You are on page 1of 11

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. 1. BELLIS vs. BELLIS, 20 SCRA 358, G. R. No.L-23678, June 6, 1967 2. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs.

JUICO, 4 SCRA 550, February 28, 1962 3. PRIMITIVA CANALES, ppellee vs. FILOTEO ARROGANTE, ET AL., and appellants. 91 PHIL 6, G.R. No.L-3821. March 17, 1952. defendants

4. GERTRUDIS BRIS vs. VIVENCIA BRIZ, 43 PHIL 763, G. R. No. 18413, September 20, 1922. 5. CONCEPCION LOPEZ, vs. ADELA LOPEZ ET. AL., 68 PHIL 227, G. R. No. 45736. May 26, 1939 6. SANTOS vs. BUENAVENTURA, 18 SCRA 47 G. R. No. L-22797. September 22, 1966. 7. REPUBLIC vs. WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSION, 13 SCRA 272, G. R. No.L-19946. February 26, 1965. 8. PAULINO VS. PAULINO, 3 SCRA 730, G.R. NO. L-15091. 9. JOSE GREGORIO ROCHA, vs. EMILIA TUASON Y PATIO and MARIA ROCHA DE DESPUJOLS, 39 PHIL 76. 10.CHIONG JOC-SOY, vs. JAIME VAO, ET AL., 91 PHIL 6, G.R. No.L-3459, March 22,1907.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. BELLIS vs. BELLIS, 20 SCRA 358, G. R. No.L-23678, June 6, 1967 FACTS: Amos G. Bellis, a native of Texas and US national, executed a will in the Philippines that specifies legacies for his first wife and three illegitimate children, and the residue estate be divided among his legitimate children. When he died, the executor administered the will but his illegitimate children opposed the partition claiming that aside from the legacies, they should still have a share from the legitime as compulsory heirs of the decedent. Texas law, however, does not provide for the legitime. ISSUES: Whether or not decedent's illegitimate children entitled to such portion of the legitime? What law shall govern the decedents will? HELD: No. The parties admit that the decedent was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Hence, the illegitimate children of the decedent have no claim to the inheritance aside from those expressly provided legacies. Since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO,4 SCRA 550, February 28, 1962 FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Faustina of all his real and personal properties giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto. Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widows death, she became vested with the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its 8 th clause of the will. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona Faustina? HELD: The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doa Faustina because in his will he provided that Doa Faustina shall forfeit the properties if she fails to bear a child and because she died without having begotten any children with the deceased then it means that Doa Faustina never acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death, because she never acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not included in her estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator. Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to Doa Faustina then he should have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to Doa Faustina without mentioning any condition.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. PRIMITIVA CANALES, plaintiff and appellee vs. FILOTEO ARROGANTE, ET AL., defendants and appellants. 91 PHIL 6, G.R. No.L-3821. March 17, 1952. FACTS: Bernardina Canales died intestate in 1945, leaving some property. She was survived by her husband, Filoteo Arrogante, and two legitimate children, Gaudiosa Arrogante and Leonida Arrogante. Claiming a portion of the inheritance of the deceased, Primitiva Canales brought the present action in 1948 against the surviving heirs, alleging that she is a natural daughter of the deceased, begotten before the latter's marriage to Filoteo Arrogante. Answering the complaint the defendants denied this allegation and set up the defense (1) that the complaint did not state a cause of action in the absence of averment that plaintiff had been acknowledged by the deceased and (2) that plaintiff's action for acknowledgment was already barred by statute. At the trial plaintiff was allowed, over defendants' objection, to introduce evidence tending to show that she was born in Daan Bantayan, Cebu, in 1893, the daughter of the deceased Bernardina Canales, who was then single; that she continuously lived with her mother even after the latter's marriage to Filoteo Arrogante in 1910 and until her death in 1945; that according to the church record of her town, of which Exh. B is a certified copy she was baptized as the daughter of said Bernardina Canales and an unknown father and was given the name Apolinaria Canales; ISSUE: Whether or not a natural child who has not been legally acknowledged by its mother is entitled to share in her inheritance? HELD: This view is untenable. As already stated, under the old Civil Code a natural child has no successional rights until it is acknowledged. Not having been voluntarily acknowledged as a natural child, what plaintiff should have done was to bring an action to compel recognition. Article 137 of the Civil Code of 1889 provides: "Art. 137, Actions for the acknowledgment of natural children may be commenced only during the lifetime of the putative parents except in the following cases: "1. If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may commence the action within the four years next following the attainment of its majority. "2. If, after the death of the father or mother, some document, before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. That action cannot be brought now because plaintiff does not come under either one of the exceptions provided for in the article, it appearing that plaintiff was already above fifty when her mother died and, as the trial court observes, no document, before unknown, has been discovered in which she is expressly acknowledged by her mother.