[ G. R. No. L-10010. October 31, 1957 ] 102 Phil. 346
[ G. R. No. L-10010. October 31, 1957 ]
INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANTONIO ZUZUARREGUI. PILAR I. DE ZUZUAEKEGUI ADMINISTRATRIX, BEATRIZ Z. DE RTSYES ET AL., APPELLEES, VS. ENRIQUE ZUZUARREGUI ET AL., APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
On March B, 1953, a petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City by Pilar Ibañez de Zuzuarregui for the administration and settlement of the estate of Antonio de Zuzuarregui who died intestate on February 22, 1953. In said petition it was prayed that letters of administration be issued in favor of Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., but due to the opposition of Beatriz de Zuzuarregui, the court appointed Filar Ibanez, the widow, as regular administratrix. On August 25, 1954, Enrique de Zuzuarregui, a brother of the deceased, Maria Theresa San Mateo, Mercedes San Mateo and Jose San Mateo, half sisters and half brother, respectively, of the deceased, filed their opposition impugning the declaration of Beatriz, Antonio, Jr., Enrique and Jose, all surnamed De Zuzuarregui, as heirs contending that they are not related to the deceased either by affinity or by consanguinity. The latter filed their reply and a motion to dismiss the opposition. This motion was denied for lack of merit. Forthwith, an amended answer to the opposition was filed by the alleged heirs, to which the oppositors filed a reply. After the oppositors had made of record their opposition to the prosecution of any evidence tending to show that the alleged heirs were related by affinity or consanguinity to the deceased, the case was tried on the merits during which the parties presented their evidence. On August 22, 1955, the court rendered decision declaring Beatriz, Antonio, Jr., Enrique and Jose, all surnamed De Zuzuarregui, as the illegitimate (spurious) children of the deceased and heirs of his estate in conjunction with the widow Pilar Ibañez to the exclusion of the collateral relatives. In due time, the oppositors took the present appeal. Antonio de Zuzuarregui died without a will in Quezon City, Philippines on February 22, 1953. On April 12, 1917, he contracted marriage with Pilar Ibanez who did not bear him any issue. He is survived by his widow and the herein claimants Beatriz, Antonio, Jr., Enrique and Jose, who claim to be his illegitimate (spurious) children. The evidence shows, that Beatriz is the illegitimate (spurious) child of the deceased had with a woman who was then his tenant; that when she was born the widow took her from the custody of her mother and since then she lived continuously in the family residence until she reached the age of majority when she got married and lived with her husband; that since her childhood, Beatriz was considered as a member of the family, was given the family name, was supported and sent to school at the expense of the deceased. In the income tax returns submitted by the deceased for the years 1938, 1847 and 1948, he declared under oath that Beatriz was one of his children (Exhibits H, H-1, and I). The evidence further shows that claimants Antonio, Jr., Enrique and Jose, all aurnamed De Zuzuarregui, were the children of Pacita Javier had with the deceased. Pacita Javier is a cousin of the widow, Pilar Ibanes. When she became orphan, the widow invited her and her mother to live with them in the conjugal residence sometime in 1930. While living with them she gave birth to a baby boy on August 17, 1931 in a maternity hospital who “was given by the deceased the name of Antonio, Jr. and the family name of De Zuzuarregui. This boy was reared and brought up as a member of the family by the spouses. He was supported and educated by the deceased. On May 5, 1948, Pacita also gave birth to a twin had with the deceased, who arranged for their baptism and gave them the names of Jose and Enrique and the family name of De Zuzuarregui. These twins also lived with the spouses in the conjugal dwelling and were always considered as members of the family. In the baptismal certificate of Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., the deceased declared under his signature that he was his father (Exhibit A). The same admission was made by the deceased in two public documents executed by him before a notary public where he stated under his signature that Antonio, Jr. was his son (Exhibits D and E). And in the income tax returns, the deceased submitted for the years 1937, 1938, 1946, 1947 and 1948 he likewise stated under oath that Antonio, Jr. was his son. With regard to Jose and Enrique, the deceased also stated under his signature in their certificates of birth that he was their father (Exhibits B and C). Likewise, in the income tax returns the deceased submitted for 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952, he stated under oath that he “was the father of said Jose and Enrique. The question to be determined is “whether the claimants can be considered as heirs of the estate upon the claim that they are the illegitimate (spurious) children of the deceased. Previous to the approval of the new Civil Code, illegitimate children who did not have the status of natural, like spurious, were entitled to support only. They were not entitled to succeed as. compulsory heirs as were the acknowledged natural children. Under the present law, however, they are not only given support but are entitled to a certain share of the inheritance, the law according to them the same liberal attitude accorded to natural children. In introducing this innovation, the Code Commission gives this justification. “The transgressions of social conventions committed by the parents should not be visited upon the illegitimate children. The law should not be too severe upon these illegitimate children, be they natural or otherwise, because they do need the special protection of the State. They are born with a social handicap and the law should help them to surmount the disadvantages facing them through the misdeeds of their parents.” (Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 89.) Thus, article 287 of the new Civil Code provides: “Illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with article 289 and other than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successions! rights as are granted in this Code.” And in article 887 these illegitimate children are considered as compulsory heirs, although they come fifth in the order therein mentioned. It appearing from the overwhelming evidence submitted by the claimants which was not in any way contradicted by the oppositors that from their birth they had enjoyed the status of illegitimate (spurious) children of the deceased, it is evident that the lower court did not err in declaring them as heirs entitled to inherit from the deceased under the law. Appellants, however, claim that before these illegitimate children may inherit under the present law it is yet necessary that they establish that they were recognized by their putative father, or that they had brought an action for recognition in the same manner as natural children. Since such recognition has not been established and their action to establish it has. already prescribed, it is contended that they cannot now claim any succossional right under the law. This claim is disputed by appellees who contend that, to establish their right to inherit, their recognition is not necessary, it being sufficient that their filiation be proved. We find merit in this contention of appellees. There is nothing in the new law from which we may infer that in order that an illegitimate child may enjoy his successional right he must first bring an action for recognition during the lifetime of the putative father as required by article 285 with regard to natural children. Neither is there any provision which requires that he be recognized as such before he can be accorded such successional right. All what the law provides concerning recognition refers to natural children (Chapter 4 Title VIII, new Civil Code.) On the other hand, article 887, when speaking of illegitimate children as compulsory heirs, contains only the following condition: “their filiation must be duly proved.” It does not say that they must first be recognized by their putative parents. The reason perhaps behind this liberal treatment, is that, because they are spurious or offsprings of illicit relations, it would be obnoxious to oblige them to bring an action for recognition during the lifetime of their putative parents, let alone the embarrassment and scandal that such action would bring to all parties concerned. That such interpretation is correct can be inferred from the following comment of the Code Commission on the matter: “in the proposed Code, illegitimate children other than natural may succeed as compulsory heirs provided that their filiation is duly proved” (Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 118). (Italics supplied.) And Mr. Arturo M. Tolentino, a former member of the Code Commission, makes this comment on the same point: “This article merely allows investigation of paternity or maternity of the illegitimate child, but does not require that these should be a recognition before such child can claim his rights. Apparently, this places the illegitimate child in a better position than a natural child. In reality, however, such difference can hardly be said to exist, because the natural child can always bring a complex action in which he asks both for recognition and for his rights, either to support or to inheritance” (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 567). (Italics supplied.) But, even if we uphold the theory that recognition is still necessary to accord to appellees the right to inherit, we may say that the evidence on record more than sufficiently establishes that appellees had been recognized by the deceased as his illegitimate children. As we have already stated elsewhere, the deceased has in more than one occasion acknowledged under oath or declared under his signature in public or official documents that appellees are his children. This evidence is sufficient to entitle them to the successional rights granted by law. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur. Labrador, J., concurs in the result.