PEDIGREE

MENDOZA v. CA FACTS: - Respondent Teopista Tuacao alleged that she was the daughter of the deceased Mendoza and that the latter during his lifetime recognized her as his own illegitimate daughter. - She filed a case for compulsory recognition against Mendoza and the latter denied that she was his illegitimate daughter and set up a counter claim against respondent. - She claimed that it was her mother who told her that her father was Mendoza and that during her life, Mendoza thru several individuals would provide for her needs by sending money, and that he gave her husband a jeep to drive and that respondent sold the jeep and gave the proceeds to them, also, petitioner allowed her son to build sa house in his lot, he even opened a joint savings account with her as a codepositor. (in short she declared that she had been openly and continuously enjoying the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child. - Also, the deceased's cousin, Gaudencio Mendoza and the deceased's nephew Isaac Mendoza testified for respondent. - Gaudencio testified that he acted as a go-between between petitioner and respondent's mother which resulted in the latter's becoming pregnant with respondent. - Isaac on the other hand, testified that he was informed by his father (Mendoza's brother) and his grandmother that respondent was the daughter of petitioner. - Trial court: ruled that respondent was not a recognized illegitimate heir of the petitioner. it rejected the petitioner's claim saying that the circumstances did not warrant a finding that respondent enjoyed the open and continuous status as an acknowledged illegitimate child. - CA: Reversed and declared that respondent as the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner. ISSUE: WON respondent was able to prove that she enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child. HELD: NO. RATIO: 1. Respondent did not live with petitioner 2. Respondent did not use the surname of the petitioner

relatives regarding the respondent's lineage could be admissible as evidence. HELD: YES. - declarations testified to by Isaac made by relatives of petitioner is admissible. RATIO:

1.

Such acts or declarations made by Isaac (it was found that it was only he who made declarations regarding pedigree) may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is the best the nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from its admission. The following requirements in order to consider such declarations outside of the hearsay rule were complied with:

2.

a. b. c. d. e.

the declarant is dead or is unable to testify - during Isaac's testimony, the persons from whom he heard the declarations i.e. Hipolito Mendoza - petitioner's brother and Brigida- petitioner's mother were already dead. the declaration must be in issue - the declarations were the very issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition. the declarant must be the relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue the declaration must be made before the controversy arose - the declarations were made before the complaint was filed the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration - such evidence of relationship between declarants and respondent was proved through the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza, in which the respondent was named as one of his heirs.

3. 4.

The declarations were never refuted. Also, the circumstances point to the fact that respondent was indeed petitioner's illegitimate daughter because the latter enjoyed a continuous status of a recognized illegitimate child. GRAVADOR v. MAMIGO

FACTS: Pedro Gravador was the principal of the Sta. Catalina Elementary School in Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental on August 15, 1964. He was advised by the Superintendent of Schools of his separation from service on the ground that he had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. In the advice, it was stated that he was born on Nov. 16, 1897. Thus, he was already 66 years old on August 15, 1964. A few days later, Mamigo was designated techer-in-charge of said elementary school. Gravador protested his forced retirement on the ground that he was not born on Nov. 16, 1897 but on Dec. 11, 1901. The controversy as to Gravador's birthdate arose as a result of the conflicting records of the Division of Schools of Negros Oriental. In addition, the records of the church where Gravador was baptized were destroyed by fire and the municipal civil register contains no record of his birth. Pre-War Records: November 26, 1897 Evidence: two Insular Teacher's Cards and an Employee's Record Card Post-War Records: Dec. 11, 1901 Evidence: Elementary Teacher's Report Card, an Employee's Record Card and an Employee's Record of Qualifications Gravadors protest was unheeded. Hence, this suit for quo warranto, mandamus and damages. TC: sided with Gravado, he was born on Dec. 11, 1901.

3.

the act of giving money to the respondent by the petitioner was not continuous but was "on" and "off".

However, she was able to prove her lineage through another method: through the declarations made by the brother and mother of respondent. ("any other means allowed by the ROC and special laws" - CC or "evidence or proof made in his favor" - FC) ISSUE: WON the declarations made by the deceased's

The post-war records were intended to replace the pre-war records. Thus, the correct date of birth of Gravador is Dec. 11, 1901. There was also a verified answer in a cadastral proceeding in the CFI-Negros Oriental, dated March 15, 1924, filed by the Gravador's brother, Romulo, now deceased. It was stated therein that Gravador, said to be one of the co-owners of a piece of land, was at the time 23 years old. (Do the math. rom) SC: affirmed the TC decision ISSUE:

2.