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. GERTRUDIS BRIZ, plaintiff and appellee, vs. VIVENCIA BRIZ and her husband PEDRO REMIGIO, defendants and appellants. 43 PHIL 763, G. R. No.18413. September 20, 1922 FACTS: This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Samar in behalf of a minor, one Gertrudis Briz, to recover from the defendants, Vivencia Briz and Pedro Remigio, the parcel of land in the complaint. Upon the institution of the action, the trial court, in accordance with a request stated in the complaint, Benita Elleso, mother of the plaintiff Gertrudis Briz, as her guardian ad litem, after which the cause proceeded with the usual incidents to a hearing; and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants appealed the decisions.The complaint alleges in substance that the plaintiff, a minor of 11 years, is a recognized natural daughter of Maximo Briz, deceased, from whom she inherited the parcel of land which is the subject of action. It is not disputed that said land belonged in life to Maximo Briz, who died in May, 1909, unmarried and intestate, leaving neither ascendants nor legitimate descendants. It appears, however, that he did leave surviving him other kindred, including at least an uncle, Geronimo Bello, and an aunt, Vivencia Briz, the latter of whom is one of the defendants in this case. It also appears that the defendants have had continuous possession of the disputed parcel of land since the death of Maximo Briz, and they claim that Vivencia Briz acquired it for a valuable consideration from Maximo Briz before his death. However, in the alleged complaint that Gertrudis Briz is the recognized natural daughter of Maximo Briz, it is not pretended that she has ever been voluntarily acknowledged as the natural child of her father in either of the ways specified in article 131 of the Civil Code; nor is it claimed that she has ever obtained a judicial decree, under article 135 or article 137 of the same Code, compelling her father or his heirs to recognize her as his natural child. The most that is claimed in her favor is that she has enjoyed the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child, as contemplated in subsection 2 of article 135. ISSUE: Whether or not it was permissible for the trial judge upon the actual state of the pleadings in this case and in the absence of other parties in interest, to make a judicial declaration to the effect that the minor plaintiff is entitled to be recognized as the natural daughter of the decedent, as heir, for the recovery of the land in question? HELD: No. Under Article 939 of the Civil Code it is declared that, in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the natural children legally acknowledged shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. The expression "legally acknowledged," as here used, can only be construed as referring to children who have, somehow or other, acquired the legal status of natural children; and this means that they must either have been voluntarily acknowledged, as contemplated in article 131 of the Civil Code, or they must have procured a decree compelling the natural parent or his heirs to recognize them as having the status of natural children, as contemplated in articles 135 and 137 of the Civil Code.Under the provisions of the Civil Code only legally acknowledged natural children have the character of heir; and the mere fact that a child has been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child does not actually make it a legally recognized child.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. In the matter of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Emeterio Lopez. CONCEPCION LOPEZ, petitioner and appellee, vs. ADELA LOPEZ ET AL., oppositors and appellants. 