Facts:

The case involves Renato Lazatin, also known as Renato Sta. Clara, as the petitioner against Honorable Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr., and private respondents Nora L. de Leon, Bernardo de Leon, Arlene de Leon, and Irma L. Veloso. The events leading to this case began with the death of Dr. Mariano M. Lazatin on January 13, 1974, in Pasay City, who was survived by his wife, Margarita de Asis, and their adopted twin daughters. Following Dr. Lazatin's death, Margarita initiated intestate proceedings for his estate. Subsequently, several individuals, including those claiming to be illegitimate children of Dr. Lazatin, intervened in the proceedings. Margarita passed away a month later, leaving a holographic will that included legacies to her granddaughter and others.

Five days after Margarita's death, Nora L. de Leon opened a safety deposit box belonging to her mother, claiming she did so in good faith. The box contained various items, including adoption papers. After discove...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Dr. Mariano M. Lazatin died intestate on January 13, 1974, in Pasay City, survived by his wife, Margarita de Asis, and their adopted twin daughters, Nora L. de Leon and Irma Lazatin.
• One month later, Margarita de Asis initiated intestate proceedings for her husband’s estate (Sp. Proc. No. 2326-P). Several individuals, including Mariano, Oscar, Virgilio, Yvonne, and Lily Lazatin, intervened, claiming to be Dr. Lazatin’s admitted illegitimate children.
• Margarita de Asis died on April 11, 1974, leaving a holographic will executed on May 29, 1970. Her will provided legacies to her granddaughter, Arlene de Leon, and support for Rodolfo Gallardo and Ramon Sta. Clara (son of petitioner Renato Lazatin).

Safety Deposit Box Controversy

• Margarita de Asis maintained a safety deposit box at People’s Bank and Trust Company, which could be accessed by her or Nora L. de Leon.
• Five days after Margarita’s death, Nora L. de Leon, accompanied by her husband Bernardo de Leon, opened the safety deposit box and removed its contents, including stock certificates, adoption papers for Nora and Irma, and jewelry.
• Nora claimed she acted in good faith, believing the box was jointly held with her mother. Bank personnel informed her she needed court authority to close the box, prompting her to remove its contents.

Intervention and Proceedings

• On June 3, 1974, private respondents filed a petition to probate Margarita’s will (Sp. Proc. No. 2341-P).
• Ramon Sta. Clara (petitioner’s son) filed a motion in the probate court, alleging the existence of a subsequent will and demanding the safety deposit box’s opening. The box was later found empty.
• Petitioner Renato Lazatin intervened in the intestate proceedings of Dr. Lazatin on November 22, 1974, as an admitted illegitimate child.
• On August 20, 1975, petitioner filed a motion to intervene in Margarita’s estate proceedings as her adopted child, supported by an affidavit from Benjamin Lazatin (Dr. Lazatin’s brother).

Court Hearings and Evidence

• Petitioner attempted to prove his adoption through acts and declarations of the deceased spouses, including their support and recognition of him as their child. However, he failed to produce a judicial decree of adoption.
• On March 4, 1976, the court ruled that petitioner’s evidence only established his status as an admitted illegitimate child, not as an adopted child.
• Petitioner sought to invoke Rule 29, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the court’s order for production of items from the safety deposit box should establish his adoption. This was denied.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Adoption as a Juridical Act: Adoption requires strict compliance with statutory procedures, including a judicial decree. It cannot be presumed and must be affirmatively proved. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence of a judicial adoption proceeding or decree.
2. Insufficient Evidence: Petitioner’s reliance on parol evidence, such as acts and declarations by the deceased spouses, was insufficient to prove adoption. Such evidence does not substitute for the mandatory presentation of a judicial decree.
3. No Evidence of Document Existence: Petitioner failed to establish the existence or loss of any adoption documents, which is a prerequisite for introducing secondary evidence.
4. Intervention Denied: Since petitioner failed to prove his adoption, he had no legal basis to intervene in the estate proceedings. Only legitimate heirs or creditors have standing to intervene.
5. Rule 29 Inapplicable: The court’s order for production of items from the safety deposit box could not be treated as a discovery order under Rule 27, and no adoption documents were found among the surrendered items.

The Court lifted the temporary restraining order, allowing the probate proceedings to continue. Petitioner’s recourse, if any, would be to pursue his claim as an admitted illegitimate child and appeal any adverse rulings.