G.R. No. 118464. December 21, 1998.* division of the property.

—There are two (2) simultaneous

HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI AND ROSARIO CUARIO, issues in an action for partition. First, whether the plaintiff
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND LYDIA S. is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be
REYES as Attorney-in-Fact of JOSEFINA S. REYES, partitioned, and second, if answered in the affirmative, the
BERNARDITA S. PALILIO, HERMINIA S. PALILIO, manner of the division of the property, i.e., what portion
REMEDIOS A. SAMPAYO, ILLUMINADA A. SAMPAYO, should go to which co-owner. Thus, in this case, we must
ENRICO A. SAMPAYO, CARLOS A. SAMPAYO, determine whether private respondents, by preponderance
GENEROSO C. SAMPAYO, MYRNA C. SAMPAYO, of evidence, have been able to establish that they are co-
ROSALINO C. SAMPAYO, MANUEL C. SAMPAYO, owners by way of succession as collateral heirs of the late
DELIA A. SAMPAYO, CORAZON C. SAMPAYO, NILO C. Lourdes Sampayo as they claim to be, either a sister, a
SAMPAYO, and LOLITA A. SAMPAYO in her own behalf nephew or a niece. These, private respondents were able to
and as Attorney-in-Fact of NORMA A. SAMPAYO, prove in the trial court as well as before respondent Court of
respondents. Appeals.
Actions; Partition; Succession; Settlement of Estates; A Succession; Words and Phrases; “Succession,”
prior settlement of the estate is not essential before the heirs Explained.—Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of
can commence any action originally pertaining to the which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of
deceased.—A prior settlement of the estate is not essential the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted
before the heirs can commence any action originally through his death to another or others either by his will or
pertaining to the deceased as we explained in Quison v. by operation of law. Legal or intestate succession takes
Salud—Claro Quison died in 1902. It was proven at the place if a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or
trial that the present plaintiffs are next of kin and heirs, one which has subsequently lost its validity. If there are no
but it is said by the appellants that they are not entitled to descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a
maintain this action because there is no evidence that any surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to
proceedings have been taken in court for the settlement of the entire estate of the decedent. It was established during
the estate of Claro Quison, and that without such the trial that Lourdes died intestate and without issue.
settlement, the heirs cannot maintain this action. There is Private respondents as sister, nephews and nieces now
nothing in this point. As well by the Civil Code as by the claim to be the collateral relatives of Lourdes.
Code of Civil Procedure, the title to the property owned by a Same; Parent and Child; Filiation; By analogy, the
person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such method of proving filiation of legitimate children may also
transmission is, under the present law, subject to the claims be utilized to prove fact of being collateral heirs of a
of administration and the property may be taken from the deceased.—Under Art. 172 of the Family Code, the filiation
heirs for the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this of legitimate children shall be proved by any other means
does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, in the
death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs. Without absence of a record of birth or a parent’s admission of such
some showing that a judicial administrator had been legitimate filiation in a public or private document duly
appointed in proceedings to settle the estate of Claro signed by the parent. Such other proof of one’s filiation may
Quison, the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this action is be a baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family
established. Bible in which his name has been entered, common
Same; Same; Same; From the death of the co-owner, reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the
her rights as such, incidental to which is the right to ask for testimonies of witnesses and other kinds of proof admissible
partition at any time or to terminate the co-ownership, are under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. By analogy, this
transmitted to her rightful heirs.—Conformably with the method of proving filiation may also be utilized in the
foregoing and taken in conjunction with Arts. 777 and 494 instant case.
of the Civil Code, from the death of Lourdes Sampayo her Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Baptismal
rights as a co-owner, incidental to which is the right to ask Certificates; Words and Phrases; Public documents are the
for partition at any time or to terminate the co-ownership, written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
were transmitted to her rightful heirs. In so demanding sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
partition private respondents merely exercised the right officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
originally pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in- Baptismal certificates are public documents.—Public
interest. documents are the written official acts, or records of the
Same; Same; There is no need for publication in a official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
simple case of ordinary partition between co-owners.— tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or
Petitioners’ theory as to the requirement of publication of a foreign country. The baptismal certificates presented in
would have been correct had the action been for the evidence by private respondents are public documents.
partition of the estate of Lourdes Sampayo, or if we were Parish priests continue to be the legal custodians of the
dealing with extrajudicial settlement by agreement between parish records and are authorized to issue true copies, in
heirs and the summary settlement of estates of small value. the form of certificates, of the entries contained therein.
