G.R. No. 9105 - IN RE: Remigio vs. Ortiga

Apolonia Remigio y Capati, the widow of Pablo Ortiga Chan Chioc, executed her will on August 12, 1911, which was duly probated in Manila.
The will contained explicit clauses regarding the distribution of her estate—including a rectification about her natural children—despite previous acts that might have suggested otherwise.
In the will, particularly in its second and fifteenth clauses, Apolonia declared that the children named in her deceased husband’s will (Santiago, Eduardo, and Alfonso Ortiga) were not her natural offspring.

Petitioner/Appellant: Gorgonia Remigio y Pena, who, as the universal heir under the will’s directive, sought that the remainder of the estate be delivered to her.
Respondents/Appellees: Santiago Ortiga, Eduardo Ortiga, and Alfonso Ortiga, who claimed forced heirship as the “legitimate, acknowledged children” of Apolonia Remigio, based on earlier family recognitions and documents.
Both parties presented evidence and affidavits to support their respective claims, resulting in conflicts regarding the true filiation of the respondents.

The will of Pablo Ortiga dated April 7, 1902, which recognized Santiago, Eduardo, and Alfonso as his children by his marriage with Apolonia.
Documents relating to the partition of Pablo Ortiga’s estate (dated July 27, 1907) and agreements between the parties concerning the community property.

Multiple witnesses (e.g., Nemesio Corpus, Aniceta Novenario, Julia Reyes, and N. T. Hashim) testified regarding their observations in the household and statements made by Apolonia Remigio.
Testimonies indicated that while the respondents were treated and referred to as children by Pablo Ortiga and, at times, by Apolonia, none conclusively proved that Apolonia gave birth to them.

Baptismal certificates and church records (Exhibits 3, 5, and 7) provided conflicting data concerning the origin of Santiago, Eduardo, and Alfonso.
Testimony and photographic exhibits were used in an attempt to authenticate the presence and recognition of Vicentica Lopez and her role as the biological mother of Eduardo and Alfonso, as well as evidence that Santiago had been bought in China.

Earlier conduct and documents somewhat implied the existence of a familial relationship between Apolonia and the respondents, for instance, her acquiescence to using Pablo Ortiga’s surname and joint participation in estate partition agreements.
However, in her last will, Apolonia unmistakably rectified those implications by declaring that she had no children born of her union with Pablo Ortiga and that she left the means for proving such a fact to her designated heir, Gorgonia Remigio.
The conflicting evidence centered on whether the respondents were truly her natural children or whether they originated from other circumstances (such as Santiago being bought in China and Eduardo/Alfonso being born of Vicentica Lopez).

Whether Apolonia Remigio’s explicit rectification in her will—declaring that Santiago, Eduardo, and Alfonso were not her natural children—is legally valid and binding.
Whether such a rectification can override previous acts of familial recognition or implied acknowledgment.

Whether the respondents have sufficiently proved, by clear and positive evidence, that they were born of Apolonia Remigio’s womb.
Whether the evidence of continuous treatment and acknowledgment as “children” can legally establish filiation when contrasted with the declaratory rectification in the will.

Whether the documentary evidence (wills, partition agreements, baptismal certificates) and the testimonies presented by both the petitioner’s and respondents’ witnesses are capable of conclusively establishing biological maternity.
Whether the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidentiary record justify the court’s finding regarding the non-recognition of the respondents as forced heirs.