[ G.R. No. 49081. May 28, 1948 ] 81 Phil. 156
[ G.R. No. 49081. May 28, 1948 ]
JUAN MALONDA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JUSTINA INFANTE VDA. DE MALONDA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
In the year 1936, Eufronio Malonda died in Camarines Sur leaving the defendant Justina Infante as his widow and the other defendants as his legitimate children .
On March 15, 1943, Juan Malonda instituted this potion to obtain a partition of the properties belong to the estate of said Eufronio Malonda. He alleged he was a natural son of the deceased, had continuosly enjoyed possession of the status of acknowledged child, and was entitled to share in the inheritance.
After the plaintiff had rested his case, upon motion of defendant, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Judge Gabriel Prieto, dismissed the proceeding the reason that the action involved a petition which, according to the Civil Code, could only be considered during the lifetime of the putative parent, except in two cases, none of which — His Honor said — applied to herein plaintiff. Such exceptions are these: (1) if the father or mother died during the minority of the child * * *; and (2) if, after the death of the father or mother, some document, before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. (Article 137 Civil Code.)
Juan Malonda was born in Aug. 1897, in Iriga, Camarines Sur. At that time the Civil Code was already in force, it having become law in 1889. His rights are therefore governed by that system of legislation. Now, in 1936 when Eufronio Malonda departed, Juan Malonda was no longer a minor. Hence, the first exception above-mentioned is inapplicable .
Plaintiff-appellant, without contesting the general rule invokes the second exception, by prasenting Exhibit B and by declaring about, two letter’s Eufronio Malonda had addressed to him. Exhibit B is not in the record, as reconstituted. It seems to be a “certifico de confirmición” , taken from the church registry of the Bishop of Nueva Caceres. Supposing that — as plaintiff claims — it actually .contains a statement that Juan Malonda is the son of Eufronio Malonda, in default of proof that Eufronio had signed it, no recognition of paternity may thereby be imputed to him. It is safe to assume that such certificate is signed merely by church authorities, attesting to what appears in their records. And statements in ecclesiastical books have consistently been held insufficient acknowledgments of the filiation of natural children.[1]
Anyway Exhibir B — or what it represents — Is not a document unknown to Juan Malonda before the death of his father, as everyone in this Catholic and Christian country is supposed to be cognizant of the existence of such church records. And the letters to which Juan Malonda referred in his oral testimony included no declaration expressly acknowledging Juan Malonda as the offspring of Eufronio. Again, such communications are not documents discovered after the death of Eufronio. They were received by, and therefore were known to Juan before the demise of his alleged father.
It follows from the above exposition that the trial judge made no mistake in refusing to entertain the demands of plaintiff-appellant, for it is settled that a natural child not acknowledged has no rights whatsoever against his father or his estate.[2] Some authors and jurists regard this rule as unfair to natural children who are brought into this world through no fault of their own. Others sustain it upon the ground that it protects the rights of the legitimate family and serves [to discourage illicit relations. Much could be written expounding or criticizing the opposing schools of thought. But it is unnecessary to do so at this time. The Code Commission has taken a definite stand on the latter in the draft of the Civil Code it has submitted to the Congress, — which is currently under study by a committee of the House of Representatives — and any official pronouncements made in this connection might be considered as an attempt to Influence the members thereof and the Congress itself, whose wisdom, patriotism and vision will surely be put to a test in the discussion of the many statutory reforms the Code Commission has chosen to recommend. In the meantime, until this particular rule about natural children is modified by legislative authority our duty is to apply it in proper cases, regardless of our preferences.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, with cost. So ordered.
Parás, Actg. C. J., and Tuason, J., concur.
FERIA, J.:
I concur in the result.