Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I ii';:4~•1• '
(.'.
counsel and unto the Honorable Supreme Court, ig,ost 11. i'
/0· j,1
({c
«~
lp( (u \'
',I
1l'''(~
1,,._,,,,,'
5
with the Court of Appeals is attached hereto as ANNH:X
.
"en .
l .\ l;
2
q~
(l'f(~ ;'h.
1'.i:,~ \.::',t1
\\~yJLo'
,·•.
(8
Davao City.
Q---6
,1l'I', ~
~!j:,,
o"'
7
c.6. Leonor Amadea T. Aquino, daughter.
~
(\'
1':
4
i:
i.,
/i:
1::'
:r""'(i.i ,rr(':'
r. ~.1)~ ·\,,:,,\
8
be marked at the back with her name "Maggie", that
the Aquinas fondly call her Maggie, and that the
proceeds from the use of the marked chairs went to her
for·support.
c11
,,j
10 1
1 i
~£
.,"1""i1.,_
·'"~;,\
!,t \f1l
'<'•1,.. ,,,1
:.:t t,\,
·:·,. ,,? :,,,1,,i·'·
11
disputed by the parties, it is very clear that Respondent
is already barred from asserting her clain1 of
illegitimate filiation under Articles 175 and 172 of the
Fan1ily Code. The Honorable Supreme Court in the
case of UYGUAIN!GCO versus COURT OIF APP!EAlS
(G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989) applying
Articles 175 and 172 of the Family Code, clearly and
unequivocally stated that an illegitimate child who
seeks to establish his filiation by any other n1eans
allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws like his
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a fan1ily
Bible in which his name has been entered, common
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by
silence, or the testimonies of witnesses, can only do so
during the lifetime of the putative parent. Any action
founded on the afore-mentioned pieces of evidence
after the death of the putative parent is already barred
as the latter, being already dead, can no longer be
heard on the claim of his alleged child's illegitimate
filiation, viz:
Xxx
I
l
Under the Family Code, it is provided that:
g
(/--6
',;.,:,~ ··./\\~
'.'i.
/!';' .... :~;! .,, /·'.)
'I:..,
' 'W'"
12
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment; or
9 ~1j
11
,7,:.;,•@ ,·,!
:i'~~,) '\ I
, .·~ _µI ,· N
:\:::. ·, 13 1;
(''
',
'I
r
i.
was given a share in his deceased father's
estate.
i,
''1 1:
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, cornmon 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.
~
10
.,,,,,\
,·'-"''i'i
',, i)~)
/.,/r l~Jji
:,;•
Jl ,4
person has a share in the estate of tile deceasecl
person, such can no longer be clone in tl7e instant case
when the claimant in the first place is already barred
from asserting recognition or acknowledgment. As
further elaborated in the case of UYGUANGCO versus
COURT Of APPE.AlS, supra:
11
%
.• ,... ~~~i\
,J<-'•t,141
•:
s'n, ,' I' t··:,,;1
,,~-'·•/7
1
. -<,:r' '
'
1 1t··
.I.)
12
cti
?ij1
' . . \.1 <?,
/
',1,,
,, -16
the former, and the resources of which it is
thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in
the illegitimate child nothing but the product
of sin, palpable evidente of a blemish broken I
I
,I
i
resentment.
Xxx
Verily, the interpretation of the law desired
by the petitioner may be Inore humane but it
is also an elen1entary rule in statutory
construction that when the words and
phrases of the statute are clear and
unequivocal, their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and
the statute must be taken to mean exactly
what it says. (Baranda v. Gusti/a, 165 SCRA
758-759 [1988]). The courts may not
speculate as to the probable intent of the
legislature apart from the words (Aparri v.
CA, 127 SCRA 233 [1984]). When the law is
clear, it is not susceptible of interpretation. It
must be applied regardless of who ,nay be
affected, even if the Jaw may be harsh or
onerous. (Nepomuceno, et al. v. FC, 110 Phil.
42). And even granting that exceptions may
be conceded, the same as a general rule,
should be strictly but reasonably construed;
they extend only so far as their language
fairly warrants, and all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the general provisions
rather than the exception. Thus, where a
general rule is established by statute, the
court will not curtail the fonner nor add to
the latter by implication (Samson v. C.A.,
145 SCRA 654 [1986]).
i
i·
RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE i
11
ft is settled that allowances for support
under Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be
limited to the "1ninor or incapacitated"
children of the deceased. Article 188 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines, the substantive
law in force at the time of the testator's
death, provides that during the liquidation of
the conjugal partnership, the deceased's
legitimate spouse and children, regardless of
their age, civil status or gainful employment,
are entitled to provisional support from the
funds of the estate. The law is rooted on the
fact that the right and duty to support,
especially the right to education, subsist even
beyond the age of n1ajority.