1. 2.

What should be deemed as Gravadors birthdate? DEC. 11, 1901. Was the suit premature for not having exhausted all administrative remedies? NO.

RATIO: The school officials based their determination of Gravador's age on the pre-war records in the preparation of which Gravador does not appear to have taken a part. On the other hand, Gravador relies on post-war records which he personally accomplished to prove the date of his birth.

1.

2.

3.

Although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family tradition. Evidence: Gravador stated his birthdate to be Dec. 11, 1901 in: a. application for back pay filed with the Department of Finance (October 7, 1948) b. asked the GSIS and the CSC to correct the date of his birth to December 11, 1901 (1956, 1960) verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old PEDIGREE: this pleading was made ante litem motam by a deceased relative a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of Rule 130.39. Gravador has an older brother, Constantino, born on June 10, 1898 and who retired on June 10, 1963 with full retirement pay.

On the administrative law issue: Suits for quo warranto to recover a public office must be brought within one year. Before filing this case, Gravador waited for eight months for the school officials to act on his protest. To require him to tarry a little more would obviously be unfair to him since on April 13, 1965, when this case was filed, he had only four months left within which to bring the case to court. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being asserted. JISON v. CA - Complaint for Recognition as an Illegitimate Child FACTS: Kids, Persons case to! Remember Maam Beth?

1.

Monina Jison alleges that Francisco Jison, married to Lilia Lopez Jison, impregnated1 Esperanza Pansay Amolar, the nanny of Franciscos daughter, Lourdes. As a result, she was born.

She claims that since childhood, she had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of Francisco by his acts and that of his family. To prove her claim, she presented the following: a. 11 witnesses, herself included; eto ung material for the court: (i) Lope Amolar younger brother of Pansay; former houseboy of F; when he confronted F abt Pansay, F told him, dont get hurt and dont cause any trouble, because I am willing to support your Inday Pansay and my child. (ii) Adela Casabuena yaya who replaced Pansay; she claims that about a month after Pansay gave birth to Monina, Pansay returned to Nelly Garden to ask F for support. Fs wife and Pansay quarreled in the living rm w Pansay claiming F to be the father of her baby. Wife replied: I did not tell you to make that baby so it is your fault. During the quarrel, F was supposedly inside the house listening. (iii) Arsenio Duatin Fs former houseboy at Fs Bacolod residence; he was informed by the bookkeeper of Nelly Garden that Monina, Fs daughter, would arrive at Bacolod w/ a letter of intro from Lagarto; Monina stayed in the Bacolod house but when F and wife would arrive, he would conceal the presence of Monina because Mrs F did not like to see her face. He hid her once at the house of Fs sister; another time at the house of Fs cousin. He revealed that although F&M only saw each other at the Bacolod haus only once, F and M communicated through long distance; M addressed F as Daddy during the lone mtg & were affectionate to each other. F allegedly bade him to treat M like Fs other daughters. (iv) Zafiro Ledesma banker & former mayor of Iloilo; based on the family trees of the Jison & Lopez fams, he said that the former VP Fernando Lopez was the 1 st cuzn of Fs wife and then told the court that the VPs fam treated M very well because she is considered a relative xxx by reputation, by actual perception; Showed photographs of M w the VPs fam & other mems of the Lopez fam; he further testified that some other relatives of Fs wife helped M w her school needs (v) Danthea Lopez her husband was the 1st cuz of F; 1st came to know M when Remedios Lopez Franco (1st cuz on Fs wife) recommended M for employment at Merchant Financing Co, w/c she managed at that time; Remedios introduced M as being reputedly the daughter of Mr. Frank Jison; While M worked at Merchant Financing, Danthea knew that M lived with Remedios; however, in the latter part of 1966, as Remedios left for Manila and M was still studying at San Agustin University, Danthea and her husband invited M to live with them. During Ms 6-month stay with them, she was not charged for board and lodging and was treated as a relative, not a mere employee. (vi) Romeo Bilbao former procurement officer, hacienda overseer and, hacienda administrator at Nelly Garden; Romeo saw and heard M ask her Daddy for the money he promised to give her, but F answered that he did not have the money to give, then told MONINA to go see Mr. Jose Cruz in Bacolod. One time, F told Romeo to pick up Mr. Cruz at the Iloilo pier and bring him to the office of Atty. Benjamin Tirol. At said office, Atty. Tirol, Mr. Cruz and M entered a room while Romeo waited outside. When they came out, Atty. Tirol had papers for M to sign, but she refused. Atty. Tirol said that a check would be released to M if she signed the papers, so M acceded, although Atty. Tirol intended not to give M a copy of the document she signed. Thereafter, Mr. Cruz gave M a check, then M grabbed a copy of the document she signed and ran outside.

