclaimants,consistingofhissisters,69niecesandnephews.70
EntitlementToLettersOfAdministration
An administrator is a person appointed by the court to administer the intestate estate of the decedent. Rule 78,
Section6oftheRulesofCourtprescribesanorderofpreferenceintheappointmentofanadministrator:
Sec.6.Whenandtowhomlettersofadministrationgranted.Ifnoexecutorisnamedinthewill,ortheexecutoror
executorsareincompetent,refusethetrust,orfailtogiveabond,orapersondiesintestate,administrationshallbe
granted:
(a)Tothesurvivinghusbandorwife,asthecasemaybe,ornextofkin,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt,
ortosuchpersonassuchsurvivinghusbandorwife,ornextofkin,requeststohaveappointed,ifcompetent
andwillingtoserve
(b)Ifsuchsurvivinghusbandorwife,asthecasemaybe,ornextofkin,orthepersonselectedbythem,be
incompetentorunwilling,orifthehusbandorwidowornextofkin,neglectsforthirty(30)daysafterthedeath
of the person to apply for administration or to request that the administration be granted to some other
person,itmaybegrantedtooneormoreoftheprincipalcreditors,ifcompetentandwillingtoserve
(c)Ifthereisnosuchcreditorcompetentandwillingtoserve,itmaybegrantedtosuchotherpersonasthe
courtmayselect.
In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be
appointed.71 The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of coadministrators, specially in cases
where
justiceandequitydemandthatopposingpartiesorfactionsberepresentedinthemanagementoftheestates,72a
situationwhichobtainshere.
Itisinthislightthatweseefittoappointjointadministrators,inthepersonsofCarlotaDelgadovda.dedelaRosa
andanomineeofthenephewsandniecesofGuillermoRustia.Theyarethenextofkinofthedeceasedspouses
JosefaDelgadoandGuillermoRustia,respectively.
WHEREFORE,thepetition(whichseekstoreinstatetheMay11,1990decisionoftheRTCManila,Branch55)is
herebyDENIED.TheassailedOctober24,2002decisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMEDwith the following
modifications:
1.GuillermoRustiasJune15,1973affidavitofselfadjudicationisherebyANNULLED.
2. the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of Josefa Delgado. The
remaining half shall pertain to (a) the full and halfsiblings of Josefa Delgado who survived her and (b) the
childrenofanyofJosefaDelgadosfullorhalfsiblingswhomayhavepredeceasedher,alsosurvivingatthe
time of her death. Josefa Delgados grandnephews and grandnieces are excluded from her estate. In this
connection,thetrialcourtisherebyorderedtodeterminetheidentitiesoftherelativesofJosefaDelgadowho
areentitledtoshareinherestate.
3. Guillermo Rustias estate (including its onehalf share of Josefa Delgados estate) shall be inherited by
Marciana Rustia vda.de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose respective shares shall be per capita)
andthechildrenofthelateRomanRustia,Sr.(whosurvivedGuillermoRustiaandwhoserespectiveshares
shallbeperstirpes).ConsideringthatMarcianaRustiavda.deDamianandHortenciaRustiaCruzarenow
deceased,theirrespectivesharesshallpertaintotheirestates.
4.LettersofadministrationoverthestillunsettledintestateestatesofGuillermoRustiaandJosefaDelgado
shall issue to Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and to a nominee from among the heirs of Guillermo
Rustia,asjointadministrators,upontheirqualificationandfilingoftherequisitebondinsuchamountasmay
bedeterminedbythetrialcourt.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

8/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

SOORDERED.
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman
ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AsscociateJustice