15
~
,...,),
\•!~·
,
.~....
• r••Y
',.,J
·',IQ
)~ V
16
91S
~•~~,h,
. C!r /·'?.,1)
20
to be said to be equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. "
17 4~
,, l
·•·7;.
'.~:..,I '?)
2'1
New Civil Code as well as several jurisprudence on the
matter, in holding that Respondent is entitled to a share
in the estate of Miguel T. Aquino as representative of
Arturo C. Aquino. Such disregard cannot simply be
mistaken as error of law inasmuch as this ,natter was jI
f
clearly argued by the Petitioner and Abdullah C. Aquino
in their pleadings, supported by established
jurisprudence. Such disregard could only have been
whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary.
18
q~
I ~ • t J
,,,,..)
t.~ I "i:]
/
?2·
t_ .
1
Xxx. ' (Emphasis supplied)
/9
9-d I
II .
I,
'ti)
(.!~. '2l~
~-•.J- 3.,
granting her a monthly allowance.
06
20
,
·•'!,....,,
'
U1 t]~
'94
,::.,, .:/
:1
\ -i1
·: 1!
I
44. Although referring to the same Orders, the purpose of I
91~-r)
I
,,
([1 ·::1:~
"'.) n:··
~-riJl
CA and a petition for certiorari in the CA
assailing the same orders four months later~
the Court ruled that the successive filings of
the notice of appeal and the petition for
certiorari to attain the saI11e objective of
nullifying the trial. court's dismissal orders
constituted foru111 shopping that warranted
the dismissal of both cases. The Court said:
\ 1,·.1
I\'
Ineluctably, the petitioner, by f!
filing an ordinary appeal and a
\.r
petition for certiorari with the )I
'/
1·
\,"I
/,.
both cases, the petitioner is \
seeking the reversal of the RTC
orders. The parties, the rights
asserted, the issues professed, and
the reliefs prayed for, are all tile
same. It is evident that the
judg111ent of one forun1 may
an1ount to res Judicata in the other.
xxxx
The remedies of appeal and
certiorari under Rule 65 are
I11utually exclusive and not
alternative or cun1ulative. This is a
firm judicial policy. The petitioner
cannot hedge her case by wagering
22
~~
'·--.,
(i,0 ;:,:;~J;'i,
'1),/Cb
.<: 0
two or more appeals, and, in the
event that the ordinary appeal lags
significantly behind the others, she
cannot post facto validate this
circumstance as a demonstration
that the ordinary appeal had not
been speedy or adequate enough,
in order to justify tl1e recourse to
Rule 65. This practice, if adopted,
would sanction the filing of multiple
suits in multiple fora, wl1ere each
one, as the petitioner couches it,
becomes a "precautionary
11
n1easure for the rest, thereby
increasing the chances of a
favorable decision. This is the very
evil that the proscription on forum
sl1opping seeks to put right. In
Guaranteed f-lotels, Inc. v. Ba/tao,
the Court stated that the grave evil
sought to be avoided by the rule
against forun1 shopping is the
rendition by two competent
tribunals of two separate and
contradictory decisions.
Unscrupulous party litigants, taking
advantage of a variety of
cornpetent tribunals, may
repeatedly try their luck in several
different fora until a favorable
result is reached. To avoid the
resultant confusion, the Court
adheres strictly to the rules against
forum shopping, and any violation
of these rules results in the
dismissal of the case. 1 [32]
23
q-6
_,.~
c.o .GJ!
Q-J
24
'
'
~
,,'
. (0 r:110
lrrv
28
dealt with the independent ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
which rendered the assailed orders and the proceedings
leading thereto a nullity.
I,
25
q
/I;
r··
l:,
'.r)
'•'t
,-~1,
29
The petitioner posits that the CA erred in not
dismissing the respondents erroneously filed
petition for certiorari, and in treating the
petition instead as a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and ultimately
resolving the petition in the respondents
favor.
26
f-J
!'.if> :-----11i
.,\,✓
27
0'6
.,,.
(f'l,,
'~~~ . ,~-e·i.i
'. VW,.o/
,,.,,
..'