At about the end of 1945 or the start of 1946

3.

4.

Rudy Tingson former employee of Fs wife; also worked for F at Nelly Garden recording hacienda expenses, typing vouchers & ofc papers; as part of his job, he gave M her allowance from F 4 times, upon instructions of Mr Lagarto, but the money given were not reflected in the bks of the ofc but were kept in a separate bk so Fs wife & children wouldnt know abt it; M would go to Nelly G when Fs wife was not around; M would call F Daddy w/o objection from F and he heard F ask M Kumusta ka hija?; saw F give M money 3x; Fs ofc paid the funeral expenses of Ms mom. (viii) Dominador Savariz declared that sometime in Feb 66, Fs relative, Remedios, pointed to M as the daughter of F (ix) Alfredo Baylosis - Fs former employee at Nelly G as bookkeeper then ofc mgr; knew M because she used to go to Nelly G to claim her monthly allowance upon Fs standing order; said Ms filiation was pretty well-known in the ofc; allowance ceased when M started working w Miller, Cruz & Co, Fs accountant-auditor; when he asked how she came to work there, she answered that her daddy recommended her, a fact confirmed by Mr Atienza, the mgr. b. Documentary Evid (i) Certif by Local Civil Reg concerning her birth F as father (ii) Baptismal Cert F as father (iii) School Records F as guardian (iv) Various Notes & Letters written by Fs relatives allegedly attesting to Ms filiation procured by M when she was preparing to travel abroad. 1. Exhs S & T Letters of Introduction from Mike Alano (son of Fs elder sis) and an uncle Emilio Jison (Fs elder bro), addressed to another cousin, Beth Jison (Emilios daughter) for Beth to assist M; contained therein was a statement expressly recognizing M as Fs daughter 2. Exh U Recommendation Letter from Mrs Mariquit Lopez for possible employment w Mrs Rosario Lopez Cooper, 2nd cousin of F where Mrs Lopez expressly recognized M as Fs daughter 3. Exh V Letter of Introduction from former Vice President Fernando Lopez addressed to then United States Consul She further alleged that Francisco gave her support and spent for her education, such that she obtained a Masters degree, became a CPA and eventually, a Central Bank examiner. Unfortunately, Francisco refuses to EXPRESSLY recognize her. =(

(vii)

a. b.

a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and that daddy F support and treat her as such.

ISSUE: WON the various notes and letters written by Francisco Jisons relatives Mike Alano, Emilio Jison, Mariquit Lopez & Fernando Lopez- allegedly attesting to Ms filiation are admissible. HELD: NO. RATIO: TOPIC!

While their due execution and authenticity are not in issue, as M witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless, under Rule 130, Section 39, the CONTENTS of these documents may not be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the declarants and MONINA shown by evidence other than the documents in question.

As to the admissibility; Rule 130, Section 40, provides: Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. -- The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (underscoring supplied)

It is evident that this provision may be divided into two (2) parts: Part I: the portion containing the first underscored clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and Part II: the section containing the second underscored phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether Exhibits S to V, as private documents, fall within the scope of the clause and the like as qualified by the preceding phrase [e]ntries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rights [and] family portraits. We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or

those articles which represent, in effect, a familys joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the family, or those which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a familys reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.

a.

5.

Fs lawyer, Atty Tirol, made M sign an affidavit that she wasnt Fs daughter as a condition for Mr Cruz to turn over the money promised by Fshe initially refused she eventually signed because she was made to understand that the affidavit was only for the consumption of Fs wife and because she was then jobless and needed the money In view of this, Monina brought suit, praying for

Conclusion: Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common reputation, it having been observed that: The weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community,

that is a material element of evidence going to establish pedigree.

be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Thus, matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage, which may be proved by common reputation in the community.

Consider the general rules on evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases.

Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, Exhibits S to V, inclusive, may, in like manner as MONINA's school records, properly be admitted as part of her testimony to strengthen her claim that, indeed, relatives of FRANCISCO recognized her as his daughter.

He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants. preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.

