12

Republic of the Philippines 2013 OCT -2 M1 8: 18

5?ltP1t'E.1Vl.'E CO'tl'R'F .- ~tr~:~~~~
MANILA ~ ,,,,_ __• ../..e.:-..3..<:..!.'.J..-'_
Recefl..,Oby: -%-- ·--
G.R. NO.
20<29\2-
AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO,
Petitioner, (CA-G.R. CV NO. OJ,633-MIN
SPL. PROC NO, 6972-03, RTC-
Br. 16, 11th Judiciilil Region,
_.,.. Davao City)
·,
- versus -
FOR : PETITIO\i FOR
REVIEW ON
CERTIORARI
RODOLF:=O C. AQUJ::NO,
Respondent,

- versus -

ABDULAH C. AQUINO,
Respor; dent.

x-------------------------- -------------~
. - O\' 1?>-\ ?-,
-eOSif..0---·. . ----'--
ft; rrt'(.Iil'l(;;~\~'
,..,, ,J
f'1"1 ~ii. ,1. ~
-\"'' ~
t "' i;;...
PETITION
A
,....... ___\__~ ...,\-----
l<llf} (
1

_, ~ '·-·'
...r\D\l'::<-•
OMES NOW, the petitioner, by counsel, unto this l

Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully . files tl1is

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON @ERTIORARI. .

PA1RTIES
1. Amadea Angela K. Aquino is of legal ag<r ,. Filipino,
single and a resident of New York, U.S.A., and can be served
with court proce!sses at c/o Cariaga Law Offices, ~:,=, Cariaga
Bldg., Mt. Apo St., Davao City;

2. - Rodolfo, C. ,l\quino is of legal age, Filipino; married, a

resident of Davao City and can be served Vlfith court
processes at c/o Atty. ueranie C. Yangyang-Espejo and Atty.

\j\
fO·Y\ l1) ~,-
 I
;
1

13 1

Jess Zachaet: B. Es:peJo, R:m. 5, 2F, Bahista Bldg., Palma Gil

St., Davao City;

3. Abdulah C..Aquino is of legal age, Filipino, rnarried, a

resident. of Davao City and can be served \Nith legal
processes at c/o ACCRA Law Office, 11 F, Pryce Tower, Pryce
Business Park, J.P . Laurel Ave., Davao City.

. .,,.
STATEM·ENT OF MATERIAL DATES .

On Februarv 21, 20y3, petitioner received a copy of the

Decision 1 dated Janualif 21, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
reversing and sE.itting aside the Order2 dated April 22, 2005
of the Regior1al Tiial Court, Branch 14, Davao City· as well as
its Order3 dated March 6, 2008.

/
On March 8, 2013, · petitioner flied a Motion for
Reconsiderabon 4 thereto. However, on Augus0, 2013,
d July 24,
petitioner received a copy of the Resolution 5 datE1
2013 rendered· by the Court of Appeals denying ·::he Motion
for Reconsideration.

On August~ 23, 2013, petitioner filed a 1;1otion for

Extension. of Tirr\e (To File Petition for Review or· Certiorari
Under Rule 45) 6 • The due dete for the Petition for Review on
Certiorari Under Rule 45 is on September 22, 201:~ as stated
in the said Motion. Hence, considering that September 22,
2013 is a Sunday, the instant petition is filed on September
23, 2013 ..

1
The duplicate original cclpy ;)f whic:h is hereto attached as Annex ''A ...
2
The certified true copy of wfrich is.hereto attached as Annex "B." 'I
3
The certified true cop,y of w:1foh Js hereto atti)checl as Annex "C "
4
The duplicate origimtt copy Qf which is hereto attached as Annex "D.''
5
The duplicate origina:l copy 1)f whidi is here~o attached as Annex "E."
6
The duplicate originftl copy of which is lu~rnio attriched as Annex ''F.''

2
 (1,
1
11 1

,11
il,l
!:f
l1
14 I[,
,,.,
ii
·'I
'!
PREFATORY STATEMENT

The facts in this case are undisputed. The lone issue is

whether or not the petitioner is entitled to clairri from the
It/
estate of her paternal grandfather Miguel T. Aquino !1

considering that· she :was openly, publicly and continuously d

11·
1I
.li
recognized by her grandffather and the rest of the Aquino
clan prior to the farmer's death. However, the fact that i
11
i:'
fueled the pr,esent ~se is that petitioner was born after the
death of her father, Arturo C. Aquino, the son of Miguel T. l
11
1,1

Aquino. Resultingly, the then i'mpending marriag:e between 'I

her father and m·nther was overtaken by the forffier's death "I
I
and most unfortunately, petitioner was not given the chance
to be formally acknowledged by her late father cis she was I
born after his death.

The unansvverable questions now are: firstly,, how was

petitioner to fi\e for recognition when her father had
suddenly died prior to her birth? A formal recognition is
impossible in law considering that all modes of recognition
for petitioner can be achieved only during the lifetime of the
putative parent. Secondly, rnust she be fated tD feel the
discrimination or illegitimacy when her illegitimate status
was only due to the uncontrollable fact of her father's death
overtaking the , latter's then impending marriage with
petitioner's moth.er? There existed no legal impl• diment to
marry between. petitioner's , parents then savt~ for the
impediment of death.,
,a,

',

The petitioner's case is novel. There is a lega,I vacuum

hounding her unfortunate predicament. What the; petitioner
sought to make the Court of Appeals consider is that there is
no law governing her situation.

Converselyn the open, public and ;:ontinuous

re·cognition of the petitioner by her grandfather· Miguel T.
Aquino as his ~~:randdaughter, is clearly appan~nt in the
badges of recog:rTiNon that were freely given to. petitioner
(Angela, here·ina'lter) in her grandfather's lifetime. 1

'.\
 15
. .

First, it was not dE?nied that the Aquino clan, most

. importantly the deceased himself, ackn0wledg.ed her as the
: child of his son,· Arturo, and that it was only the untimely
: death of the latter that prevented Angela's parents from
· actually. getting n1arried.
!

Second, it 1'.vas not denied that "Amadea" which is part

of Angela's first .nan1e was the nam-esake of the 'decedent's
first wife who is the mother of Angela's father.

Third, it is• not dent:ed that immediately after Angela

was born, she clnd her n1other, Susan Kuan lived with the
Aquino fam'lly at their ancestral home at Cabag.uio St.,
Davao ·City.

Fourth, it is not denied that the decedent himself

remembered An(Jela, fondly called "Maggie" by the Aquino
clan, and gJave her a parcel of commercial lot,· the
possession of whi-ch was thereafter delivered to Angela.

