Scribd
Upload
102 views3 pages

G.R. No. L-75377 February 17, 1988 Chua Keng Giap, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and Chua Lian King Respondents

The petitioner has repeatedly tried to claim status as a legitimate heir by alleging he is the son of Sy Kao and the late Chua Bing Guan. However, this issue has already been definitively settled by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals, where the Court ruled that Sy Kao denied the petitioner was her son and that the issue of his claimed filiation had been conclusively determined. As such, the current petition is denied, with the Court noting the petitioner is "beating a dead horse" in trying to resurrect an issue that has already been laid to rest with finality.

Uploaded by

Carina Amor Claveria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views3 pages

G.R. No. L-75377 February 17, 1988 Chua Keng Giap, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and Chua Lian King Respondents

The petitioner has repeatedly tried to claim status as a legitimate heir by alleging he is the son of Sy Kao and the late Chua Bing Guan. However, this issue has already been definitively settled by the Supreme Court in 1984 in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals, where the Court ruled that Sy Kao denied the petitioner was her son and that the issue of his claimed filiation had been conclusively determined. As such, the current petition is denied, with the Court noting the petitioner is "beating a dead horse" in trying to resurrect an issue that has already been laid to rest with finality.

Uploaded by

Carina Amor Claveria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No.

L-75377 February 17, 1988


CHUA KENG GIAP, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT and CHUA LIAN KING respondents.

CRUZ, J .:
We are faced once again with still another bid by petitioner for the
status of a legitimate heir. He has failed before, and he will fail again.
In this case, the petitioner insists that he is the son of the deceased
Sy Kao and that it was error for the respondent court to reject his
claim. He also says his motion for reconsideration should not have
been denied for tardiness because it was in fact filed on time under
the Habaluyas ruling.
1

This case arose when Chua Keng Giap filed on May 19, 1983, a
petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao in the
regional trial court of Quezon City. The private respondent moved to
dismiss for lack of a cause of action and of the petitioner's capacity to
file the petition. The latter, it was claimed, had been declared as not
the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kao in S.P. No. Q-
12592, for the settlement of the estate of the late Chua Bing Guan.
The decision in that case had long become final and executory.
2

The motion was denied by Judge Jose P. Castro, who held that the
case invoked decided the paternity and not the maternity of the
petitioner.
3
Holding that this was mere quibbling, the respondent court
reversed the trial judge in a petition for certiorari filed by the private
respondent.
4
The motion for reconsideration was denied for late filing.
5

The petitioner then came to this Court to challenge these rulings.
The petitioner argues at length that the question to be settled in a
motion to dismiss based on lack of a cause of action is the sufficiency
of the allegation itself and not whether these allegations are true or
not, for their truth is hypothetically admitted.
6
That is correct. He also
submits that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory
and therefore reversible not in a petition for certiorari but on appeal.
7
That
is also correct Even so, the petition must be and is hereby denied.
The petitioner is beating a dead horse. The issue of his claimed
filiation has long been settled, and with finality, by no less than this
Court. That issue cannot be resurrected now because it has been laid
to rest in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals,
8
decided on September 28, 1984.
In that case, Sy Kao flatly and unequivocally declared that she was not the
petitioner's mother.
The Court observed through Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.
Petitioner Sy Kao denies that respondent Chua Keng Giap is her son
by the deceased Chua Bing Guan. Thus, petitioner's opposition filed
on December 19, 1968, is based principally on the ground that the
respondent was not the son of Sy Kao and the deceased but of a
certain Chua Eng Kun and his wife Tan Kuy.
After hearing on the merits which lasted for ten years, the court
dismissed the respondent's petition on March 2, 1979 on a finding
that he is not a son of petitioner Sy Kao and the deceased, and
therefore, had no lawful interest in the estate of the latter and no right
to institute the intestacy proceedings.
The respondent tried to appeal the court's resolution but his appeal
was denied by the lower court for having been filed out of time. He
then filed a mandamus case with the Court of appeals but the same
was dismissed. Respondent, therefore, sought relief by filing a
petition for certiorari, G.R. No. 54992, before this Court but his
petition was likewise dismissed on January 30, 1982, for lack of merit.
His subsequent motions for reconsideration met a similar fate.
xxx xxx xxx
To allow the parties to go on with the trial on the merits would not
only subject the petitioners to the expense and ordeal of obligation
which might take them another ten years, only to prove a point
already decided in Special Proceeding No. Q-12592, but more
importantly, such would violate the doctrine of res judicata which is
expressly provided for in Section 49, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
There is no point in prolonging these proceedings with an
examination of the procedural objections to the grant of the motion to
dismiss. In the end, assuming denial of the motion, the resolution of
the merits would have to be the same anyway as in the aforesaid
case. The petitioner's claim of filiation would still have to be rejected.
Discussion of the seasonableness of the motion for reconsideration is
also unnecessary as the motion would have been validly denied just
the same even if filed on time.
Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua Keng Giap was
really her son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say
as indeed she has said these many years--that Chua Keng Giap
was not begotten of her womb.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the
petitioner. It is so ordered.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Gancayco and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy