MENDOZA V. MELLA FACTS: 1) Lot No.

3390-B of the Sorsogon cadastre was owned originally by Paciano Pareja who donated it in 1939 to his son !a"ino. #) !a"ino disa$$eared in 19%3 and has not been heard of since. &' held that he died that sa(e year. 3) 't the ti(e of his disa$$earance he was li"ing with his co((on-law wife &atalina )endo*a and their son +odolfo ,$etitioners) %) -n 19%. Paciano sold the lot to /e(istocles &. )ella who notified $etitioners in 190# to "acate the sa(e. 0) Notice to "acate went 1nheeded where1$on )ella co((enced this action in 1900 on the basis of the deed of sale by Paciano in his fa"or 2) Petitioners clai( ownershi$ for +odolfo first on the gro1nd of s1ccession fro( his father !a"ino and secondly by ad"erse $ossession for (ore than 10 years. ISSUE: Whether Rodolfo may e !o"#$dered a# a" a!%"o&led'ed "at(ral !h$ld a"d th(# e"t$tled to #(!!e##$o"al r$'ht#. N3. &' had negati"ely resol"ed this iss1e on # gro1nds4 1) 3nly e"idence on the (atter is his birth certificate which &' held is not $roof of ac5nowledg(ent6 and #) /here is no showing that +odolfo7s $arents co1ld ha"e (arried each other when he was concei"ed. /he S& held that only the 1st gro1nd need be resol"ed. /he birth certificate was disregarded by the &' since the syste( of ci"il registry $ro"ided in the old &i"il &ode ,/itle 8--) was ne"er established in this co1ntry and th1s 'rt. 131 ,/he ac5nowledge(ent of a nat1ral child (1st be (ade in the record of birth in a will or in so(e other $1blic doc1(ent) insofar as it referred to ac5nowledg(ent in the record of birth ne"er beca(e effecti"e. -t sho1ld be noted howe"er that a &i"il +egistry Law was $assed in 1930 ,'ct No. 3903) containing $ro"isions for the registration of births incl1ding those of illegiti(ate $arentage6 and the record of birth 1nder s1ch law if s1fficient in contents for the $1r$ose wo1ld (eet the re:1isites for "ol1ntary recognition e"en 1nder 'rt. 131. Since +odolfo was born in 1930 after the registry law was enacted the :1estion here really is whether or not his birth certificate which is (erely a certified co$y of the registry record (ay be relied 1$on as s1fficient $roof of his ha"ing been "ol1ntarily recogni*ed. /he S& held that no s1ch reliance (ay be $laced 1$on it. ;hile it contains the na(es of both $arents there is no showing that they signed the original let alone swore to its contents as re:1ired in Sec. 0 of 'ct No. 3903. <or all that (ight ha"e ha$$ened it was not e"en they or either of the( who f1rnished the data to be entered in the ci"il register. Petitioners say that in any e"ent the birth certificate is in the nat1re of a $1blic doc1(ent wherein "ol1ntary recognition of a nat1ral child (ay also be (ade according to the sa(e 'rticle 131. /r1e eno1gh b1t in s1ch a case there (1st be a clear state(ent in the doc1(ent that the $arent recogni*es the child as his or her own ,)adridejo "s. =e Leon 00

Phil. 1)6 and in the birth certificate no s1ch state(ent a$$ears. /he clai( of "ol1ntary recognition is witho1t basis.