G.R. No. 154464 - Cruz vs. Mijares

Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia (petitioners) and Dra. Fely S. Pizarro and Henry Rossi (respondents) all claimed to be children of the deceased Josefa A. Ara, who died on November 18, 2002.
The dispute arose from a claim to filiation in connection with a judicial partition of the properties left by Josefa.

Josefa was married to Vicente Salgado, and respondent Pizarro testified that, to her knowledge, she was the only child born of that marriage.
Towards the end of World War II, Josefa reportedly lived with an American soldier, Darwin Gray, from which Romeo F. Ara was born.
Josefa later entered into a relationship with Alfredo Garcia, giving birth to sons Ramon Garcia and William A. Garcia. Josefa and Alfredo married on January 24, 1952.
After Alfredo’s death, Josefa met Frank Rossi, who allegedly fathered Henry Rossi.

Petitioner Garcia’s delayed Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal Certificate list Josefa as his mother, yet they were registered long after his birth and contain discrepancies.
Petitioner Ara’s birth record and other documentary evidence (including a Certificate of Birth registered under different parents’ names) conflict with the claim that Josefa is the mother.
Respondent Pizarro submitted birth certificates issued by the Civil Registry indicating that Garcia and Ara were, respectively, the children of Carmen Bugarin/Pedro Garcia and Jose Ara/Maria Flores.

Petitioners, together with Ramon and respondent Rossi, sought a partition of several properties of Josefa.

The properties included: a lot and improvements in Poblacion, Valencia City covered by Katibayan ng Original na Titulo; Tamaraw FX; and an RCBC Bank deposit passbook.

Respondent Pizarro, who possessed these properties, refused to accede to partition, prompting the parties to seek conciliation through the Barangay Lupon.
Failing an amicable settlement, the Barangay Captain issued a Certification to File Action on April 3, 2003, and a Complaint for Judicial Partition was subsequently filed on April 9, 2003, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City, Branch 9.

The RTC ordered the partition by awarding specific properties to Henry Rossi and Dra. Fely S. Pizarro with designated deductions from their shares, while declaring the remaining properties to be co-owned in equal shares.

Respondent Pizarro and petitioners Ara, Garcia, and respondent Rossi filed appeals.
The CA, in its decision dated August 1, 2008, determined that only Fely Pizarro, Ramon Garcia, and Henry Rossi were the children of Josefa entitled to a share in her estate.
The CA reversed the trial court’s finding that petitioners Ara and Garcia could prove their illegitimate filiation based on open and continuous possession of that status after Josefa’s death.

Motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners and respondent Rossi were denied by the CA on March 16, 2009.
Petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner Garcia presented a delayed Certificate of Live Birth, a Baptismal Certificate, a Certificate of Marriage mentioning Josefa as his mother, and group pictures as evidence of filiation.
Petitioner Ara produced testimony and documentation supporting his claim as a son of Josefa and Darwin Gray.
Respondent Pizarro, however, introduced birth certificates from the Civil Registry indicating that petitioners Garcia and Ara were born to other sets of parents.

The parties offered various testimonies regarding the manner in which Josefa allegedly acknowledged all her children.
The evidence was contrasted with the legal requirement that, for illicit filiation claims, the act of recognition must be supported by a record of birth, a final judgment, or an admission in a public document made by the parent.

Whether petitioners may invoke the doctrine of open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate child to prove filiation to Josefa after her death, given the requirements of Article 172 and Article 175 of the Family Code.
Whether evidence such as delayed registration of a Certificate of Live Birth, baptismal records, and group photographs is sufficient to establish filiation when contradicted by properly issued birth certificates from the Civil Registry.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by not allowing petitioners to introduce evidence of filiation after Josefa’s death, in light of the requirement that such recognition be effectuated during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
Whether Article 285 of the Civil Code and the provisions in the Family Code that set time limitations on the recognition of natural children should bar the petitioners’ claim.
Whether the birth certificates submitted by respondent Pizarro, which indicate other parentage, are conclusive against the petitioners’ claims.