Ara and Garcia v.

Pizarro and Rossi

FACTS:
Petitioners Romeo Ara and William Garcia, and Dra. Felly S. Pizarro and Henri Rossi all
claimed to be children of the late Josefa A. Ara who died in November 18, 2002.
It was alleged herein that Josefa met Vicente Salgado, who died in World War II, and
Fely S. Pizarro was their child; Josefa then met and live with American Soldier named Darwin
Gray. Romeo Ara was born on this relationship; Later on, Josefa met Alfredo Garcia. They had
two children, Ramon Garcia and William Garcia. Josefa and Alfredo married on January 24,
1952.After Alfredo passed away, Josefa met an Italian missionary named Frank Rossi, who
allegedly fathered Henry Rossi.
Jose left several properties leaving no will when she died. Petitioners together with
Ramon and herein respondent verbally sought partitioned the property of Josefa to which
respondent Pizzaro refused. Their dispute went to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation and
amicable settlement but to no avail.
A Complaint for judicial partition of properties left by the deceased Josefa was filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay. In respondent’s Answer, Pizarro averred that, to
her knowledge, she was the only the legitimate child of Josefa. She denied that the petitioners
were her siblings.
On RTC’s decision, it granted properties to Henry Rossi and Fely Pizarro. Further, the
remaining properties shall be co-owned in equal shares by the plaintiff and defendants therein.
The trial court anchored its decision based only on the open and continuous possession of
status of filiation of Ara and Garcia, bypassing the issue of the birth certificates and not
considering the first paragraph of Article 172. Respondent Pizarro appealed this decision of the
trial court claiming that it erred in finding petitioners Ara and Garcia to be children of Josefa, and
including them in the partition.
The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision. In line with the claim of the respondent, it
held that only respondents Pizarro and Rossi, as well as plaintiff Ramon, were the children of
the late Josefa and are entitled to her estate, giving them 1 and ½ shares respectively. Court of
Appeals further states that the trial court erred in allowing petitioners to prove their status as
illegitimate sons of Josefa after death. It anchored its decision under the first paragraph of
Article 175 and 172(1), FC.
Petitioners then appealed this decision to Supreme Court. They argue that the CA
erroneously applied Article 285, CC, and did not include the application of the second paragraph
of Articl 172, FC.

ISSUE:
Can petitioners prove their filiation to Josefa through their open and continuous
possession of the status of illegitimate children, found in the second paragraph of Article 172,
FC?