68 PHIL 227, G. R. No. 45736. May 26, 1939] FACTS: Concepcion Lopez filed a petition in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Emeterio Lopez, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased and praying that she be declared his universal heiress entitled to a summary award of his estate, same being valued at less than six thousand pesos (P6,000), The oppositors thru Attorney Simplicio B. Pea, filed an opposition, denying petitioner's claim and praying that, as they are nephews and nieces of the deceased, they be adjudged entitled to the property left by him. Petitioner filed later an amended petition, alleging that, according to a new assessment, the estate was worth nine thousand pesos (P9,000) and 'that, therefore, its distribution could not be made summarily but thru regular administration proceedings. Accordingly, an administrator was appointed who, thru Attorney Simplicio B. Pea, filed later a motion for a declaration of heirs and prayed that the oppositors-appellants be so adjudged. After hearing, the court issued an order declaring the petitioner an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased entitled to the rights accorded her by law. The oppositors appealed that the petition filed by the petitioner in the intestate proceedings is alleged insufficient. ISSUE: Whether or not Concepcion Lopez is an acknowledged natural daughter of Emeterio Lopez who died intestate, leaving no legitimate descendants, ascendants or widow? HELD: Yes. Inasmuch as the recognition of the status of petitioner as a natural child is a prerequisite to her right to heirship, her prayer that she be declared universal heirs implies a like prayer that she be recognized as an acknowledged natural child. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule of pleadings, applicable to motions or petitions, that the prayer for relief, though part of the pleading, is not part of the cause of action or defense alleged therein, and the pleader is entitled to as much relief as the facts duly pleaded may warrant.In the motion for reconsideration filed by them, for lack of notice is alleged; but the motion is not even verified. Besides, according to the record Attorney S. B. B. was the counsel for both the administrator and the oppositors-appellants. The petition for declaration of heirs, although signed by Attorney S. B. P. as "abogado del administrador', was, in fact, a petition filed in behalf of the oppositors-appellants as their right to succession is therein asserted and prayed for and there exists sufficient ground for holding that the oppositors-appellants had notice of the petition as well as of the hearing where the said attorney was present.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. Santos vs. Buenaventura,No. L-22797. September 22, 1966. FACTS: This is an appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Special Proceedings No. 2524 regarding the testacy of the deceased Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, that on October 22, 1956, Rosalina Santos filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the last will allegedly executed on September 22, 1956 by the deceased Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas. The nearest of kin of the deceased were her brothers and a sister, nephews and nieces. Rosalinda Santos, petitionerappellee herein, is one of said nieces. Among the legatees .or more accurately, devisees mentioned in the will is Flora Blas de Buenaventura. She is not related by blood to the deceased. Flora Blas de Buenaventura and Justo Garcia filed on November 28, 1956 an opposition to the probate of said will. Among the grounds for the opposition of Flora Blas and Justo Garcia were that the will was not executed in accordance with law; that undue and improper pressure was exerted upon the testatrix Maxima Santos in the execution thereof; that the signature of Maxima was secured through fraud; and that at the time of the execution of the will Maxima was mentally incapable of making a will. After the probate court had received the evidence for both the petitioner and oppositors, but before the latter could close their evidence, Flora Blas on November 6, 1957 filed a manifestation that she is withdrawing her opposition to the probate of the will. On December 24, 1957, the court below issued an order allowing the probate of the will. After the order had become final and executory, Flora Blas on February 27, 1958, filed a petition praying for the delivery to her of a fishpond as a specific devise in her favor under Item No. 3, Clause No. 6, of the 'will. To this petition, inspite of apparent understanding, Rosalina Santos filed an opposition predicated on the ground that said specific devise in favor of Flora was forfeited in favor of the other residuary heirs, pursuant to a provision of the will that should any of the heirs, devisees or legatees contest or oppose its probate, the latter shall lose his or her right to receive any inheritance or benefit under it, which shall be forfeited in favor of the other heirs, devisees and legatees. ISSUES: Whether or not Flora's actuations, under the facts and circumstances herein, amount to a violation of the "no-contest and forfeiture" clause of the will? Whether or not is the "no-contest and forfeiture" provision of the will valid? HELD: No. It follows that as a whole Flora's actuations served rather than violated the testatrix's intention. She did not therefore violate the "no-contest and forfeiture" clause of the will. A mistake committed in good faith because grounded on strong doubts . appellant withdrew her opposition and joined the appellee in the latter's petition for the probate of the will, appellant must not now be penalized for rectifying her error. Said act of withdrawing her opposition before she had rested her case contributed to the speedy probate of the will. Since the withdrawal came before she had rested her case, it precluded the defeat of the probate upon the strength of Flora's (appellant's) evidence. Through said withdrawal, Flora conformed to the testatrix's wish that her dispositions of her properties under the will be carried out. No. The devisee-appellant maintains that such provision in a will is null and void because it is contrary to public policy.