IDA LABAGALA, petitioner

VS.
NICOLASA SANTIAGO, AMANDA SANTIAGO AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents
G.R. No. 132305
December 4, 2001

FACTS:
Jose T. Santiago is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 64729, located in Rizal Avenue
Extension, Sta. Cruz, Manila. However, his two sisters sued him for the recovery of 2/3 portion of the land
alleging that he had fraudulently registered it in his name. The trial court ruled in favor of his sisters. Few
years after, Jose died intestate. His sisters then filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court for the
recovery of 1/3 portion of the said land which was in the possession of the Ida C. Labagala, who claimed
to be the daughter of Jose. The trial court ruled in favor of Labagala. According to the trial court, the said
deed constitutes a valid donation. Even if it were not, Labagala would still be entitled of Jose’s share of the
property for she is the daughter. The matter was then brought to the Court of Appeals. However, it reversed
the decision of the trial court. It considered the birth certificate of Ida stating that she was born of different
parents.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to Jose Santiago’s 1/3 portion of the property he co-owned
with respondents, through succession, sale, or donation.
(2) Whether or not respondents may impugn petitioner’s filiation in this action for recovery of title and
possession.

RULING:
(1) No. The Court ruled that there is no valid sale in this case. Jose Santiago did not have the right to
transfer the ownership of the entire property to Ida Labagala for the 2/3 of the said property
belonged to his two sisters. Moreover, one of the essential element of a contract is consent. The
petitioner is a minor at the time of sale thus absent of the said consent will render it void. In addition,
petitioner admittedly did not pay any centavo for the property which also renders it void.
Furthermore, the deed cannot be a valid donation. Being a minor, the acceptance of the donation
should have been made by her father, mother or legal representative.
(2) Yes. Article 263 refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, to assert and prove that a
person is not a man’s child by his wife. However, the present respondents are asserting not merely
that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Jose, but that she is not a child of Jose at all. A baptismal
certificate. A baptismal certificate is not a conclusive proof of filiation. Use of a family name
certainly does not establish pedigree. Thus, she cannot inherit from him through intestate
succession.

DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Costs against
petitioner.