established by evidence other than the testimony of her

19. Francisco�s lack of participation in the preparation of the baptismal

certificates and school records renders these documents incompetent to prove
paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the administration of the
sacrament of baptism on the date so specified.

20. However, despite the inadmissibility of the school records per se to prove
paternity, they may be admitted as part of Monina�s testimony to corroborate her
claim that Francisco spent for her

jurisprudence on this matter, as petitioner asserts, had in fact faithfully

observed the law and legal precedents in this case. In fact, the alleged conflict
between the body of the decision and the dispositive portion thereof which created
the ambiguity or uncertainty in the decision of the CFI of Rizal is reconcilable.
The legal basis for setting aside the marriage of respondent Isabel's parents is
clear under paragraph 3, Article 85 of the New Civil Code, the law in force prior
to the enactment of the Family Code.
Petitioner, however, strongly insists that the dispositive ng that does not exist
from the beginning. A marriage that is annulled presupposes that it subsists but
later ceases to have legal effect when it is terminated through a court action. But
in nullifying a marriage,

DE APARICIO v. PARAGUYA
Appeal from the judgment of CFI Bohol (1987)

FACTS:
Trinidad Montilde had a love affair w/ Rev Fr Felipe Lumain, a priest, and in the
process she conceived. When she was 4 mos pregnant, in order to conceal her
disgrace from the public, she decided to marry one Anastacio Mamburao. Fr Lumain
himself solemnized their marriage in March 1924. However, the couple never lived
together as H&W. Trinidad gave birth to daughter Consolacion Lumain in Sept, 192
days or 6 mos after the marriage.

In Oct 1936, Fr Lumain died but he left a last will & testament wherein he
acknowledged Consolacion as his daughter and instituted her as the sole and
universal heir of all his property rts & interests. This was duly probated in CFI
and on appela was affirmed by the CA.

After reaching age of majority, daughter Consolacion filed an action in CFI against
one Hipolito Paraguya for the recovery of certain parcels of land she claims to
have inherited from her father, the priest.

Hipolito Paraguya was declared owner of portions A, B, H, F and G and all its
improvements. The land in question is portion G. Hipolito assails also that
Consolacion is not a natural child of the late Fr Lumain.

TC ruling: Bearing in mind the date of the birth of the plaintiff, it is evident
that her mother Trinidad was still single at the time she was conceived. It is a
legal presumption that plaintiff is the daughter of the sps Anastacio and Trinidad.
However, this was disputable and Trinidad successfully overcame it.

Consolacion is therefore the natural child of Fr Lumain and she is entitled to

claim the disputed property, she having been instituted in the will as universal
heir.
ISSUES and RATIO:
WON Consolacion is the natural child of Lumain and if so, WON she is entitled to
the possession of Portion G.

SC finds it unnecessary to determine the paternity of appellee Consolacion. As Fr

Lumain died w/o any compulsory heir, Consolacion is therefore his lawful heir as
duly instituted in his will.

One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will all of his estate or any part
of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed.

Portion G and its improvement declared to be owned by Consolacion. No award of

moral damages to be given to Hipolito for Consolacion was acting in her belief that
she was legal heir of the land. Judgment affirmed.

Constantino vs. Mendez (separate)

MENDOZA V. MELLA
17 SCRA 788 (1966)

Facts:
? lot No. 3390-B of the Sorsogon cadastre was owned originally by Paciano
Pareja, who donated it in 1939 to his son Gavino.
? Gavino disappeared in 1943 and has not been heard of since. CA held that he
died that same year.
? At the time of his disappearance, he was living with his common-law wife
Catalina Mendoza and their son Rodolfo (petitioners)
? In 1948 Paciano sold the lot to Temistocles C. Mella, who notified
petitioners in 1952 to vacate the same.
? Notice to vacate went unheeded, whereupon Mella commenced this action in 1955
on the basis of the deed of sale by Paciano in his favor
? Petitioners claim ownership for Rodolfo, first on the ground of succession
from his father Gavino, and secondly by adverse possession for more than 10 years.

Issues:
1. WON Rodolfo may be considered as an acknowledged natural child and thus
entitled to successional rights.
? NO. CA had negatively resolved this issue on 2 grounds:
o Only evidence on the matter is his birth certificate, which CA held is not
proof of acknowledgment; and
o There is no showing that Rodolfo's parents could have married each other when
he was conceived.
? The SC held that only the 1st ground need be resolved.
? The birth certificate was disregarded by the CA since the system of civil
registry provided in the old Civil Code (Title XII) was never established in this
country and thus Art. 131 (The acknowledgement of a natural child must be made in
the record of birth, in a will, or in some other public document) insofar as it
referred to acknowledgment in the record of birth, never became effective.
? It should be noted, however, that a Civil Registry Law was passed in 1930
(Act No. 3753) containing provisions for the registration of births, including
those of illegitimate parentage; and the record of birth under such law, if
sufficient in contents for the purpose, would meet the requisites for voluntary