Title
Alabat vs. Vda. de Alabat
Case
G.R. No. L-22169
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1967
Dispute over inheritance from WWII death benefit; plaintiffs (first marriage heirs) vs. defendants (second marriage heirs); SC ruled new Civil Code inapplicable, remanded for proper acknowledgment of natural child’s rights.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22169)

Facts:

Family Background and Parties Involved

  • The plaintiffs-appellants are Sergio Alabat, Petronilo Alabat, Nicolas Alabat, and Fortunato Alabat, who are the children of the late Escolastico Alabat from his first marriage with Cornelia Bucayan (both deceased).
  • The defendants-appellees are Toribia Tandog Vda. de Alabat (Escolastico’s surviving widow from his second marriage) and their children, Leoncio Alabat, Jarmilo Alabat, and Premia Alabat.
  • Wenifreda Almeda, the intervenor, is the natural daughter of Leonardo Alabat, a deceased son of Escolastico and Toribia from their second marriage. Leonardo was a USAFFE soldier killed in action during World War II.

Properties in Dispute

  • The plaintiffs sought partition of several unregistered parcels of land in Taganaan, Surigao, and a cash deposit of P4,000.00 in the Philippine National Bank, Butuan Branch, standing in the name of Escolastico Alabat.
  • The properties originated from a death benefit payment of P16,000.00 made by the U.S. Veterans Administration to Escolastico and Toribia, as the parents of Leonardo Alabat, who died unmarried but survived by his parents and his natural daughter, Wenifreda.

Agreed Facts at Trial

  1. Wenifreda Alabat was born to Carmen Almeda and Leonardo Alabat, who were never legally married but were capable of marrying at the time of Wenifreda’s conception.
  2. Carmen Almeda filed a claim with the U.S. Veterans Administration for Leonardo’s death benefit but was denied because she could not prove a legal marriage to Leonardo. The benefit was instead granted to Escolastico and Toribia.
  3. The parcels of land in question were purchased using the death benefit funds.
  4. The P4,000.00 cash deposit in the Philippine National Bank is part of the P16,000.00 death benefit received by Escolastico and Toribia.

Trial Court’s Findings

  • The trial court found that Wenifreda enjoyed the status of a recognized natural child from birth.
  • Applying Article 991 of the new Civil Code, the court ruled that only Toribia Tandog (the surviving mother) and Wenifreda (the natural daughter) were entitled to the properties, excluding the plaintiffs-appellants (children from Escolastico’s first marriage).

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in applying the new Civil Code to the succession of Leonardo Alabat, who died in 1945 under the regime of the Civil Code of 1889.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring Wenifreda Alabat entitled to succeed Leonardo solely based on her enjoyment of the status of a natural child, without proper acknowledgment as required by law.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in considering the death benefit payment as part of Leonardo Alabat’s estate, rather than the exclusive property of his parents, Escolastico and Toribia.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in excluding Escolastico’s children from the first marriage from sharing in the properties acquired using the death benefit funds.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held:

  1. The trial court erred in applying the new Civil Code, as Leonardo Alabat died in 1945, and the succession should be governed by the Civil Code of 1889.
  2. Wenifreda Alabat’s enjoyment of the status of a natural child is insufficient to establish her hereditary rights without proper acknowledgment, either voluntarily or by court decree.
  3. The death benefit payment was not part of Leonardo’s estate but was the exclusive property of his parents, Escolastico and Toribia.
  4. Upon Escolastico’s death in 1959, his share of the properties (acquired using the death benefit funds) should be divided equally among his eight surviving children (from both marriages) and his surviving widow, Toribia, in accordance with Article 996 of the Civil Code.
  5. The trial court’s assumption that Article 991 of the new Civil Code applied was erroneous, as the estate to be settled was that of Escolastico, not Leonardo.

Ratio:

  1. Applicable Law: Succession rights are governed by the law in force at the time of the decedent’s death. Since Leonardo Alabat died in 1945, the Civil Code of 1889 applies, not the new Civil Code.
  2. Acknowledgment of Natural Children: The rights of a natural child arise from acknowledgment, not merely from the enjoyment of the status of a natural child. Wenifreda’s hereditary rights cannot be recognized without proper acknowledgment.
  3. Nature of Death Benefit: The death benefit payment was an indemnity or insurance for the death of Leonardo, paid to his parents. It was never part of Leonardo’s estate and belonged exclusively to Escolastico and Toribia.
  4. Succession to Escolastico’s Estate: Upon Escolastico’s death, his share of the properties should be divided equally among his surviving children and widow, as provided under Article 996 of the Civil Code.
  5. Remand for Further Proceedings: Wenifreda should be given the opportunity to establish her rights as a natural child through proper legal proceedings, if she so chooses.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the plaintiffs-appellants (children from Escolastico’s first marriage) are entitled to share in the properties. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine Wenifreda’s rights, if any, as a natural child of Leonardo Alabat. Costs were imposed on the defendants-appellees.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.