Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22469)
Facts:
Tomas Corpus v. Administrator and/or Executor of the Estate of Teodoro R. Yangco et al., G.R. No. L-22469, October 23, 1978, the Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from the probate and subsequent partition of the estate of Teodoro R. Yangco, who died April 20, 1939. Yangco's will dated August 29, 1934 was probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila in Special Proceeding No. 54863; the decree of probate was earlier affirmed by this Court in Corpus v. Yangco, 73 Phil. 527. Yangco had no forced heirs; his nearest relatives included his brother Luis R. Yangco, his sister Paz Yangco (wife of Miguel Ossorio), the children of his half brother Pablo Corpus (Amalia, Jose A. V., Ramon L. Corpus), and Juanita (Juana) Corpus, daughter of his half brother Jose Corpus. Juanita died in October 1944.
Pursuant to the probate court’s order, a project of partition dated November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and the legatees. That project was opposed by the estate of Luis R. Yangco (which contended that an intestacy should be declared because the will purportedly lacked an institution of heir) and by Atty. Roman A. Cruz on behalf of Juanita Corpus and others. Atty. Cruz also argued that the testator intended his properties to be “conserved” and not physically partitioned.
On December 26, 1946 the probate court approved the project of partition, holding that the will’s conditions to prevent dissipation of the estate could not be given effect as perpetual restraints against alienation and that there were no grounds to declare intestacy. Appeals from that order by Pedro Martinez, Juliana de Castro, Juanita Corpus (deceased) and the estate of Luis R. Yangco were later dismissed in this Court’s resolutions of October 10 and 31, 1947 after the parties entered into compromise agreements, with entries of judgment made in October and November 1947.
In the compromise dated October 7, 1947 the legatees agreed to pay certain sums to claimants; Tomas Corpus signed that compromise as the sole heir of Juanita Corpus and, by a receipt dated October 24, 1947, acknowledged receipt of P2,000 “as settlement in full of my share” under the compromise. On September 20, 1949 the legatees executed an agreement for settlement and physical partition of the Yangco estate, which the probate court approved, modifying the 1945 project of partition pro tanto.
On October 5, 1951, however, Tomas Corpus, as sole heir of Juanita, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to recover what he alleged was Juanita’s intestate share in Yangco’s estate. He contended inter alia that certain testamentary dispositions imposing perpetual prohibitions against alienation were void under article 785 of the old Civil Code and that the 1949 partition was invalid, warranting intestate distribution.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on July 2, 1956 on grounds of res judicata and laches, finding that the intrinsic validity of Yangco’s will had already been passed upon in the probate proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 54863). On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court certified the appeal to this Court (CA-G.R. No. 18720-R) by resolution dated January 23, 1964 because the case involved real property valued in excess of the jurisdictional threshold. In this petition before the Court, Tomas Corpus challenged several findings below, including that Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child, that the will had been duly legalized, and that his action was barred by res judicata and laches.
The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the questions of legalization of the will or whether the action was barred by res judicata or laches; instead the Court resolved the appeal by determining whether Juanita Corpus was a legal heir of Teodoro R. Yangco, which in turn required ascertaining Yangco’s filiation. The trial court had found Yangco to have been an acknowledged natural child of Luis Rafael Yangco, basing that conclusion on the June 14, 1907 will of Luis Rafael Yangco (Exh. 1), which expressly declared four acknowledged natural children. Appellant contested the probative value of that instrument, but the Court treated the will as part of the public judicial record and thus authentic.
Although the Court acknowledged the presumption of legitimacy applicable to the children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio; Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 5), it held that on the established record Teodoro R. Yangco...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Teodoro R. Yangco an acknowledged natural (illegitimate) child for purposes of succession?
- Was Juanita (Juana) Corpus a legal heir of Teodoro R. Yangco, enabling her (and by representation her son Tomas Corpus) to claim an intestate share?
- Did Tomas Corpus have a cause of action to recover his mother’s alleg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)