Lastly, there is no question that Angela wc::s born on

October 8, 1978 or 272 days, or less than 9 months from
h~r father's untfrne:ly death on January 10, 1978, and that
she was conceived and born at the time wher11 both her
parents· were not suffering frorn any impediment. to marry
which was never challenged or denied by the respondents.
This was the cogent reason why the deceased himself
acknowledged his filiation to Angela by providiFi§J for her
education, takinq care of her in his own house, :::iupporting
her throughout !"'1is lifetirrle"; giving her a part of his estate
before he cited,. and so on, so why should his children
exclude her 1n his estate when he hirnself did not?

, Were she 2: "total stranger" to the family as they now

claim, why wcAS she . given the extra-ordinaiy special .
treatment that st1e enjoyed? The other heirs have not
shown any special circumstance on the part of Angela that
warrants such special treatment by them an;-:! by the
decedent. Are they willing to sacrifice their conscence for a
few thousands of pesos that could help their ·own niece in
the flesh eke opt a life of her own? When Uie ti91;1=· of
resurrection comes/ as it will surely come to all m·:~n born :of
woman (Job 14; 1), wrn they be able to face thr!ir brother

L\
 16
(Arturo) and look at him straight in. the eye for what tl1ey
are doing?

The oth,er heirs faile:d to convincingly disprove, much

less deny, the ·claims of Angela. The absence of any
impediment to marry between Angela's parents prior to her
late father's death and the clear bad9es of recognition freely
given to Angela. by her grandfather and the rest of the
...
Aquino clan rnust be taken into consideration .

Equity and compassion ought to be applied to fill the

legal vacuum and to improve the status of Angela "':'ho is a
victim · of legal techni'ca·lities that reduced her to an
unwanted, unrecognized and unloved child despite the
badges of recognition that were then lovingly given to her in
her grandfatl,er's lifetin1e.

i
"Let us not apply the letter of the law the·.~ kills but
rather the spirit of the law that gives life.,.,.

ST,!\TEMENT OF THE FACTS

The following are the undisputed antecedent facts

which convinced the lower court to rule in favor of 'Angela:
.
Angela was born as .... Amaclea Angela K. Aquino on
October 9, 1978, being the child of Arturo Aquinc; by Susan
Kuan, both of whom were not suffering i:rom any
impediment to. ·marry each other at the time: she was
conceived; 1

.Unfortunately, Arturo Aquino died on January 10, 1978;

It was Arturo Aquino's family, particularly his father,

Miguel T, Aqufrio (the late grandfather of Angela and
hereinafter referred to as decedent), who provided for the
medical expenses of the yet unborn child of his son. Pre-
natal check-ups· on Susan Kuan, mother of Angela, were
made by the Aquino family doctor" Dr. Rizalina Pangan. Dr .
Pangan was also the attending doctor when Susan Kuan
gave birth to An~•ela;

5
 17

Immediately after she was born, Angela and her

mother lived with the Aquino fa111ily at their ancestral home
at Cabaguio St., Davao City;
..
A little over a month after her birth, or on: November
11, 1978, Angel~1: was baptized as Amadea Angelq K. Aquino
at the Mother of Perpetual Help Parish, Bajada, c,avao City.
One of her godparents was Abdulah Aquino, brother of her
father, Arturo Aquino, who is also a respondent in this
petition and the ·ap~ointed administrator of the es1tate of the
decedent;

From the tirne of her birth until the present, Ang'ela has
been recognized by the Aquino clan as the natural child of
Arturo Aquino. In fact, prior to her trip to the U.S.A., she
was residing at the Aquino clan's ancestral home at
Cabaguio St., Davao City together with the sur1; 1 iving wife
(2nd wife) of' the decedent;

At the time when Angela resided in Manila with her

mother, the decedent, when he was still alive, used to visit
her regularly and provided for her needs like food and
clothing. The decedent even gave her some extra money
whenever she w~s slated to travel abroad for vacati,on;
\
The decedent supported Angela since her ,birth and
spent for her education from kinder to college .. , He even
took out a subscription with the College Assu,:ance Plan
(CAP) as grandfather for the benefit of Angela; ·
..
Shortly befpre the decedent died, on July /, 1999 at
11 :45 p.m., he :dictated the distribution of the more valuable
properties of h!s estate to his son, herein rE!Spondent,
Rodolfo Aquino, and to hiis grandson, Miguel Aqufno, whose
nickname. is Miko. Such distribution is recorded .entirely in
the handwriting of Miko and signed by herein respondent
and Miko Aquino. In the said document, the decedent gave·
a parcel of co-mnlercial lot identified as "Lot infront of LT.A.,
Bo lean Street" (:covered by TCT l\lo.. T-73656) to Angela
whom the decedent fondly calls as "Maggie". : Shortly
thereafter, decedent's heirs, particularly Miguel. Luis "Miko"
Aquino, delivered posses;sion of the said lot .to Angela
wherein the two lessees thereon are paying the rental

(i
 18

directly to her. ,L\ngeia is Nkewise known among ffiembers of

the Aquino clan as "Maggie";

The decedent, grandfather of .Angela, was a ,•vefl-known

operator of a cockpit in Davao City, popularly kn(::iwn as the
"Aquino Coliseurn". At the back of som.e of the chairs in the
said coliseum are printed the name "MAGGIE" and all those
who sit on the said chairs are collected a fee which are all
given to An9ela for her support;

The employees-of the Aquino clan also kno\A~ Angela to

be a member of the Aquino fan1ily.. The same fact is also
well-known in the community;

Decedent . died last July 5, 1999 in Dc:·1vao City,

Philippines. Thereafter, respondent Rodolfo C. Aquino filed
the Petition for lntestate Estate of the late Miguel T. Aquino
dated May 7, 2003, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
33 (later re-raffled to Branch 14) of Davao City, which was
docketed as Special Proceeding No. 6972-2003;

However, wb;en respondent Rodolfo C. Aquino, filed the

Petition dated May 7, 2003 for the settlement of ,the estate
of the late MiguGI T. Aquino, Angela was practically excluded
as heir of the c1ecedent. For this reason, Angela, through
counsel, filed a Motion to be Included in the Distribution and
Partition of the i:state 7 on the ground that she if~ a natural
child of Arturo C..Aquino, the son of the decedent who
predeceased hirn, following J:he doctrine laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Tongoy, · et. al vs. Court of
Appeals 8, which will be hereafter discussed. Thus . by virtue
of her right of representation, she is entitled tc whatever
share her fatheL Arturo, is supposed to get in the subject
estate. ·
I '

On November 12, 2003, respondent Rodolfo C. Aquino

filed an oppositi(Jn 9 to the motion assailing Angela's claim of
heirship and rep·"esentation. Conversely, in the Cr)mment to
the Petitionic dated November 14, 2003 and Sur-':~ejoinder11

7
The certified true copy of ; 1hich is hereto attached as Annex "G ... ,
8

9
d.R. No. L-45645, June 28, 1983
The certified true c,opy of<vhich is hereto attache.d as Annex "I-I''
10
The certified true copy of :vhich is hereto attached as Anm~x "'I."