But what private respondents are pursuing is the mere Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Hearsay
segregation of Lourdes’ one-half share which they inherited Rule; Baptismal certificates may be admitted even in the
from her through intestate succession. This is a simple case absence of the testimony of the officiating priest or the
of ordinary partition between co-owners. The applicable law official recorder, the entries made in the Registry Book being
in point is Sec. 1 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. considered as entries made in the course of the business,
Same; Same; There are two (2) simultaneous issues in which is an exception to the hearsay rule.—The admissibility
an action for partition—first, whether the plaintiff is indeed of baptismal certificates offered by Lydia S. Reyes, absent
a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned, and the testimony of the officiating priest or the official recorder,
second, if answered in the affirmative, the manner of the was settled in People v. Ritter, citing U.S. v. de Vera (28
Phil. 105 [1914]), thus—x x x the entries made in the rightful heirs of Lourdes Sampayo.4 On 30 August 1987
Registry Book may be considered as Ignacio Conti died and was substituted as party-defendant
entries made in the course of the business under Section 43 by his children Asuncion, Francisco, Milagros, Joselito,
of Rule 130, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. The Luisito, Diego and Teresita, all surnamed Conti.5
baptisms administered by the church are one of its At the trial, private respondents presented Lydia
transactions in the exercise of ecclesiastical duties and Sampayo Reyes and Adelaida Sampayo to prove that they
recorded in the book of the church during the course of its were the collateral heirs of the deceased Lourdes Sampayo
business. and therefore entitled to her rights as co-owner of the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Secondary Evidence; When subject lot. Bringing with her the original copy of her
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no certificate of live
evidence shall be admissible other than the original birth showing that her father was Inocentes Reyes and her
document itself except when the original has been lost or mother was Josefina Sampayo,6Lydia Sampayo Reyes
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith testified that she was one of the nieces of Lourdes Sampayo,
on the part of the offeror.—Petitioners’ objection to the being the daughter of Josefina Sampayo, the only living
photocopy of the certificate of birth of Manuel Sampayo was sibling of Lourdes. Lydia also testified that Lourdes had
properly discarded by the court a quo and respondent Court another sister named Remedios J. Sampayo who died in
of Appeals. According to Sec. 3, par. (1), Rule 130, of the 1948, and two brothers, Manuel J. Sampayo and Luis J.
Rules of Court, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of Sampayo who died in 1983 and 1960, respectively. To prove
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the that Josefina, Remedios, Luis and Manuel were siblings of
original document itself except when the original has been Lourdes, their baptismal certificates together with a
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, without photocopy of the birth certificate of Manuel Sampayo were
bad faith on the part of the offeror. The loss or destruction of offered in evidence. These documents showed that their
the original certificate of birth of Manuel J. Sampayo was father and mother, like Lourdes Sampayo, were Antonio
duly established by the certification issued by the Office of Sampayo and Brigida Jaraza.
the Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City to the effect that its The certificates of baptism presented as part of the
office was completely destroyed by fire on 27 November testimony of Lydia Sampayo Reyes were prepared by Rev.
1974 and 30 August 1983, respectively, and as a Franklin C. Rivero who duly certified that all data therein
consequence thereof, all civil registration records were written were in accordance with the church records, hence,
totally burned. the lower left portion of the documents bearing the seal of
the church with the notation as to where the documents
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court were logged in particular.7 The baptismal certificates were
of Appeals. presented in lieu of the birth certificates because the
repository of those documents, the Office of the Civil
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Registrar of Lucena City, had been razed by fire on two
Concepcion B. Buencamino and Antonio P. separate occasions, 27 November 1974 and 30 August 1983,
Pacheco for petitioners. thus all civil registration records were totally burned.8 On
Roman R. Mendioro for private respondents. the other hand, a photocopy of Manuel’s birth certificate
dated 25 October 1919 (Exh. “I”)9 showed that it was issued
BELLOSILLO, J.: by the Local Civil Registrar of Lucena, Tayabas (now
Lucena City).