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoArticleVIII,Section13oftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairmansAttestation,Iherebycertifythat
theconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourt.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1OppositorsinSPCaseNo.97668withtheRTCManila,Branch55.
2IntervenorinSPCaseNo.97668withtheRTCManila,Branch55.
3 In the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners, the oppositors were identified as "oppositors

respondents," while intervenor was identified as "intervenorrespondent." For clarity, we shall refer to them
collectivelyas"respondents"inthisdecision.TheCourtofAppealswasalsoimpleadedaspublicrespondent
butthiswasnotnecessarysincethisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
4JudgeHermogenesLiwag,Rollo,pp.92106.
5PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesOswaldoD.Agcaoili

andSergioL.Pestaooftheformer15thDivision,Rollo,pp.7590.
6TheoriginalactionwasapetitionforlettersofadministrationoftheintestateestatesofGuillermoRustiaand

JosefaDelgado,Rollo,p.92.
7MarcianaRustiavda.deDamianandHortenciaRustiaCruz,bothdeceasedandnowsubstitutedbytheir

respectiveheirs.
8ThechildrenofGuillermoRustiasdeceasedbrotherRomanRustia,Sr.
9IntervenorGuillermaRustia.
10OppositorGuillerminaRustiaRustia.
11Insomepleadings,thiswasspelledas"Feliza."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

9/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

12Insomepleadings,thiswasspelledas"Osario"andinothers,"Oscorro."
13Art.992,newCivilCode.Anillegitimatechildhasnorighttoinheritabintestatofromthelegitimatechildren

andrelativesofhisfatherormothernorshallsuchchildrenorrelativesinheritinthesamemannerfromthe
illegitimatechild.
14Rollo,p.1262.
15Id.,pp.12001201.
16Inrelation,theCivilCodeofSpain(theoldCivilCode)providedthatwhentheacknowledgmentwasmade

separatelybyeitherparent,thenameoftheotherparentshallnotberevealed.Norshallanycircumstancebe
mentionedbywhichsuchpersonmightberecognized(Article132).ThisshowedtheintentofthesaidCode
toprotecttheidentityofthenonacknowledgingparent.
17OneofthechildrenofFelisaDelgadowithLucioCampo.
18CAdecision,Rollo,pp.7778.
19UndertheoldCivilCode,whichwasineffectatthetimeofGuillermaRustiasbirthin1920,shewasan

illegitimate child, not a natural child, since she was born of parents who at the time of conception were
disqualifiedtomarryeachother.
20Rollo,p.920.
21LawineffectatthetimeofthedeathofGuillermoRustia.
22FiledbeforethethenJuvenileandDomesticRelationsCourtofManila.
23Rollo,p.1149.
24Mostoftherespondentsherein.
25 Filed on behalf of the surviving brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, grandnephews and grandnieces of

JosefaDelgado.
26Nowrepresentedbytheirheirsasrespondents.
27Id.
28Rollo,pp.105106.
29DatedSeptember25,1990.
30ThispetitionwasinitiallyfiledwiththeSupremeCourtbutwasreferredtotheCourtofAppeals,thelatter

havingconcurrentjurisdictionwiththeSupremeCourtoverthepetition.
31PennedbyAssociateJusticeArtemonLuna,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesSerafinCamilonand

CelsoMagsinooftheSeventhDivision,datedMarch20,1991,Rollo,pp.627644.
32ResolutiondatedNovember27,1991,Rollo,pp.656671.
33DelaRosav.CourtofAppeals,345Phil.678(1997).
34DecisionpennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesOswaldo

D.AgcaoiliandSergioL.Pestaoofthe15thDivision,datedJanuary31,2002,Rollo,pp.4663.
35BoththepetitionerandtheoppositorsfiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheJanuary31,2002decisionof

theCourtofAppeals.
36DatedOctober24,2002.
37IIFlorenzD.Regalado,RemedialLawCompendium672(9threv.ed.2001).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

10/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

38Elisavda.deAnson.
39Rollo,p.1266.
40Balogbogv.CourtofAppeals,336Phil.252(1997).
41CertificateofIdentityNo.9592datedDecember1,1944issuedtoMrs.GuillermoJ.RustiabyCarlosP.