------··----- -- .. :·.·.·····:··,-· .. :: ··---------·. ·'c--,.,~. ·-·-

 19

dated December 181 2003 filed by respondent J.\bdulah c .

. Aquino, he had exhausti,vely explained the fact of partial
· settlement of the estate of the decedent. It is significant to
• note that one. of the. subjects of the said partial settlement of
' estate is the lot in Bolca-n St., Agdao, Davao City covered by
TCT No. 73656 which w:as given by the decedent to the
petitioner, Ama dea Angela "Maggie" Aquino. · He even 1

reproduced the: instructi@ns of the decedent in , the said

Comment and anne·xed a copy of the instructions :which was
duly recorded in the writing ·ot the Administrator's son,
Miguel Luis Aqtlii;)0 and signed by both the respondent
Rodolfo Aquino and Miguel Luis Aquino.

Motions, rejoinders, oppositions, comments and

12
manifestations were thereafter filed by both parties in
support of their 1;.laims and allegations.

However, ciU the above-stated badges .of recognition

were NEVER disputed by the parties despite the numerous
pleadings· thQy fi!:ed in opposition to the motion of Angela to
be included in the grant of allowances that the ·others are
enjoying from the estate of the decedent;

Finally, on April 22, 2005, the Regional T;,~ial Court,

Branch 14 issue~ tile First Assailed Order 13 ruling Jn favor of
Angela, to quote.' the dispositive portion: '

"xxx

Accordingly, An,c.1dea Angela K. Aquinc

is herebv considered an acknowledgec;
na,turaJ child or· legiti,nated child o(
Arturo C. Aquino, for purposes of
detern1ining her share in the estate or
her grandfather, Miguel T~ Aquino, in
--------
11
··-·--· ····--·---·-----···•··--··· ····-·--··
The certified true cQpy of (vh ich is hereto attached as Annex '" J .''
12
The certified true c,opies of which are hereto attached as lhllows: Rejoinder to ACAquino's Comment to
the Petition dated November 14,2003 as Annex "K''; Manifestation and Reply to Opposfton as Annex "L";
Motion for Distribution of Residue of Estate or for Allowance to the Heirs as Annex ''M"; Opposition to
Motion for Distributio11 of R(; ~Ji due of Estate or for Allowar1cc to the Heirs as Annex "N"; Comment on the
Motion for DistributiM of i~:Csidue of Estate or for Allowance to the Heirs as Annex "O"; Motion to
Prohibit Claimant Amadea Angela Kuan Aguino from Doing Acts Against the Wishes of the Legal Heirs of
the .Deceased Miguei T. Aquino as Annex "P"; Comment to .Motion to Prohibit Clailna•tt Amaden Angela
Kuan Aquino from Doing; Actis Against the Wishes of the Legal Heirs of the Deceased Miguel T. Aquino as
Annex "Q"; .Joint Opposition to the:Motions for .Reconsideration filed by Abdullah C. Aquino and Rodolfo
Aquino of the 22 April 200S Order as Annex "R''; Reply to the Joint Opposition rn the Motions for
Reconsideration (Of the Hon~irable Corni's 22 Apdl 2005 Order) ;is Annex ··•s".
13
Please see Annex "f'l''.

~ •. .,~•~ - ~ ... ..,.,, ,.~••,• ,; • ..,•.;-,•.,,~,.,.,,,_,,_ 'm~•••• ••~.,,...• ... - - • - • • • • - • · • • • • • •• ,:•• >•:·••-;,;:"•":= •-•-~•;;:;:;;.c;..;;,;..;.;;•;.:,~-::::.--::::-:;·~•----;:-.,c;• ._,., __ _
.• -··--· •-- . --··-_::;_,;,;;·,:;-·-~"--·-"===c--.-'--..C...-""~==--'-~-
 20

representation of her father Arturo, an,:J

pending the distribution of the residual
estate.,. the Administrator is hereby
directed to immediate give . her a
monthly allowance of P64,000. oo upo,:,
the /atter's postin.g a bond or
P100,000.00.

SO ORDERED,.

XXX.": .,.
. ;

Herein respondents filed their respective Motions for

Reconsidera:tion 14 which were both denied by the trial court
in the Order15 dated March 6, 2008, citing the landmark case
of Tongoy et., al vs. CA (G.R. No. L-45645) June.. 28, 1983,
pertinent portion of which states:

"xxx .estoppel should operate in . thi.{"

·ca~e ·in favor of' appellees, considering
that they hav.e always been treated a:::
acknol(llledged and legitimate children at=
Franci;~co Tongoy, not only by th~,:
presurmed parents who raised them a:r
their children, but also of the entire
Tongoy-Sonora clan xxx only the
technicality that their acknowledgment
as rnodes prescribed by law appears to
stand·:tn the way of granting them their
hereditary rights. But estoppel preclude:/
defendants from attacking appellees:'
1

status as acknowledged natural or.

legitim:ated children of Francisco
Tongov. II'

Aggrieved, respondents appealed the April: 22, 2005

·Order. dedaring Arnadea Angela K.. Aquino as an
acknowledged n;.:iitural chil:d of the late Arturo C. A,quino, and
th:e March 6, 2008 Order of the trial court dF,~nying the
motions for rec;onsideration filed by Rodolfo A>::iuino and
Abdulah Aquint:>. In respondent · Abdulah · c.: Aquino's

---------··---·-··--·----
14 The certified true t:opies c.f which are hernto attached as Annex ... T" and "T-1 ".
15
Please see Annex ···c " :1:
!
9
 21

appellant's .brief, appellant made the fol'.l'owing ass:ignment of

errors:

By the facts and the law, as well as the

overt acts ·of the heirs of Miguel T.
Aquino, it cannot properly or lawfully be
held tha.t any;one · Is estopped · fron'. 1

denying Amadea's claimed filiation.

Evidently, the trial' court erroneously
relied on what is altogether inapplicabl,:•
Jurispru<i€nce1 and made erroneou:::
assumptions of facts not proved.