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. Republic vs. Workmens Compensation Commission, No.L-19946. February 26, 1965. FACTS: Gregorio H. Espiritu died of pulmonary tuberculosis contracted while working as letter-carrier in the post office of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Upon claim duly filed, compensation benefits were granted to his widow, Irene Fernandez, and to two minors, Manuel and Jose Espiritu, alleged illegitimate (spurious) children of the deceased by another woman.The Government filed the instant petition for review.Neither the compensability of Espiritus death nor the award to his widow is disputed. What appellant objects is the extension of death benefits to the two minors. The objection is based on two grounds, the first of which is that not being acknowledged natural children they are not dependents within the meaning of Sections 9 and 11 of the Workmens Compensation Law, Act No. 3428, as amended.Among the persons enumerated in Section 9 as entitled to compensation is a son or daughter, if under eighteen years of age or incapable of supporting himself or herself, and unmarried, whether actually dependent on the deceased or not. Section 11 in turn provides that the words son, daughter or children include illegitimate children acknowledged by and dep endent upon the deceased before the injury was contracted. The contention is that according to this Court (Madueo vs. Cabanatuan Lumber Co., 73 Phil. 356) only natural children may be acknowledged and hence considered as dependents under the Workmens Compensation Law. It should be noted, however, that the said case was decided under the regime of the old Civil Code, according to which recognition could be extended only to natural children and not to children of adulterous relationship. ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate (spurious) child, be entitled to support and successional rights from his parents? HELD: No. Recognition of illegitimate children other than natural is not necessary in order to entitle them to claim hereditary rights and these illegitimate children whose filiation has not been established are not entitled to support and inheritance. An spurious child to be entitled to support and successional rights from his parents, must prove his filiation, and this way may be done by means of voluntary or compulsory recognition of the relationship. It is safe to assume that certifico de confirmacion is signed merely by church authorities, attesting to what appears in their records. And statements in ecclesiastical books have consistently been held insufficient acknowledgment of the filiation of natural children. (Malonda vs. Vda. de Malonda, 81 Phil. 149.)

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. PAULINO VS PAULINO (G.R. NO. L-15091) FACTS: The plaintiff Genova Catalan Paulino is the illegitimate child of Don Marcos Paulino, having been born on January 13, 1916 at Los Baos, Laguna out of the common-law relationship of her father with Rustica Catalan, who lived publicly as husband and wife at the said place. That plaintiff father Don Marcos Paulino, was married to Dionisia Hernandez, even before his cohabiting with plaintiff's mother. That on February 5, 1951, Don Marcos Paulino, died without any will or testament disposing of his estate. The deceased left several properties, among which were his exclusive and undivided one-half share, interests and right to and in properties and parcels of land. There was no intestate proceeding for the settlement of his estate. That the properties of the deceased in the said estate, however, were inventoried, divided, partitioned, and distributed among his alleged compulsory heirs pursuant to the extrajudicial partition dated February 5, 1953 and registered with the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City to the exclusion of the herein plaintiff. ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff will be able to inherit from putative father her being an illegitimate child. HELD: Yes, plaintiff will be able to inherit from putative father her being an illegitimate child. The plaintiff's parents had only common-law relationship since Don Marcos Paulino was then married to Dionisia Hernandez, thus making plaintiff Genova Catalan Paulino illegitimate since she was born out of the context of marriage. But, all illegitimate child are also entitled to successional rights from his putative or presumed parents and must prove filiation to them. Filiation may be established by voluntary or compulsory recognition of the illegitimate child. Article 283 (3). The father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural (or spurious) child, when the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed father. Article 287 of the Civil Code provides, illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with Article 269 and other