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders 30
the petition dismissib/e for being the wrong
27
~
·~·o··
'
'/,
'
' >':J!;,,
n·~;·
'
,tj,,
PRAYER J 31
--
TELEFAX NO. (082) 305-9574 /
By:
¥AN~~
cognsel(for the Petif~ne1
IBP OR No. 84433/01-02-20 3/Q1avao City
PTR No. 13 7001/01-04-2013 Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0015924; April 8, 2013
Roll No. 48006
~·
AT~Y.~~B~O
Counsel for tht,Petitioner
IBP OR No. 912808/01-08-13 Davao City
PTR No. 2446945/01-09-13 Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. III-0014119/04-23-10
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0021943/09-13-13
Roll No. 48929
28
t''")
~!;,_..
.....·1r:!~i.\
""':Y
_Q 11"1l
u<,.
Copy furnished:
"'{ Y J.rn CE l.ll)'f 1
'•,~11,,1:,~·vrt?p /
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE H~,'fl' b~~.\
J. .oLr.c-l.i;istcirc-dJmuii i:
ATTY. BIENVEN.IDO D. CARIAGA ,mcc but the sendc1
ic:, of addrc:5~cc ou bad
Counsel for Respondent
Cariaga Law Offices
2 nd Floor, Cariaga Bldg., Mt. Apo St., Davao Cit)
~i])t in cu~if
11t.ificatiou, ljrcscn•r,; a11
iuquiry.
",.,.,,.,J'J~ostOflii.:9 at.··-··
I:;)• 1'"
,_,,r J. 1,
.. ', ..
~•:,; .'\,, I,''/~•
_(J:·:_ _ __
I1 /
Ir
------ .....
:Posted
,' "·'~"11c·,
.. I i. 11'•'4•1.I'
'
.NiY. I '
--1----
I'/ "' 1' ,~ J
Roccipt: h:t.i 1,·., J-'(.lc ,rage j'
.
...... . _,.......~--..iJ···,;,x--·..,·,11(~--·-·
SEf- .Jt.<(:vatw ,)·
l.9 · ·
i_
f·:------
ti,
1••1
J,,
tic!
llll
111aking perpjonal service and filing imp1 · 0111p Ietc 1·,;£11&<l....Vi"... l"l:iWH ..,, J•' ·1 lf)
• tJ.lr.l,l.\u,dllll ..
kept at I.he pogf: o1l1cc b~h the sender
should write name uf add~·csscc 011. \)m:k
hcrcvf w:1 au .t<font.ilkal:iou, Preserve ~rnr
ATTV.UIE~ ,ubullt lhis t<COiJ>I iu '"'°,t''"''r-
. --PoslmnstcJ· . r
1
'1/.Ui'f
,df.,!~. .1il,JSJ,
~:~'-'.f'IJ!~:li~~~ 1r npr .
l,'lt,·/1,!,df..._ \ij
·' .• 1~I(' '·~)~ t~; ~3 . I:':~" 1
Ui,".."' ~ir;.1n1i~:
'' Hi"' ls~-,...
~Uri, r'u•:.J
,, :('"-\l.~.-=.c1i,•~c) fJ'Ul.l 1 1t~o~-r ""'r; - . 'ii
,, ,f. t ... l,1 .........
}
:17,os~i (.>thi:c at .l,'/l,q::~_:.i..b;4~:Mt~:..:tY..1?:~1~.:
I,og~sl1y Ldtll1 ''",q,\::~1-.Jo. --.,...Ji,' 1
~
✓-
4; ~l RS:~
Doc. No.
Page No.
~-::; ;
/2 ;
Nat2
Jt=s
o/~1 ~~14
P-t1~c/Unti11
RoliNo.48~~
Book No. I ; IBP No. 91280B/01-0B•13 D.C
PTR No. 2446945/01-09-13D.C.
Series of 2013. SN: 238-2013 Palma Gil St., D.C.
MCLE Cdmplimnce No. lll-0014119/04-23-10
JO Mct../i Co11JjJ/1'atJa /Jo. 1,J -l(),J;q41 I <fl· la,µ
{(I
, ·'
t"'f)$
t\t:1)',!l/
1 (~.;
Hep.:ublic of the Philippines S.S.} 3 41
,Cityiof Davao
·x-~--::-------------------------x
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE /
, 2.
I
3. On the same date, I likewise filed the Petition for Review on Certiorpri
before the Honorable Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila by
registered mail due to time and distance constraints under Registry
Receipt No. 06;
4. I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts, arcl
for whatever legal purpose this may serve.
Do N
· Pa~~ No~
t·~ '.
'---_ ,/
'JESS·~ HAEL B. pSPi<, v ~
.