Romulo,thenResidentCommissionertotheUnitedStatesoftheCommonwealthofthePhilippines.
42PhilippinePassportNo.4767issuedtoJosefaD.RustiaonJune25,1947.
43 Veterans Application for Pension or Compensation for Disability Resulting from Service in the Active

MilitaryorNavalForcesoftheUnitedStatesClaimNo.C4,004,503(VAForm526)filedwiththeVeterans
Administration of the United States of America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia
himselfstatedunderoathtohismarriagetoJosefaDelgadoinManilaonJune3,1919.
44Rule132,Section23,RulesofCourt.
45JosefaDelgadostoodassponsorinthebaptismofLuisaDelgadoonSeptember14,1919,Rollo,p.1266.

In1975,LuisaDelgadovda.deDanaofiledapetitionforlettersofadministrationfortheintestateestateof
JosefaDelgadosupra,note25.
46Acebedov.Arquero,447Phil.76(2003).
47Vda.deJacobv.CourtofAppeals,371Phil.693(1999),citingPeridov.Perido,No.L28248,12March

1975,63SCRA97.
48RicardoFrancisco,Evidence400(3rded.1996).
49Rollo,p.1262.
50Id.,pp.12001201.
51OldCivilCode,art.134.Anacknowledgednaturalchildisentitled:

1.Tobearthesurnameofthepersonacknowledgingit.
2.Toreceivesupportfromsuchperson,inaccordancewitharticle143.
3.Toreceivethehereditaryportion,ifavailable,determinedbythisCode.
52TherecordsdonotindicatethedatesofbirthofFelisaDelgadoschildren.ThedateswhenFelisaDelgado

cohabitedwithRamonOsorioandLucioCampowerelikewisenotstated.Fromthelimitedfactsofthecase
onthisissue,itissafetoassumethattheywereallbornduringtheeffectivityoftheoldCivilCode.Underthe
saidCode,childrenbornoutofwedlockofparentswho,atthetimeofconception,couldhavemarried,were
naturalchildren.
53 III Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 493494

(1979ed.)citing7Manresa139.
54DesiderioP.Jurado,CommentsandJurisprudenceonSuccession391(8thed.1991).
55 In case the surviving collateral relatives are already deceased at the time of execution of this judgment,

theirsharesintheinheritanceofJosefaDelgadoshallaccruetotheirrespectiveestates.
56Thensurvivingspouse,nowrepresentedbyhisintestateestate.
57LawineffectatthetimeofthedeathofJosefaDelgado.
58 Under the old Civil Code, which was in effect at the time of Guillerma Rustias birth in 1920, she is an

illegitimate child, not a natural child, since she was born of parents who, at the time of conception, were
disqualifiedtomarryeachother.
59Paternov.Paterno,No.L23060,30June1967,20SCRA585.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

11/12

8/23/2016

G.R. No. 155733

60 I Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 577 (1985

ed.).
61Art.284ofthenewCivilCodeprovidedthatthemotherisobligedtorecognizehernaturalchildinanyof

thecasesreferredtoinArt.283.
62NewCivilCode,Art.283.
63NewCivilCode,Art.278.
64Supra,note60,at283.
65ThiswasprovidedinArticle285ofthenewCivilCodeandcarriedovertoArticle175oftheFamilyCode.

Whilethereareexceptionstothisrule,Guillermascasedoesnotfallwithintheexceptions.
66Subjecttoexceptionsprovidedinparagraphs(1)and(2)ofArticle285ofthenewCivilCode.
67ITolentino,supranote60,at585586.
68RTCdecision,Rollo,p.104.
69MarcianaRustiavda.deDamianandHortenciaRustiaCruz,representedbytheirheirsinthispetition.
70ChildrenofhispredeceasedbrotherRomanRustia,Sr.
71IIRegalado,supranote37,at39.
72Gabrieletal.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.101512,7August1992,212SCRA413.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html

12/12