The t/ial court erroneously disregardec}

applicable la·ws and Jurisprudence when
it unilaterally declared Amedea as an
ackno)ivledged natural or legitimated
child· of Arturo C. Aquino, and granted.
her pr-aver for allowance as an heir,
when the law absolutely bars such
prayer.

At any rate 1 even if it 1Nere assumed

sotely for argument's sake, that Amadeiif
indeed is the legitimate child of Arturo
I

C. Aquino, under the law, she is sti,'.f

absolutely barred frorn inheriting al.;1
intesta1to from the decedent .Miguel t
Aquino .
.,,,

On January 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a

16
Decision reversing and setting aside the assailed Orders of
the trial court stating, among others, that:

11
Furthrermore, while Amadea claims that
the Aquino clc1n had since her birt/'i
recognized her as the natural child of
Arturo · and have even enumerated
events and circumstances of suc/p
recogrritfon,,
,
it 1:s however ineffectual foJ-
--------·····--, ·----··--····-
16 Please see Annex "'A."

10
 22
under t:he law, the recognition must b€:
m'iJide personally by the putative paren,'.
and not by any brother, sister or
relatlv~J. Nence, no amount of overt
acts o{ the decedent fvN'gu:el T. Aquinci
and the Aquino clan which rnay seem 2;
recognition of her as the daughter oF
Art:uro.: could translate to a legal
recognition of her as the illegitimate
child ot Arturo .
. '(//11

Beside:J, granting arguendo that'

Amadea has indeed proven that she iB
an illegitimate child of Arturo, still as
argued by appellants and to which we
agree, Amadea cannot inherit from thr
decedent Miguel T. Aquino because of
the prohibition laid down in Art. 922 of
the New Civil Code or what is. sci
commonly referred to in the rules od
succession as the principle of absolute
11

separation between the legitimatcl

family :and the illegitimate family" which
providc"Js, to wit.~

Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no

right · (o inherit ab intestato from thl;
',1)
legJtirnate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children
or relatives inherit in the same manner ·
from tlie lllegltirna.te child.

Hence, if indeed Amadea 1s an

illegitia,ate child of Arturo, the law
however prohibits her from inheritin9
througl? intestate succession from her
father \4rturo's legitimate relative, in this
case the latter's father, the deceden.f
Miguel T. Aquino. While the provision of
the la:w may seem to be partial tq
illegitirnate children, the law as it iti
howev/?.r should be applied. xxx" ·

11
 23

Angela then filed a Motion for Reconsideration 17 on

March 8, 2013. Howeve:r, the Court of Appeals denied the
same.

Hence 1 this Petition.

ALLOWANCE FOR THE PETITION FOR R.EVIEW

...
The instant petition for review limits its sc:ope to the
legal vacuum .surrounding the case of petitioner which
presen_ts the legal issue of whether or not p·etitioner is
entitled to dairr1 from the estate of her paternal grandfather
Mi_guel T. Aquino considering that she was not formally
recognized by her late father (Miguel T. Aquino's son) as all
modes of recognition provided by law are barred by her
father's death prior to her birth and petitioner's illegitimate
status was not }mproved due also to the death of her late
father prior to tt·ve latter's n1arriage to petitioner's mother.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

Petitioner ,Angela's heavy reliance on th 12 case of

Tongoy, et al vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-4!'5645, June
28, 1983 is not mainly anchored on the facts
~ .
of the said
case but on the, :ppplication of 'the doctrines of estoppel and
equity by the H9norable Supren1e Court in its rulir~g over the
said case.

In the cast~ of Tongoy, the Supreme Cou1t took the

liberal view and had done away with the acknowledgment of
children although it was stated as a requirement by
law then, to wit:

" It is time that WE,., too, take a liber~I view in

favor of natura:i children who, because they
enjoy the blessings ancl privileges )f an
--------··-------. --- .....
17
Please see Annex ''D."

12
 24

acknowl:ed:ged 11:atural child and even of a

leg:itimated child, found it rather awkw,ird, if
.not unn,ecessary, to institute an action for
recognition agaimst their natural parents, who,
without their asking, have been showering
them vyith the same love, care and material
support as ate accorded to legitimate
children. The. night to parbcipate in their
father's inheritarnce should necessarily follow."
.,.
In relation ;to the present predicament of Angela, she
had enjoye'CJ "th·e same love, care and material support as
are accorded to legitimate children" such as the Tongoy
children. In fact., the only reason that Angela had not been
formally acknowled9ed through any of the modes allowed by
law is the sad fact that her father had died even ·before she
was born even though her father, along with her mother,
had no lega:I im,~ediiment to marry each other and were in
fact planning to: get married,. Nevertheless, as1 a general
rule in law, due to the absence of marriage between her
parents, Angela. has no rights whatsoever. However, this
general rule admits of an exception as held ir~. , the case
above-stated case of Tongoy, to wit:

"In the hitherto cited case of Ramos vs,.

Ramos, supra, the Supreme Court
showed the wav out of' patent injustice.
and it;;:equity that might result in some
cases 'simply beeause of the implacable
insistence on the technical amenities for
acknowledgment. Thus, it held -
I

'Unacknowledged natural children hav,?.

no rights whatsoever (Buenaventura VE,
Urbanp, 5 Phil. 1; Siguiong vs. Siguiong~
8 PhiJ. 5, 11; Infante v.s. Figueras, 4.
Phil. 738; Crisolo vs. Macadaeg, 94 Phi!:,
862). The fact that the plaintiffs, a:5
naturhl children of Martin Ramos.
receiv;ed shares in his estate implie;t
that 1 they were acknowledgecl.
Obviowsly, defendants Agustin Rames
and Granada Ramos and the late Josi~

13

- - - · --- -----· -----·--- - - · - - - - - - ~ , -

 ,\
1..1

/!,I
11

25 i
i'

Rc1:mo.s and members of his family had

treated them as his children.
PresurnabJy, that fact was well-known in
the community. Under the
circun1stances, Agustin Ramos and
Granada Ramos and the heirs of Jose
Ramo.$.., are estopped from attacking
plaintiffs' status as acknowledged
natural children (See Arts. 283 [4] ant.:!
2666 [3], New Civil Code). [Ramos vs
Ramo:i";l 5'upra].
i·