Re the SUBSTANTIVE PART: the applicable law and the guiding principles in paternity suits. Applicable Law: Family Code

Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation, such as M's, may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children. Article 172 thereof provides the various forms of evidence by which legitimate filiation is established, thus:

PRESENT CASE: sorry, deleted the part where Crt discussed the circumstances surrounding her conception The totality of the evidence on record, supports Ms claim that she is Fs illegitimate child and was recognized as Fs child through overt acts and conduct of F and that such recognition has been consistently shown and manifested throughout the years publicly, spontaneously, continuously and in an uninterrupted manner. But Crt ruled against the probative value of the ff docu evid saying that they are per se inadmissible in evid as proof of filiation; thus, cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove filiation: Certification issued by Local Civil Registrar It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person.

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 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.

For the success of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph, which M relies upon given that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first paragraph, a high standard of proof is required. To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity.

Simply put, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void;

the mere certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latters part. Baptismal Cert & School Records

acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously.

In like manner, Fs 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. However, despite the inadmissibility of the school records per se to prove paternity, they may be admitted as part of Ms testimony to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her education. SOLINAP v. LOCSIN

continuous = uninterrupted and consistent, but does not require any particular length of time. standard of proof required; foundation; principle: an order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it must

FACTS: TC appointed Juan E. Locsin, Jr., respondent, as the sole administrator of the Intestate Estate of the late Juan "Jhonny" Locsin, Sr.

11 months after "Jhonny" Locsin, Sr. died intestate on December 11, 1990, respondent Juan E. Locsin, Jr. filed with the RTC a "Petition for Letters of Administration" praying that he be appointed Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased. He alleged: a. that he is an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin; b. that during his lifetime, the deceased owned personal properties which include undetermined savings, current and time deposits with various banks, and 1/6 portion of the undivided mass of real properties owned by him and his siblings, namely: Jose Locsin, Jr., Manuel Locsin, Maria Locsin Yulo, Lourdes Locsin and Ester Locsin; and c. that he is the only surviving legal heir of the decedent. TC issued an order setting the petition for hearing on January 13, 1992, which order was duly published, thereby giving notice to all persons who may have opposition to the said petition. Opposition to respondents petition filed by: 1. Heirs of Jose Locsin, Jr., the heirs of Maria Locsin, Manuel Locsin and Ester Jarantilla, claiming to be the lawful heirs of the deceased Averred that respondent is not a child or an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin, who during his lifetime, never affixed "Sr." in his name

Oppositors argument: Exhibit D is spurious. Evidence presented: 1. Exhibit 8 Certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 found in the Civil Registrar General, Metro Manila Indicating that the birth of respondent was reported by his mother, Amparo Escamilla, and that the same does not contain the signature of the late Juan C. Locsin. Observed as anomalous the fact that while respondent was born on October 22, 1956 and his birth was recorded on January 30, 1957, however, Exhibit D was recorded on a December 1, 1958 revised form. Exhibit "8" appears on a July, 1956 form, already used before respondent's birth. This scenario clearly suggests that Exhibit "D" was falsified. 2. Presented Col. Pedro L. Elvas, a handwriting expert Testified that the signatures of Juan C. Locsin and Emilio G. Tomesa (then Civil Registrar of Iloilo City) appearing in Exhibit D are forgeries. Concluded that the said Certificate is a spurious document surreptitiously inserted into the bound volume of birth records of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. TC: found that Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 (Exhibit "D") and the photograph (Exhibit "C") are sufficient proofs of respondent's illegitimate filiation with the deceased appointed him administrator CA: affirmed TC Findings of TC affirmed by CA Re: genuineness and probative value of Exhibit "D" (SC doesnt agree): 1. It was duly established in Court that the Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 in the name of Juan E. Locsin, Jr., the original having been testified to by Rosita Vencer, exists in the files of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo. 2. Petitioner since birth enjoyed the open and continuous status of an acknowledged natural child of Juan C. Locsin, Sr., he together with his mother was summoned to attend to the burial as evidenced by a picture of relatives facing the coffin of the deceased with petitioner and his mother in the picture. 3. It was duly proven at the trial that the standard signatures presented by oppositors were not in public document and may also be called questioned document whereas in the certificate of live birth No. 477, the signature of Juan C. Locsin, Sr. was the original or primary evidence. 4. The anomalous and suspicious characteristic of the bound volume where the certificate of live birth as alleged by oppositors was found was testified to and explained by Rosita Vencer of the office of the Local Civil Registrar that they run out of forms in 1957 and requisitioned forms. 5. However, the forms sent to them was the 1958 revised form and that she said their office usually paste the pages of the bound volume if destroyed. 6. All the doubts regarding the authenticity and genuineness of the signatures of Juan C. Locsin, Sr. and Emilio Tomesa, and the suspicious circumstances of the bound volume were erased due to the explanation of Rosita Vencer."

