Case Digest (G.R. No. 105625)
Facts:
Marissa Benitez-Badua v. Court of Appeals, Victoria Benitez Lirio and Feodor Benitez Aguilar, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose after the deaths of spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian (Isabel died April 25, 1982; Vicente died intestate November 13, 1989). Private respondents Victoria Benitez-Lirio (Vicente’s sister) and Feodor Benitez Aguilar (Vicente’s nephew) filed Special Proceeding No. 797 (90) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 30 on September 24, 1990, praying for issuance of letters of administration for Vicente’s estate in favor of Aguilar and alleging that Vicente left no descendants, that the decedent and his wife were childless, and that petitioner Marissa Benitez-Badua was not related by blood nor legally adopted and therefore not an heir.
Petitioner opposed the petition on November 2, 1990, asserting she was the legitimate and sole heir of the deceased spouses. At the RTC the parties adduced documentary and testimonial evidence: petitioner offered her Certificate of Live Birth, baptismal certificate, school records, and employment/GSIS records showing Vicente named her as his daughter, and she testified that the spouses reared and treated her as their daughter; private respondents presented mainly testimonial evidence from family members and neighbors asserting that Isabel never bore a child, that Vicente obtained a baby elsewhere and registered her as his and his wife’s child without legal adoption, and other circumstances suggesting simulation of birth registration.
On December 17, 1990 the trial court (RTC) ruled for petitioner, dismissed the petition for letters of administration, and declared petitioner the legitimate daughter and sole heir of Vicente and Isabel, relying on Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code. The Court of Appeals, however, reviewed the evidence and on May 29, 1992 reversed the RTC, declaring that Marissa was not the biological child of Vicente and Isabel, denied her opposition to the petition for appointment of an administrator, reinstated the special proceeding, and directed the RTC to proceed (costs against appellee). The appellate decision questioned the applicability of Articles 164 and 166 of the Family Code and found the weight of testimonial evidence and extrajudicial documents showed petitioner was not a blood child.
Petitioner sought review in this Court via a petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decis...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code applicable to this controversy as an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding, as a factual matter, that petitioner was not the biological child of Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian?
- Was the Court of Appeals’ decision infirm on grounds of prescription or laches...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)