,With the same logic, estoppe/ should

also .operate in this case in favor of
appel/ees, considering., as already
explained in detail, that they haVt').
always been treated as acknowledgec'
· and legitimated children of the second
m.arriage of Francisco Tongoy, not only
by th,i~ir presumed parents who raised
them ir-Js their children, but' also by the
entire, Tongoy-Sonora clan, including
Luis ,D. Tongoy himself' who · had
furnished sustenance to the clan in his·
capacity as administrator of Hacienda
Pulo a·nd had in fact supported the lav,r
studies of appellee Ricardo P. Tongoy ;/
Manila,. the same way he did with Jesus
T. Sonora in .his medical studies. A:~.
alread\~r pointed out, even defendants:
appellants have lt'fOt questioned the fact
· that appellees are half-brothers of Luis
D. Tongoy, As a matter of fact, they are
really .children of Francisco Tongoy anc;1
Anton,\irya Pabe/10 1 and only thti'
techni-::ality that their acknowledgmeni~
as natural children has not been
formal/zed
'
in any of the modes
'

prescribed by law appears to stand in

the way o.f granting them their
hereditary rights. But' - estoppel, as
already indicated, precludes defendants·:
appellants frorn attacking appellees-1
status as acknowledged natural 01~
lepitimated children of Franciscc1

14
 26

. Tqngoy. In addition to estoppel, this is

decidedly one instance when technicality
shou1cl give way to conscience, equity
and justice (cf. Vda. de Sta. Ana vs,
Rivera, L-22070, October 29, 1966, 18
SCRA 588)" [pp. 196-198; Vol. I, rec.].'

'
The respondents and the other heirs, as aptly noted by
the trial court• in the assailed orders, "did :not deny,
challenge or qualify any of the claims" of Angela.. "They all
rely on technicalities but not one of them belied .the claims
of Angela w·:hich support her position th.at she hi?lS. been in
continuous poss.ession of= the status of an acknowledged
natural child of Arturo Aquino 18 ." Hence, all the
circumstances of. esto·ppel are correctly and rightfully
applicable.

.
From the a.hove discussion, it can be gleanE:d that the
Honorable Supren,e Court, out of considerations, of justice
and equity, had. understood the plight of the Tongoy children
who were in dang:er of losing what was rightfully :theirs due
to a technica:lity ;created by law and applied the d:Jctrines of
estoppel and equity to uplift the status of the Tongoy
children. The same consideration is being sought out by
Angela as it bears str:essing that she had enjoyed the same
recognition and support from the Aquino clan as that given
also to the Tong:®Y children by the Tongoy-Sonont clan. For
the sake of emp~1asis, the situation of Angela, who had been
publicly and continuously recognized by the decedent Miguel
T. Aquino as hi:s granddaughter, is herein reproduced as
follows:

One, it was not denied· that tile Aquino clan, most

importantly the deceased himself, acknowledged .:,er as the.
child of his son'" Arturo, and that it was only thi~ untimely
death of the latter that prevented Angela's pa ·ents from
actually getting 1:narried. · 1
,

11
Two, it was not denied that "Amadea whi.ch .is part of
Angela's first nar,ne was the names•ake of the decedent's first
wife who is the .rpother of Angela's father.
·--·- ... -~··--·-··
18
Ibid.

15
 I

2'1

Three, it w,ms not denied that imm;edi:ately alter Angela

was born, $he <':H1.d her nhother, Susan Kuan, lived with the
Aquino famHy . ;:it their ancestral home at Cabaguio St.,
Davao City.

Four, it was not denied that the · decedent himself

remembered An~;Jeta, fonidly called "Maggie" .by the Aquino
clan, and gave her a: parcel of commercial , lot, the
possession C):f the same
,.,. w:as thereafter delivered to Angela.

And five, tl~;ere was no ·question that Angel;;1 .was born

on October 8, 1~78 or 272 days, or less than 9 mlo.nths from
her father's unttmely death on January 10, 197t:, and that
she was coniceived at the time when both her pcirents were
not suffering from any impediment to marry ,which was
never chaUenged or der~ied by petitioner. Th(s was the
cogent reason why the deceased himself acknowledged and
treated Ang:ela as his own legitimate granddaughter by
providing far her educ:ati:on, taking care of her -:in his own
house, supp:orti.1:1g her throughout his lifetime, giving her a
part of his estat)~ before he died, and so on. Why should his
children excl:ude her in his estate when he himself did not?

Indeed1 A1r;gela admitted having been born out of

wedlock and after the death of her father, Arturo C. Aquino.
However, the overt acts of the decedent, Miguel .T. Aquino,
and that of the Aquino cl.an show that she was ackrJowledged
as the legitimat<:r daughter of Arturo C. Aquino.
-ti

As aptly ruled by t11e trial court, there are twp ways of

acknowledg:ing a child: ·
I

.
' ''
1. Through :the modes prescribed by law· sucrh as by an
Affidcavit of Legitimation or throu:.gh court
proceedings; and
.•·.

2. By tl1e overt acts of the decedent and/or his relatives

which caln be determined in the testate er intestate
proceedi 1igs of the decedent xxx,

16
 28

Furthe.1rmore, the trial court pertinently mad_e the

following findings:

"In the Motion to be Included in the

Distriqution and Partition of the Estate~.
it is a#eged:

"6. n~
was Arturo Aquino's family;,
particu;larly his father, Miguel Aquino
I
(grandfarher of the movant), who,
provided for the medical expenses of ·
the yet unborn child of his son. XXX

7. In-,mediately after she was born.,

herein movant and her mother lived
with the Aquino fan1i/y at their ancestral
home >'<XX

8. xxx one of' her godparents . wa;;;

. ALJdulah Aquino, brother of her fathe1·
XXX

9,. From the time of her birth until at

prese,~,t, herein movant has beeh
recogni/zed by the Aquino clan as th,.::.;'
natur,H child of Arturo Aquino xxx

10. XXX

1.l, l';'l:iguel AquJno supported herein

movant since birth and spent for her·
education from kinder to college xxx

12. The deceased gave a parcel of

commercial lot to the movant xxx
'")
1 .:1. XXX

14, The employees of the Aquino clan

also know movant to be a member c:~
the Aquino fan1ily xxx 11

These aHegations are all admitted b;i-

Abdul('irh C. Aquino in his Comment to

17
 29

the Petition on November 17, 2003.

Furthe'rmore, n1ovant was na:med after .
her grandmother Amadea c. Aquino, the
mother of her lat'e father, Arturo
Aquino, N

In view thereof, Angela has been in continuous

possession of the status of a legitimate child. True enough,
she was not formally acknowledged as such because of the
untimely death of""her father. However, she acquired her
legitimate fiHation by the positive and overt acts of the
Aquino clan. Th~:' acts of the ·decedent, Miguel T. \quino are
1

more than mere.benevolence. He treated Angela c,s h·er true,

legal and leg:itimate granddaughter..