than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights are granted in this Code. Article 887 (4) The compulsory heirs; Acknowledged natural children referred in Article 287. That in all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. In re will of JOSE GREGORIO ROCHA, deceased. MARIA ELOISA ROCHA, petitioner and appellee, vs. EMILIA TUASON Y PATIO and MARIA ROCHA DE DESPUJOLS, opponents and appellants. FACTS: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, dated. February 26, 1918, in re will of Jose Gregorio Rocha, deceased, which declares the petitioner, Maria Eloisa Rocha, the recognized natural daughter of the said Jose Gregorio Rocha, deceased, has the right to intervene in these proceedings, and to have a share in the property left at the death of the said Jose Gregorio Rocha, and which appoints Recaredo Pando as administrator of the same property.On April 23, 1913, these proceedings were commenced by the petitioner who presented for probate a certified copy of the will of Jose Gregorio Rocha.After the will was duly legalized and after all the proceedings required by law in connection with cases of this kind were duly complied with, the court fixed a date for a hearing of this case with the object of learning from the parties whom they wanted appointed administrator of the property of the testate succession. But the opposing party appealed from said order to this court which declared the said order in appealable 1 and returned the case to the court of origin. Counsel f or the opponent, Emilia Tuason y Patio, filed their objections against all proceedings had and against the appointment of a judicial administrator.On May 17, 1917, the petitioner, Maria Eloisa Rocha, filed a motion alleging herself to be the recognized natural daughter of the deceased, Jose Gregorio Rocha, and praying the court to fix a day for the hearing of the evidence tending to prove her allegation. ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiff, Maria Eloisa Rocha, had been recognized, during the lifetime of the deceased Jose Gregorio Rocha, as his natural daughter has the right to claim a share in the inheritance of her deceased natural father? HELD: No. The plaintiff Maria Eloisa Rocha has no right to claim a share in the inheritance of her deceased natural father, even if she be considered as the natural daughter tacitly recognized by the deceased, Jose Gregorio Rocha, to any portion of the inheritance the said deceased left under a will at his death. Therefore the said petitioner lacks the right to move for the probate of the will, to ask for the appointment of the administrator and to intervene in the proceedings of the said will. No special finding as to costs in both instances.

TAMAYAO, ALLAN C. CHIONG JOC-SOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JAIME VAO, ET AL., RespondentsAppellants.G.R.No.L-3459,March 22,1907. FACTS: Genoveva Rosales, a resident of Cebu, made her will on the 26th day of October, 1903. The third clause is in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph "3. Of the third part of the estate, which is at my free disposal, I bequeath to the Chinaman Chiong Joc-Soy, the sum of 50,000 pesos, Mexican currency, of which amount 20,000 pesos are for the aforesaid Chiong Joc-Soy, and the balance of 30,000 pesos for the expenses of interment etc. of my late husband Don Nicasio Veloso.The rest of her property, which amounted in all to upward of 800,000 pesos, she left to her children. After her death the will was presented for probate in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu and was duly proved and allowed on the 24th of November, 1903, and an administrator with the will annexed was appointed. By order of the court he was allowed one year from the 24th of November, 1903, in which to pay the debts and legacies of the deceased. On the 6th of February, 1905, the petitioner, Chiong JocSoy, the legatee named in the will, filed a petition in the said proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased, Genoveva Rosales, asking that the administrator be directed to pay him the 50,000 pesos mentioned in the will. ISSUE: Whether or not the execution of the will the requirements of the law were complied with was then submitted to that court for decisionhad jurisdiction to decide that question? HELD: Yes. The judgment of the probate court in such case stands like any other decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Its judgments are binding upon the parties interested and their validity, in the absence of any proof of fraud or accidents, or mistakes, can be called in question only by an appeal. In this case there is no suggestion of the existence of any of those things. There is no claim made that the heirs were not properly notified of the hearing upon the probate of the will and nothing to indicate that they were not present and took part in that hearing. Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "the allowance by the court of a will of real and personal estate shall be conclusive as to its due execution. When no appeal is taken from an order probating a will, the heirs cannot in subsequent litigation in the same proceeding raise questions relating to its due execution.

You might also like