Facts:

The case involves the appeal of Victor Allarde and several other plaintiffs against defendants Valentin Abaya and others concerning a partition of real property presumed to be inherited from common ancestors, Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido. This appeal arises from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur on February 27, 1933. The primary contention revolves around Inocencia Abaya, a plaintiff who claims to be the natural daughter of Adriano Abaya, the son of Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido. The trial court ruled that Inocencia Abaya had no right to the property since she had not been recognized as a legitimate or natural child of Adriano Abaya, as he passed away before the enactment of the Civil Code. It further stated that the property itself was not clearly identified, and any rights Inocencia may possess would have already prescribed due to the lengthy periods in which she sought to assert her claims. The judgment ordered the partitioning of t

...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural Background

• The case involves plaintiffs Victor Allarde et al. versus defendants Valentin Abaya et al. in an action for partition of real property.
• The real property in controversy is alleged to have been left by Bibiano Abaya and his wife, Juliana Rebullido, and subsequently managed and disposed of by various family members.
• The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, which ruled on several points regarding the identification, partition, and rights of the parties concerning the property.

Family Background and Inheritance History

• Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido were husband and wife and had two children—Adriano Abaya and Cornelia Abaya.
• Adriano Abaya, who died on July 19, 1889 (before the Civil Code took effect on December 8, 1889), is claimed to be the natural father of Inocencia Abaya.
• Cornelia Abaya, upon marriage to Dionisio Abaya, became the mother of several children, including the defendants.
• The dispute centers around Inocencia Abaya’s status as an acknowledged natural daughter of Adriano Abaya and her consequent right to a share in the heritage of Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido.

Evidence of Filiation and Acknowledgment

• The plaintiff Inocencia Abaya testified that she was raised by her grandmother Juliana Rebullido and by her uncles Dionisio Abaya and Cornelia Abaya from the age of three, after being brought from Manila.
• Testimonies and documentary evidence (including correspondence and exhibits such as Exhibits A, B, C, and D) point to an acknowledgment by Adriano Abaya of Inocencia as his natural daughter.
• Hearsay evidence—such as the account of Victor Allarde regarding a letter from Adriano Abaya instructing Juliana Rebullido to bring for his daughter—is admitted based on tacit consent and the absence of objection.
• The acknowledgment is further supported by the fact that Inocencia received personal effects, annual produce (a hundred sheaves of palay and two piculs of sugar), and, later, a proposal to allot additional parcels of land.

Disputed Property and Partition Issues

• The property reportedly comprises 91 parcels originally belonging to Bibiano Abaya, later administered by family members including Dionisio Abaya.
• The identification of the parcels belonging to Bibiano Abaya remains problematic, as noted in the lower court’s finding.
• The trial record contains evidence that Dionisio Abaya managed the land as administrator, paying taxes and distributing its produce, thereby lending credibility to the claim that Inocencia had a hereditary interest.
• The division of the property was to be effected with one-sixth allotted to the children of Guillermo Abaya, one-sixth each to certain defendants, and one-sixth to the children of deceased Egesipo Abaya, with Inocencia’s share being a subject of contention.

Issues Arising from Procedural and Evidentiary Matters

• The lower court held that Inocencia Abaya was neither a legitimate child nor, as a natural child born before the Civil Code, entitled to more than one-sixth of the estate inherited from her natural father.
• There were contentions regarding whether the evidence sufficiently established the acknowledgment by Adriano Abaya.
• The admissibility of parole hearsay evidence and the sufficiency of tacit acts (e.g., the sending of personal effects) were also in dispute.
• The defendants argued that the action had prescribed due to the elapsed time between Inocencia’s marriage (July 4, 1912) and the filing of the complaint (January 15, 1930).

Issue:

Filiation and Acknowledgment of Natural Child

• Whether the trial court erred in holding that it had not been proven that Adriano Abaya acknowledged Inocencia Abaya as his daughter.
• Whether the evidence, including tacit acts and hearsay (the letter and personal effects), was sufficient to establish her status as an acknowledged natural child.

Inheritance Rights and Extent of Share

• Whether, as an acknowledged natural daughter born before the Civil Code took effect, Inocencia Abaya is entitled to participate in the inheritance of her natural grandparents (Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido).
• Whether she can inherit by representation from her natural grandmother, Juliana Rebullido.

Identification of the Estate

• Whether the court erred in its finding that the property belonging to Bibiano Abaya could not be clearly identified from the evidence on record.

Prescription of the Right of Action

• Whether the claim of Inocencia Abaya for partition of the estate was barred by prescription, given the period between her marriage and the filing of the complaint.

Acts of Acknowledgment as Evidence of Co-ownership

• Whether the actions of the defendants (such as the adjudication of a parcel via Exhibit C and the subsequent offer of additional parcels) effectively constituted an indubitable act of acknowledgment of Inocencia’s right as a co-owner.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)