As in the Ci;:se of Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, estoppel

should operate· in favor of Angela.. The Suprt:·me Court
decision is dear :i111 this case when It stated that: .

"xxx i-1stoppel should operate in this

case in favor of appellees1 considering
that t1;11ey have always been treated as
acknowledged and legitirnate children of
Francisco Tongovl'. not only by the
presur(Je.d parents who raised them as .
their children, but also of the entin~
Tongoy-Sorona clan xxx only tht;
technicality that their acknowledgmen(: .
as ni;ttural children has not been .
formal/zed in any of' the mode; 7
prescribed by law appears to stand in
the wav of granting them their
hereditary rights. But estoppel precludes
defenqants from attacking appelleei·
status· as acknowledged natural o,:·
legitirnated children of Franciscc~
11
Tongoy.

In the pres.\ent case, there was no way th.e :parents of

Angela could h'.ave gotten married.. Their marriage was
thwarted by the untimely demise of Angela's. father, Arturo
C. Aquino. However, this fact did ·not preclude the decedent,

lR
 30

and in fact, the whole Aquino clan, from treating Angela as

their own. The Supreme Court in Its Tongoy vs. Court of
Appeals decision was emphatic in this respect when It
stated, "they have always been treated as
acknowledged and legitimate children of Francisco
Tongoy, not only by the presumed parents who raised
them as their children, but also of the entire Tongoy-
Sorona clan." The Aquino clan is now estopped from
denying the fact that they have always treated Angela as the
acknowledged natural or legitimated child of Arturo C.
Aquino. -

Pr~scinding .:from the foregoing discussion, it is incorrect

to apply Article. 992 of New Civil Code which prohibits
1

illegitimate children from inheriting ab intestato from the

relatives of the legitimate relatives of his parents. However,
by the acts of the decedent and the rest of the Aquino clan,
Angela is considered by them as an acknowledged natural
child or a legitimated child of the late Arturo Aquino, the
latter being the child of decedent, Miguel T. Aquino. Hence,
they are stopped from questioning her filiation now and she
can succeed her father by right of representation fully and in
every respect.

'
At first blush, it would seem that the iron curtain rule
poses a problem-'. Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides
a ;barrier or iron curtain wherein it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and
the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother
of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of
blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes
behind Article 992. Between the legitimate family and the
illegitimate family, there is presumed to be an intervening
antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is
disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the
family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child; the latter.
considers the privileged condition of t·~e former, and the
resources of wh_ich it is thereby deprived; the former, in
turn, sees in the· illegitimate child nothing but the product of
sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law
does more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further
grounds of resentment. 19
19
Diaz, et al. v. IAC, et al., L-66574, June 17, 1987

19
 31

The answer to the above perceived problem is supplied

by the Code Commission. The Code Commission is of the
belief that an illegitimate child can represent a person who is
a legitimate child, and it gives, as reason Article 982, which
states that "the grandchildren and other descendants shall
inherit by right of representation." The Commission further
states that the terms "grandchildren and descendants," if
correctly understood, refer to both legitimate and
illegitimate off-spring (Memorandum to the Joint
Congressional Committee on Codification, February 22,
1951). .,.

Moreover, in the instant case, the presumption given

by the Supreme Court, that there is an intervening
antagonism and incompatibility, is definitely not present,
based on the following circumstances:

(a) The grandfather, Angela's uncle (respondent

Abdulah C. Aquino), and the whole Aquino clan have
acknowledged her as the natural child of her deceased father
before the filing ;of the petition for the settlement of estate;

(b) Angela- grew up in the ancestral home of the

Aquinas and her education was supported by the decedent.
She was even given a portion of her inheritance by the
decedent, so that upon his death, the latter would be sure
that a certain lot would be inherited by the former. Surely, if
there was antagonism and incompatibility towards her, those
affectionate acts would never have been bestowed upon her.

Further, let. it not be fprgotten that the law is based on

considerations of justice. The law should be interpreted to
strengthen what is right and just. In the application of
Article 992 of the Civil Code, the barrier created by law can
be interpreted as that between legitimate and illegitimate
immediate families considering that the spirit behind such
barrier is the presumed animosity between them. However,
th.at premise does not exist in the case at bar. The father of
Angela had no other immediate family except for her, as his
daughter, and her mother with the only reason for non-
marriage being that said marriage was overtaken by the
sudden death of Angela's father. Thus, there is no
"legitimate family" created by her father that can harbor ill-
feelings toward :,Angela which would supposedly create the
barrier being presumed by Article 992.

20
 ~
32
(
:t
· Moreov€ff, the pre:sun1ed ani:mosity between the :1
I
,,'I
supposed· leg,itimate and illegitimate famili-es ca:n also be !i"i
· interpreted t.o exist betwten ·immediate famHies only. The i'/!
:·

grandfather, lik_e: in this instant case, cannot be presumed to !!'r

:1,
;i!
hate his own g'randchiJd. There cannot be a : presumed 'i)
\l
barrier between .a grandfather and his own flesh and blood. ,I

The term "relatives" used in Article 992 can be taken to /I

mean collaten:}I relatives only and not to include

grandparents w~10 are from the ascending direct )ine of the
grandchild. Ag,JlJn, grandparents cannot be presumed to
hate their own )grandchild, ·who is of their own: flesh and
blood.

From the foregoing, it can be clearly deduced that there

is indeed a !:egal vacuum hounding the present predicament
of Angela. Without any seeming recourse in law, she now
falls victim to the stringent technicalities brought about by
th·e protection veil of Article 992. However, as already
explained above, the situation of Angela vis-a-vis the Aquino
clan is not one sought to be pacified by Article 992. On the
contrary, the bad9es of recognition enumerated al:iove would
reveal that there was no animosity _between Ange.la and the
Aquino clan and in fact, Angela was conside1;ed as an
acknowledg.ed arid legitimate mernber of the Aduino clan.
Consequently,_ Angela should be allowed to suco~ed to the
estate of the ! decedent by virtue of her · right of
representation a~ the child of the decedent's soi:i, the late
Arturo C. Aquino; .1 ,

With this interpretatiori of the law in mind, our courts

which are not only courts of law but also courts of equity,
and can base dedsions over cases on the natural concept of
what is just and what is fair, it is proper for this Honorable
Supre1·ne Court to relax the strict appliecJ1tion and
interpretation of t!1e law and rather apply equitable
principles and interpretations as discussed above in this
instant case.