2.

Lucy Solinap (sole heir of the late Maria Locsin Vda. De Araneta, sister of the deceased), Manuel Locsin and the successors of the late Lourdes C. Locsin Alleging that respondent's claim as a natural child is barred by prescription or the statute of limitations 3. Intestate Estate of the late Jose Locsin, Jr. (brother of the deceased) 4. Ester Locsin Jarantilla (another sister of Juan C. Locsin) Stating that there is no filial relationship between respondent and the deceased Evidence to support respondents claim that he is an acknowledged natural child of the deceased and entitled to be appointed administrator of the intestate estate: 1. Exhibit D Machine copy of his Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 found in the bound volume of birth records in the Office of the Local Clerk Registrar of Iloilo City Contains the information that respondent's father is Juan C. Locsin, Sr. and that he was the informant of the facts stated therein, as evidenced by his signatures 2. Presented Rosita J. Vencer, the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City To prove the existence and authenticity of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 from which Exhibit "D" was machine copied She produced and identified in court the bound volume of 1957 records of birth where the alleged original of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 is included. 3. Exhibit C Photograph showing him and his mother, Amparo Escamilla, in front of a coffin bearing Juan C. Locsin's dead body Respondent claims that photo shows that he and his mother have been recognized as family members of the deceased.

ISSUE:

Which of the 2 documents Exhibit "D" and Exhibit "8" is genuine? Exhibit 8

RATIO: Section 6, Rule 78 ROC lays down the persons preferred who are entitled to the issuance of letters of administration: o "Section 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. - If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

(e)

To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or

to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve; x x x Section 2 of Rule 79 provides that a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person: o "Sec. 2 Contents of petition for letters of administration. - A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (e) The jurisdictional facts; x x x" An "interested party", in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. o In estate proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees. o Gabriel v. Court of Appeals: in the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed administrator. Here, undisputed is the fact that the deceased, Juan C. Locsin, was not survived by a spouse. o In his petition for issuance of letters of administration, respondent alleged that he is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased, implying that he is an interested person in the estate and is considered as next of kin. But has respondent established that he is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased? No o The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (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. o In the absence thereof, 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 ROC and special laws. o The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. o In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. o Where, instead, a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the child's acknowledgment. Pursuant to Section 12 of Act 3753, the records of births from all cities and municipalities in the

Philippines are officially and regularly forwarded to the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila by the Local Civil Registrars. o Since the records of births cover several decades and come from all parts of the country, to merely access them in the Civil Registry General requires expertise. To locate one single birth record from the mass, a regular employee, if not more, has to be engaged. o It is highly unlikely that any of these employees in Metro Manila would have reason to falsify a particular 1957 birth record originating from the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo City. o With respect to Local Civil Registries, access thereto by interested parties is obviously easier. Thus, in proving the authenticity of Exhibit "D," more convincing evidence than those considered by the TC should have been presented by respondent.

TC: doubts respecting the genuine nature of Exhibit "D" are dispelled by the testimony of Rosita Vencer, Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City SC: NO! o The event about which she testified on March 7, 1994 was the record of respondent's birth which took place on October 22, 1956, on 37 or 38 years ago. The Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City at that time was Emilio G. Tomesa. Necessarily, Vencer's knowledge of respondent's birth record allegedly made and entered in the Local Civil Registry in January, 1957 was based merely on her general impressions of the existing records in that Office. o When entries in the Certificate of Live Birth recorded in the Local Civil Registry vary from those appearing in the copy transmitted to the Civil Registry General, pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, the variance has to be clarified in more persuasive and rational manner. We find Vencer's explanation not convincing. Indications of irregularity of Exhibit "D": 1. Exhibit D was recorded in a December 1, 1958 revised form. Asked how a 1958 form could be used in 1957 when respondent's birth was recorded, Vencer answered that "during that time, maybe the forms in 1956 were already exhausted so the former Civil Registrar had requested for a new form and they sent us the 1958 Revised Form."

The answer is a "maybe", a mere supposition of an event. It does not satisfactorily explain how a Revised Form dated December 1, 1958 could have been used on January 30, 1957 or almost 2 years earlier.

Exhibit "8" of the petitioners found in the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila is on Municipal Form No 102, revised in July, 1956. We find no irregularity here.