RULING:
No. The Court ruled that, if filiation is sought to be proved under the second paragraph of
Article 172 of the Family Code, the action must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged
parent. It is evident that appellants Romeo F. Ara and William Garcia can no longer be allowed
at this time to introduce evidence of their open and continuous possession of the status of an
illegitimate child or prove their alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of
Court or special laws. This is due to the fact that Josefa Ara is already dead and can no longer
be heard on the claim of her alleged sons' illegitimate filiation.
Aruego, Jr. v. CA
FACTS:
On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of
successional rights was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the
sister Evelyn Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian.
The complaint was opposed by the legitimate children of Jose Aruego, who died on
March 30, 1982. Their claim there is open and continuous possession of status of illegitimate
children of Jose who had an amorous relationship with their mother Luz Fabian until the time of
his death.
The court declared that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter of the deceased with
Luz Fabian while Evelyn is not. Antonia Aruego was declared entitled to a share equal to 1/2
portion of share of the legitimate children of Jose Aruego. Petitioners, on the other hand, submit
that with the advent of the New Family Code on August 3, 1988, the trial court lost jurisdiction
over the complaint of private respondent on the ground of prescription, considering that under
Article 175, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 of the New Family Code, it is provided that an
action for compulsory recognition of illegitimate filiation, if based on the “open and continuous
possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” must be brought during the lifetime of the
alleged parent without any exception, otherwise the action will be barred by prescription.
ISSUE:
May the Family Code be given a retroactive effect so as to deprive private respondent of
her right to institute the case for compulsory recognition?
RULING:
No. The action brought by private respondent Antonia Aruego for compulsory recognition
and enforcement of successional rights which was filed prior to the advent of the Family Code,
must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the
Family Code.
The present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is
concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her
case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. The right was vested to her by the fact that
she filed her action under the regime of the Civil Code.
Prescinding from this, the conclusion then ought to be that the action was not yet barred,
notwithstanding the fact that it was brought when the putative father was already deceased,
since private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed, an exception to the general
rule provided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial court, which acquired
jurisdiction over the case by the filing of the complaint, never lost jurisdiction over the same
despite the passage of E.O. No. 209, also known as the Family Code of the Philippines.
Estate of Juan Dizon v. CA
FACTS:
Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus got married in August 1964. It was
during this marriage that Jacqueline A. de Jesus and Jinkie Christie A. de Jesus, herein
petitioners, were born. In a notarized document, dated June 7, 1991, Juan G. Dizon
acknowledged Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as being his own illegitimate children by Carolina
Aves de Jesus. Juan died intestate in March 1992, leaving behind considerable assets
consisting of shares of stock in various corporations and some real property. It was on the
strength of his notarized acknowledgement that petitioners filed a complaint for “Partition with
Inventory and Accounting” of the Dizon estate with the RTC.
Respondent, the surviving spouse and legitimate children of the decedent, including the
corporations of which the deceased was a stockholder, sought the dismissal of the case,
arguing that the complaint, even while denominated as being one for partition, would
nevertheless call for altering the status of petitioners from being the legitimate children of the
spouses Danilo and Carolina de Jesus to instead be the illegitimate children of Carolina de
Jesus and deceased Juan Dizon.
ISSUE:
Are petitioners the illegitimate children of decedent Juan Dizon and thus entitled to
inherit from him?
RULING:
No. A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during the valid
marriage of their parents Danilo and Carolina. The certificates of birth also identified Danilo de
Jesus as their father. There is a presumption in law that children born in wedlock are legitimate.
This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical
impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to
have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact the husband and wife are living separately in
such a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which
absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods set
forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171,of the Family Code (which took effect on
August 3, 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally
feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.
In an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan, petitioners, in effect,
would impugn their legitimate status as being children of Danilo and Carolina de Jesus. This
step cannot be aptly done because the law itself establishes the legitimacy of children
conceived or born during the marriage of the parents. The presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil
status for the child born in wedlock, and only the father, or in exceptional instances the latter’s
heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. Thus, it is
only when the legitimacy of a child has been successfully impugned that the paternity of the
husband can be rejected.
Michael Guy v. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Karen Oanes Wei, a minor by and through her mother Remedios Oanes, filed a petition
for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati. Respondents alleged that they are duly
acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died intestate in Makati on October 29,
1992, leaving an estate of P10,000,000.00 consisting of real and personal properties. His known
heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and children, Emy, Jeanne, Cristina, George and
Michael, all surnamed Guy. Respondents are a asking for an appointment of a regular
administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate. They also want to appoint Michael
C. Guy as Special Administrator of the Estate. Petitioner is praying for the dismissal of the
petition for the reason that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can be settled
without securing letters of administration. He argued that private respondents should have
established their status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of Sima Wei.

ISSUES:
1. Does the Release and Waiver of Claim precludes private respondents from claiming their
Successional Rights?
2. Are private respondents barred by prescription from proving filiation?

RULING:
1. No. Private respondents cannot be bar from claiming successional rights. To be valid
and effective, waiver must be couched clearly and in unequivocal terms to leave no doubt with
regards to the intention of a party in giving up a right or benefit legally pertains to. Waiver cannot
be attributed to a person if it not explicitly and clearly evinces intent to abandon a right. This
case has no waiver of hereditary rights.
2. No. Ruling on the same would be premature considering that private respondents have
yet to present evidence. Before the Family Code took effect, the governing law on actions for
recognition of illegitimate children was Article 285 of the Civil Code. Under the Family Code,
when filiation of an illegitimate child is established by a record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment, or an admission of filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned, the action for recognition may be
brought by the child during his or her lifetime. However, if the action is based upon open and
continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the
rules or special laws, it may only be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. It is clear
therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends on the type of evidence to be
adduced by private respondents in proving their filiation. However, it would be impossible to
determine the same in this case as there has been no reception of evidence yet. While the
original action filed by private respondents was a petition for letters of administration, the trial
court is not precluded from receiving evidence on private respondents’ filiation. Its jurisdiction
extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers in handling
the settlement of the estate, including the determination of the status of each heir. That the two
causes of action, one to compel recognition and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in
one complaint.