21
 33

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully

prayed that the l,onorable Supreme Court render Judgment:

1. Reversing and se.tting aside the Decision dated

January 2;1, 2013 of the Court of Appeals and
reinstating the Orders of the Regional Trial Court,
Branct'l 14, Davao City, dated April 22, 2005 and
March 6, 2008;

2. Dedari1ing Amadea Angela K, Aquino as legal heir

of the ·:decedent, Miguel T. Aquino , and allowing
her to lnherit from the intestate estate ,Jf the said
decedent by virtue of her right of representation
as the child of decedent's son, the late Arturo C.
Aquino·, with entitlement to an allowance from the
estate with same amount as the other heirs
pending the final settlement of the entire estate of
the de.cedent.

Other r-elief, just and equitable, are also respectfully

prayed for.

· Davao City, Philippines, 5'ept~mber 23, 2013.

:· I

CARIAGA LAW OFFICES

nd
,2 Fl 00·-r, Ca:riag:a BiJUding
1

Mt . Apo Stre-et, D~v:ao City

22
 34

By:

'\
~- '1...
~
SUSAN P. CARIAGA
IBP No. 870785-Davao City-0l/0S--/12
PTR No. 1110508-Davao City-01/05/12
.,..
.
Roll of Attorneys No. 38102
.
./ '

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0013956

Issued on 03/13/13 / ' ·

I(AISE&~1so
IBP 912783-Davao City-01/08/201,3
PTR 2324869-Davao City-01/07/2013
Roll of Attorney No. 60003 /
MCLE COMFLIANCE NO. IV-0013955
issued on March 13, 201?,
/

,ti

23
 35
VER1FICA~I:ON ,AND CERvI'Fffi'CATlON . OF
,; NON-FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF. THE PHILIPPINES )

C I TY O F D A VA O - - - - - - -:) SS .
'I \

AMADEA AN0ELA K. AQUINO, of legal age, single, FIiipino, and a

resident of New Yorki ;LJ;$JA., her~in represented by her attorney-ir,i-fact, SUSAN
p. 'CARIAGA, o·f legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Davao City Philippines, I

after being duly.sworn in.accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

She is the petitioner in the above-entitled case;

She caused the: p·r.eparatiom of the foregoing PETITION;

She has 1t_ead tin_:_- e same and aJlege that the contents the;eof are true and
correct of her own personal knowledge or based on authentic/eco:-ds.

She has ,hot c!t>rnmen.ce.cl any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in 1the, S~preme. Col;lrt, the C'o:urt of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other tri1b1mal, or agency, and that to the best of our knowledge, no
such action or pt:oce~_qling 1s pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
differ_ent Divisiof.}. :~-- the:_r:~_:.:of·\·; or any ether tribwnal or agency. And th_:at if we 2ho Id
hereafter learn :t~,at a{s,irmil:ar action or proceeding has been filed or is pe ing
before the Supreme C.burt, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or a ency,
we undertake to: reporrr that fa:ct within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.

IN WITNiSS \~HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of

1
September, 201:3, at IJ.avao City, Philippines. ·

AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO

"'
Herein represented by her attorney-in-fact:

~ ~~ '
SUSAN P. CARIAGA: .
'
SUBSCRl:SED'ANO SWORN to before me thi~s
2 rd day of September,
201 ~' ·at Davao City: -~hil!ppines, affiant exhibitin to me her identification
details as follows -- Phrhppme Passport No. PPXX · 003388 exp on Feb. 12,
2014. 0 · ~:
_-
~ ~~ .

Doc. No. U_; . .-.-: --.. .-v IVIAR BIA - :

Pqge No. _-1{__ ; NnTARYPuaucF~~!~· CUALING
Book No. __:(_._; .NOTARIALU~~i,~;~~BE~ ~~~ 2i'rr OF DAVAO
Series of 20.13 1ap ~i~~ 9~~:SVORNEi~~~~,~~9:;6-2012
PTR NO,: 2325023. 01/10/13. DAVAO CITY
C • 01110/13. DAVAO
2/F CARIAGA ~~~A LAW OFFICES CITY'
., MT. APO ST., DAVAO CITY

24
 \
I,
Ii
i:
1:

6
0 (J'jl:}/£.JIJ[Jl'T:N(J (J'J£J(J!J:}(}1S
~O:NSVLJlrrtE (JP.:NP/RJLL OPP.f{P, <PJll£J(p:J!J:JViES J

:NP,<W rfO<RJ(

oreign Service of the Philippines )

onsulate General of the Philippines )
ew York, New York ) S.S.
nited States of America )

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
..,,..
BEFORE ME, FELIPE F. CARINO III, Consul of the Republic of the
ilippines, in and for the Consular District of New York, duly commissioned
d qualified in the States of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
ssachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode lslana., and
rmont, personally appeared
* AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO *
28 th day of August 2013, known to me to be the same person(s) who
uted the attached document and acknowledged to me that the same is
er/their voluntary act and deed.

This Consulate General assumes no responsibility for the contents of the

ed document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the

the Consulate General of the Philippines to be affixed in the place and on
e above mentioned.

IPE F. CARINO III

Consul

Annexed document is a/an

,0

Special Power of Attorney

Doc. No. 09831

Service No. 0139
Series of2013

This document is not valid if it is altered in any way whatsoever

556 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10036

o. (212)764-1300 Fax No. (212)764-6010 e-mail: newyork@pcgny.net website: www.pcgny.net

! nrn.1e11verea.
NGARA ABELLO CONCEPC]ON j By depositing one (1) copy on Sept. 23, ·1,
REGAL & C:RUZ ! 2013 in the Davao City f'')st Office in a
Counsel for Abduiah C. Aquino sealed envelope, as ,·videnced by
11 u, Flr., Prvce Tower. P1:yce Busilness ____ Re_gislty ____Receipt No. hereto .2i!!...
25
 SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 37

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO, of legal age, natural born Filipino,

single, and a resident of New Yori< City, New Yori<, U.S.A., have named,
constituted and appointed, and by these· presents do hereby name, constitute
and appointA TTY. SUSAN P. CARIAGA, of legal age, Filipino, and with
residence at Davao City, to be my true and lawful attorney-in-fact, for me and in
my name, place and stead, to represent me in filing a Petition For Review on
Certiorari to the Supreme Court, Manila, in G.R. NO. _ _ _ _ (CA-G.R. CV
NO. 01633-MIN), entitled: "AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO, Petitioner vs.
RODOLFO C. AQUINO, Respondent vs. ABDULAH C. AQUINO, Respondent",
with authority to sign and execute for and in my behalf the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping in said petition and all other documents and
!!
subsequent pleadings that il€ed to be signed and verified.