Indeed, it is logical to assume that the 1956 forms would continue to be used several years thereafter. But for a 1958 form to be used in 1957 is unlikely. 2. The back cover of the 1957 bound volume in the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo is torn. Exhibit "D" is merely pasted with the bound volume, not sewn like the other entries. COURT: I will butt in. Are these instances where your employees would only paste a document like this Certificate of Live Birth? WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, we are pasting some of the leaves just to replace the record. Sometimes we just have it pasted in the record when the leaves were taken. ATTY. TIROL: You mean to say you allow the leaves of the bound volume to be taken out? A: No sir. It is because sometimes the leaves are detached so we have to paste them." There is no explanation why out of so many certificates, this vital document, Exhibit "D", was merely pasted with the volume.

3.

The documents bound into one volume are original copies. Exhibit "D" is a carbon copy of the alleged original and sticks out like a sore thumb because the entries therein are typewritten, while the records of all other certificates are handwritten. 4. Unlike the contents of those other certificates, Exhibit "D" does not indicate important particulars, such as the alleged father's religion, race, occupation, address and business. The space which calls for an entry of the legitimacy of the child is blank. On the back page there is a purported signature of the alleged father, but the blanks calling for the date and other details of his Residence Certificate were not filled up. 5. When asked to explain the torn back cover of the bound volume, she had no answer except to state, "I am not aware of this because I am not a bookbinder." Vencer's testimony suffers from infirmities. Far from explaining the anomalous circumstances surrounding Exhibit "D", she actually highlighted the suspicious circumstances surrounding its existence. o The records adequately support a finding that Exhibit "8" for the petitioners, not respondent's Exhibit "D", should have been given more faith and credence. The Civil Registry Law requires the Local Civil Registrar to send copies of registrable certificates and documents presented to them for entry to the Civil Registrar General, thus: o "Duties of Local Civil Registrar. Local civil registrars shall send to the Civil Registrar-General, during the first ten days of each month, a copy of the entries made during the preceding month, for filing; o Hence, a copy of the document sent by the Local Civil Registrar to the Civil Registrar General should be identical in form and in substance with the copy being kept by the latter. In the instant case, Exhibit "8", as transmitted to the Civil Registrar General is not identical with Exhibit "D" as appearing in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. Such circumstance should have aroused the suspicion of both the TC and CA and should have impelled them to declare Exhibit "D" a spurious document. o A Certificate of Live Birth duly recorded in the Local Civil Registry, a copy of which is transmitted to the Civil Registry General pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. However, if there are material discrepancies between them, the one entered in the Civil Registry General prevails. Exhibit "8" o Shows that respondent's record of birth was made by his mother o The signature and name of Juan C. Locsin listed as respondent's father and the entry that he and Amparo Escamilla were married in Oton, Iloilo on November 28, 1954 do not appear.

Roces vs. Local Civil Registrar "Section 5 of Act No. 3753 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines . . . explicitly prohibit, not only the naming of the father of the child born out of wedlock, when the birth certificate, or the recognition, is not filed or made by him, but also, the statement of any information or circumstances by which he could be identified.

Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child, when signed only by the mother of the latter, is incompetent evidence of fathership of said child." Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals "a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father (who had no hand in its preparation) is not competent evidence of paternity."

A birth certificate is a formidable piece of evidence prescribed by both the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. However, birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence. Its evidentiary worth cannot be sustained where there exists strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity. o In this case, respondent's Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 entered in the records of the Local Civil Registry (from which Exhibit "D" was machine copied) has all the badges of nullity. Without doubt, the authentic copy on file in that office was removed and substituted with a falsified Certificate of Live Birth. Section 23, Rule 132 ROC: "(d)ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." o In this case, the glaring discrepancies between the two Certificates of Live Birth (Exhibits "D" and "8") have overturned the genuineness of Exhibit "D" entered in the Local Civil Registry. What is authentic is Exhibit "8" recorded in the Civil Registry General. Photograph with his mother near the coffin of the late Juan C. Locsin cannot and will not constitute proof of filiation o Anybody can have a picture taken while standing before a coffin with others and thereafter utilize it in claiming the estate of the deceased. Respondent Juan E. Locsin, Jr. failed to prove his filiation with the late Juan C. Locsin, Sr.. His Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 (Exhibit "D") is spurious. o Respondent is not an interested person within the meaning of Section 2, Rule 79 ROC entitled to the issuance of letters of administration.

(e)

HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 57708 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent's petition for issuance of letters of administration is ORDERED DISMISSED.