Adelaida Sampayo, widow of Manuel Sampayo, testified
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the 30
that her husband Manuel was the brother of the deceased
March 1994 Decision and 21 December 1994 Resolution of
Lourdes, and with the death of Manuel, Luis and Remedios,
respondent Court of Appeals which upheld the right of
the only living sibling of Lourdes was Josefina.10
private respondents as heirs of Lourdes Sampayo to demand
To rebut whatever rights the alleged heirs of Lourdes had
partition under Art. 494 of the Civil Code. Lourdes Sampayo
over the subject lot, petitioners presented Rosario Cuario
and Ignacio Conti, married to Rosario Cuario, were the co-
Conti, Rosa Ladines Malundas and Rodolfo Espineli.
owners of the property in litigation consisting of a 539-
Rosario testified that the subject property was co-owned in
square meter lot at the corner of Zamora and Abellanosa
equal shares by her husband Ignacio Conti and Lourdes
Streets, Lucena City, covered by TCT No. T-15374, with a
Sampayo and that her family (Rosario) had been staying in
house erected thereon.1 On 17 March 1986 Lourdes
the subject property since 1937.11 In fact, she said that her
Sampayo died intestate without issue.2 Subsequently, on 1
late husband Ignacio Conti paid for the real estate
April 1987 private respondents Josefina S. Reyes,
taxes12 and spent for the necessary repairs and
Bernardita S. Palilio, Herminia S. Palilio, Remedios A.
improvements thereon13because by agreement Lourdes
Sampayo, Iluminada A. Sampayo, Enrico A. Sampayo,
would leave her share of the property to them.14
Carlos A. Sampayo, Generoso C. Sampayo, Myrna C.
However, as correctly found by the trial court, no will,
Sampayo, Rosalina C. Sampayo, Manuel C. Sampayo, Delia
either testamentary or holographic, was presented by
A. Sampayo, Corazon C. Sampayo, Nilo C. Sampayo, Lolita
petitioners to substantiate this claim.15 Rosario also
A. Sampayo and Norma A. Sampayo, all represented by
disclosed that when Lourdes died her remains were taken
their Attorney-in-Fact Lydia S. Reyes, with Lolita A.
by her relatives from their house.16 When cross-examined on
Sampayo acting also in her own behalf and as Attorney-in-
who those relatives were, she replied that the only one she
Fact of Norma A. Sampayo, all claiming to be collateral
remembered was Josefina since there were many relatives
relatives of the deceased Lourdes Sampayo, filed an action
who came. When asked who Josefina’s parents were, she
for partition and damages before RTC-Br. 54, Lucena City.3
said she could not recall. Likewise, when asked who the
The spouses Ignacio Conti and Rosario Cuario refused
parents of Lourdes were, Rosario denied having ever known
the partition on the ground that private respondents failed
them.17
to produce any document to prove that they were the
 Another witness, Rosa Ladines Malundas, narrated that respondents were not able to prove by competent evidence
she used to be the neighbor and hairdresser of the deceased their relationship with the deceased.30
Lourdes Sampayo who told her that upon her death her There is no merit in the petition. A prior settlement of
share would go to Ignacio Conti whom she considered as her the estate is not essential before the heirs can commence
brother since both of them were “adopted” by their foster any action originally pertaining to the deceased as we
parents Gabriel Cord and Anastacia Allarey explained in Quison v. Salud31—
Cord,18 although she admitted that she did not know Claro Quison died in 1902. It was proven at the trial that
whether Lourdes had other relatives.19 the present plaintiffs are next of kin and heirs, but it is said
According to another witness, Rodolfo Espineli, he took by the appellants that they are not entitled to maintain this
pictures of the tombs bearing the tombstones of Gabriel action because there is no evidence that any proceedings
Cord and Anastacia Allarey Cord and Ignacio Conti as well have been taken in court for the settlement of the estate of
as that of Lourdes Sampayo who was supposed to have been Claro Quison, and that without such settlement, the heirs
interred beside her “adoptive” parents. However, as cannot maintain this action. There is nothing in this point.
revealed by Rosario during her direct examination, Lourdes As well by the Civil Code as by the Code of Civil Procedure,
was not in fact interred there because her relatives took her the title to the property owned by a person who dies
remains.20 intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is,
On 4 April 1991 the trial court declared private under the present law, subject to the claims of
respondents as the rightful heirs of Lourdes Sampayo. It administration and the property may be taken from the
further ordered private respondents and petitioners to heirs for the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this
submit a project of partition of the residential house and lot does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the
for confirmation by the court.21 death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs. Without
Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals some showing that a judicial administrator had been
contending that the trial court erred in finding that private appointed in proceedings to settle the estate of Claro
respondents were the heirs of Lourdes Sampayo and that Quison, the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this action is
they were entitled to the partition of the lot and the established.