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to do and perform every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to
be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or
could do -if personally present and acting in person and hereby ratifying and confirming.
all that my said attorney-in-fact shall lawfully do or cause to be done under and by virtue
of these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day of

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , at _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

AMADEAAN

() Signed in the Presence of :

o J ~ C ~ 1- <? /ft(,~. :;.~/s

-9

. .____,_____ __ji:1~deliv~~:~~:l. ·
. :· , · .
ANGARA AB'ELLO-CON"CEPCJlON / By depositing one (1). copy on Sept. 23,\
REGAL & CRUZ 12013 in the Davao City P1st Office in a
· Counsel for Abdu1ah C. Aqui1to sealed envelope, as 1\videnced by
th
11 Flr., Prvce_:r~~':.ll:• Pry~':_~usiin_ess ___ R~stry ___ Receipt No. 22:!Z_ hereto

25
 38

REPUBLIC OF THE FHILIPPINES)

CITY OF DA VA.0 ---------·----------·-) SS.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Sarah Jane B. Manalo, of legal age., Filipino, married and with postal
address at 2nd Flr, Cariaga Bldg., Mt. Apo St., Davao City, after being duly
sworn to in accordance with la,,v, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the derk of the Cariaga Law Offices;

2. On SeptemberJ3, 2013 l served a copy of the following:

,,.PETITION"

In G.R. NO. . (CA-G.R. CV No. 01633 -MIN, Sped.al Proc. No.

6972-03, RTC-Davao City, Branch 16), entitled "AMADEA ANGELA K
AQUINO, Petitioner, vs. RODOLFO C. AQUINO and ABDULAl..i: C. AQUINO,
Respondents," pursuant to Section 7, 1] and l3 of the Rules of Court, by
registered mail on:
------------------- --· By depositing nineteen (19) on Sept. 23,
SUPREME COURT 2013 in the Davao City Post Office in a
Padre Fau.ra St., Etmita, Manila sealed envelope, as evidenced by
?-//7 -147-ii
Registry Receipt No. ·-=3 /7 he.t@tG
attached and indicated .ifter the name ?J7]:
of the addressee, and with insh·uctions
to the postmaster to retr(rn the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
f-------"'-·--·--··-·------·---··----·-·--·---· ·------
By depositing one (1) on Sept. 23, 2013
in the Davao City Post Office in a
:~ealed envelope, as evidenced by
COURT OF APPEALS Registry Receipt No. ?zlf:? hereto
TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION 1
attached and indicated a.fter the name
Cagayan de Oro Cit\7 ""' of the addressee., and wiih instructions ,I' '\I'.:
to the poshnaster to return the mail to ... ,.
~

the sender after ten (10) days if

undelivered. '
>--------·---- ---·---·. ---·---- ........- ........ ·-··------·-.. ----I-------------------
{3y depositing one (1) on Sept. 23, 2013
. in the Davao City Post Office in a
REGIONAL. TRiAL COURT sealed envelope, as l.~videnced by
BRANCt'i 16 Registry Receipt No. ·7J(1 hereto
Hall of Justice attached and indicated dter the name
Ecoland, Davao Citv of the addressee, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten '(10) days if
undelivered. ·
1
ANGARA ABELLO :O1':CEPC]ON I By d~positing one (1! co1:.1y on S~pt._23, 1
,

REGAL & 1....-RUZ i 2013 m the Davao City f'')st Office m a

Counsel for Abdu·tah C Aquino sealed envelope, as ,.'videnced by
11 Flr., Prvce Tower:, Pryce Busiiness ___ Re:Jiistry Receipt
th No. '22:!!._ hereto

25
 39
Park, J.P. Laurel Ave., attached and indicated after the name
Davao City of the addressee, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten {10) days if
undelivered. :
ATTY. LIELANIE C YANGY.ANG-· By depositing one (1) copy, on Sept. 23,
ESPEJO 2013 in the Davao City Post Office in a
ATTY. JESSZACH.AEL B. ESPEJO sealed e.nvelope, as evidenced by
Counsel for Rodolfo C. Aquino Registry Receipt No. /'Jd-/ hereto
2nd Floor, Room 5. Babista Bldg., attached and indicated after the name
Palma Gil St., Davno Citv··' of the addressee, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to
..., the sender after ten .(10) days if
undelivered.
HEIRSOR WILFREDO C. AQUINO By depositing one (1) copy on Sept. 23,
c/ o Mrs. Linda T. Aquino 2013 in the Davao· City Post' Office in a
J.P. Cabaguio Ave., Davao City· sealed envelope, as evidenced by
Reg.istry Receipt No. 22...2:2.. hereto
attached and indicated after the name
1
of the addressee, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
··-··-·····-t------------------------------,
MRS. ENERIE B. AQUINO By depositing one (1) copy on Sept. 23,
J.P. Cabagufo Ave., Davao Citv iI 2013
in the Davao City
.
Post Office in a
' sealed envelope, as evidenced by
\·
Registry Receipt No. :?;)?) hereto
attached and indicated after the name :~\

of the addressee, and with instructi_ons

to the posl1naster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if
. undelivered.
~--------·-·--··---······-····-··-··-•···-··--·-···········L-..- . -----· _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,

3. I hereby certifv that copies of the foregoing PETITION have been

served by registered· mail 'to the i:\~ove named parties, due to. distance and
I
1

impractkality of personal service and filed v,ritb this Honorable Supreme Court, ,
for the same reason.

IN WITNESS \!'✓HEREOF, I have hereunto set my ha~jds this 23rd day of

September 2013 at Davao C'.ity, Philippines. / /11 '. ·

I
r
J
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me t~:~~3?rll
day of September, 2013 at
Davao City, Philippines, aff:lant exhibiting to me her ~No. 09-2192518-:1,., . r.!
~~~.
j:
Doc. No. z,_7 ; 0~
~
Page No. ~ ; ~...___ MAR BIANCA F. CUALING 1:
i
B00 k ..N 0, _ r..Mil!4c,it"'ll NDTARY PUBLIC FOR AND IN THE CITY OF DAVAO I

, f 2013
Senes
_; ~
•
'1 \
,JO . UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2013 I
O . . • Q> ,ft_Q ~') ~,
\~ N01MIAL COMMISSION SERIAL NO, 256-2012
ROLL OF A~ORNEYS NO.: 59992
11
leP NO.: 912855- 01/10/13. DAVAO ClfY
PTR NO.: 2325023. 01/10113. DAVAO CITY H
Ii
CARIAGA LAW OFFICES 76
2/F CARIAGA BLDG., MT. APO ST., DAVAO r:;/TY
l
Ii