improvements thereon.22 Conformably with the foregoing and taken in conjunction
On 30 March 1994 the Court of Appeals affirmed the with Arts. 777 and 49432 of the Civil Code, from the death of
assailed RTC decision and held23— Lourdes Sampayo her rights as a co-owner, incidental to
In the instant case, plaintiffs [now private respondents] which is the right to ask for partition at any time or to
were able to prove and establish by preponderance of terminate the co-ownership, were transmitted to her
evidence that they are the collateral heirs of deceased rightful heirs. In so demanding partition private
Lourdes Sampayo and therefore the lower court did not err respondents merely exercised the right originally pertaining
in ordering herein plaintiffs [now private respondents] and to the decedent, their predecessor-in-interest. Petitioners’
defendants [now petitioners] to submit a project of partition theory as to the requirement of publication would have been
of the residential house and lot owned in common by the correct had the action been for the partition of the estate of
deceased Lourdes Sampayo and defendant spouses Conti for Lourdes Sampayo, or if we were dealing with extrajudicial
confirmation by the court x x x x Considering our earlier settlement by agreement between heirs and the summary
finding that the lower court did not err in declaring herein settlement of estates of small value.33 But what private
plaintiffs [now private respondents] as heirs of deceased respondents are pursuing is the mere segregation of
Sampayo and therefore entitled to inherit her property, the Lourdes’ one-half share which they inherited from her
argument of the appellants [now petitioners] that the through intestate succession. This is a simple case of
plaintiffs [now private respondents] are not entitled to ordinary partition between co-owners. The applicable law in
partition is devoid of merit (insertions in [ ] supplied). point is Sec. 1 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court—
Respondent court also ruled, citing Hernandez v. Sec. 1. Complaint in an action for partition of real estate.—A
Padua24 and Marabilles v. Quito,25 that a prior and separate person having the right to compel the partition of real estate
judicial declaration of heirship was not necessary26 and that may do so as in this rule prescribed, setting forth in his
private respondents became the co-owners of the portion of complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate
the property owned and registered in the name of Lourdes description of the real estate of which partition is demanded
Sampayo upon her death and, consequently, entitled to the and joining as defendants all the other persons interested in
immediate possession thereof and all other incidents/rights the property.
of ownership as provided for by law including the right to A cursory reading of the aforecited rule shows that
demand partition under Art. 777 of the Civil publication is not required as erroneously maintained by
Code,27 and Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa28holding that the petitioners. There are two (2) simultaneous issues in an
property belongs to the heirs at the moment of death of the action for partition. First, whether the plaintiff is indeed a
decedent, as completely as if he had executed and delivered co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned,
to them a deed for the same before his death. and second,if answered in the affirmative, the manner of the
The appellate court subsequently denying a motion for division of the property, i.e., what portion should go to
reconsideration upheld the probative value of the which co-owner.34 Thus, in this case, we must determine
documentary and testimonial evidence of private whether private respondents, by preponderance of evidence,
respondents and faulted petitioners for not having have been able to establish that they are co-owners by way
subpoenaed Josefina if they believed that she was a vital of succession as collateral heirs of the late Lourdes Sampayo
witness in the case.29 Hence, petitioners pursued this case as they claim to be, either a sister, a nephew or a niece.
arguing that a complaint for partition to claim a supposed These, private respondents were able to prove in the trial
share of the deceased co-owner cannot prosper without prior court as well as before respondent Court of Appeals.
settlement of the latter’s estate and compliance with all Petitioners however insist that there was no such proof
legal requirements, especially publication, and private of filiation because: (a) mere photocopies of birth certificates
do not prove filiation; (b) certifications on non-availability of Corroborated by the undisputed testimony of Adelaida
records of birth do not prove filiation; (c) baptismal Sampayo that with the demise of Lourdes and her brothers
certificates do not prove filiation of alleged collateral Manuel, Luis and sister Remedios, the only sibling left was
relatives of the deceased; and, (d) the testimonies of Lydia Josefina Sampayo Reyes, such baptismal certificates have
S. Reyes, alleged daughter of Josefina Reyes, and Adelaida acquired evidentiary weight to prove filiation.
Sampayo, alleged sister-in-law of Josefina and Lourdes, Petitioners’ objection to the photocopy of the certificate
were incompetent as Lydia was made to testify on events of birth of Manuel Sampayo was properly discarded by the
which happened before her birth while Adelaida testified on court a quo and respondent Court of Appeals. According to
matters merely narrated to her.35 Sec. 3, par. (1), Rule 130, of the Rules of Court, when the
We are not persuaded. Altogether, the documentary and subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
testimonial evidence submitted are competent and adequate shall be admissible other than the original document itself
proofs that private respondents are collateral heirs of except when the original has been lost or destroyed or
Lourdes Sampayo. Private respondents assert that they are cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of
co-owners of one-half (1/2) pro-indiviso share of the subject the offeror. The loss or destruction of the original certificate
property by way of legal or intestate succession. of birth of Manuel J. Sampayo was duly established by the
Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the of Lucena City to the effect that its office was completely
value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through destroyed by fire on 27 November 1974 and 30 August 1983,
his death to another or others either by his will or by respectively, and as a consequence thereof, all civil
operation of law.36Legal or intestate succession takes place registration records were totally burned.
if a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one Apparently, there seems to be some merit in petitioners’
which has subsequently lost its validity.37 If there are no contention that the testimony of Adelaida Sampayo cannot
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a prove filiation for being hearsay considering that there was
surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to no declaration ante litem motam as required by the
the entire estate of the decedent.38 It was established during rules, i.e.,that the declaration relating to pedigree was made
the trial that Lourdes died intestate and without issue. before the controversy occurred. Nonetheless, petitioners
Private respondents as sister, nephews and nieces now made no move to dispute her testimony in open court when
claim to be the collateral relatives of Lourdes. she was mentioning who the brothers and sisters of Lourdes
Under Art. 172 of the Family Code,39 the filiation of were. As correctly observed by the trial court in explicit
legitimate children shall be proved by any other means terms, “the documentary and testimonial evidence were not
allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, in the disputed by defendants” (now petitioners).44 Notably, when
absence of a record of birth or a parent’s admission of such Rosario Cuario
legitimate filiation in a public or private document duly Conti took the witness stand, she admitted that she was not
signed by the parent. Such other proof of one’s filiation may aware of the identities of the parents of the deceased.
be a baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Clearly, this runs counter to the relationship akin to filial
Bible in which his name has been entered, common bonding which she professed she had enjoyed with the
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the decedent. As wife of Ignacio Conti, she was supposedly a
testimonies of witnesses and other kinds of proof admissible “sister-in-law” of the deceased Lourdes Sampayo who
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.40 By analogy, this regarded Ignacio as a brother. However, in sum, we rule
method of proving filiation may also be utilized in the that all the pieces of evidence adduced, taken together,
instant case. clearly preponderate to the right of private respondents to
Public documents are the written official acts, or records maintain the action for partition. Absent any reversible
of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Appeals, this petition for review on certiorari will not lie.
Philippines, or of a foreign country.41 The baptismal WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
certificates presented in evidence by private respondents Decision dated 30 March 1994 and Resolution dated 21
are public documents. Parish priests continue to be the legal December 1994 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
custodians of the parish records and are authorized to issue Costs against petitioners.
true copies, in the form of certificates, of the entries SO ORDERED.
contained therein.42
The admissibility of baptismal certificates offered by
Lydia S. Reyes, absent the testimony of the officiating priest
or the official recorder, was settled in People v.
Ritter, citing U.S. v. de Vera(28 Phil. 105 [1914]),43 thus—
x x x the entries made in the Registry Book may be
considered as entries made in the course of the business
under Section 43 of Rule 130, which is an exception to the
hearsay rule. The baptisms administered by the church are
one of its transactions in the exercise of ecclesiastical duties
and recorded in the book of the church during the course of
its business.
It may be argued that baptismal certificates are evidence
only of the administration of the sacrament, but in this case,
there were four (4) baptismal certificates which, when taken
together, uniformly show that Lourdes, Josefina, Remedios
and Luis had the same set of parents, as indicated therein.