Case Digest (G.R. No. 108599)
Facts:
Rosa Llorente v. Ceferino Rodriguez, G.R. No. 1362. April 15, 1904, the Supreme Court, Cooper, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff-appellant, Rosa Llorente, sued Ceferino Rodriguez in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Jacinta Llorente, who died intestate on August 11, 1901. The complaint alleged that Jacinta left as heirs Rosa (described as her legally recognized natural daughter) and five legitimate children — Mariano Rodriguez, Remedios Orbeta, Flora Orbeta, Juan Orbeta, and Ceferino Rodriguez — that the administrator had qualified and paid the debts of the estate, and that the estate was ready for division and distribution with the plaintiff entitled to share according to her interest.
At the Court of First Instance the plaintiff offered evidence intended to prove either express or tacit recognition by Jacinta of Rosa as her natural child: testimony that Jacinta reared and educated Rosa, witness testimony of persons present at Rosa’s birth (September 4, 1872), and a baptismal certificate showing Rosa was baptized as Jacinta’s natural child by the latter’s express authority. The trial court excluded this evidence and entered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s petition. The trial court’s exclusion and final decision rested on its view that recognition of a natural child must conform to Article 131 of the Civil Code (recognition only in the birth record, by will, or by public instrument).
The plaintiff appealed under Chapter XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure (appeals in special proceedings). The record shows the Civil Code was adopted December 8, 1889, after Rosa’s birth in 1872. The Court below rejected the evidence because it deemed the Civil Code’s prescribed modes of recognition controlling; Ro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Civil Code (specifically Article 131) enacted in 1889 apply to recognition of a child born in 1872, or does the law in force at the time of birth (Law 11 of Toro) govern?
- Under Law 11 of Toro (the law in force at the plaintiff’s birth), could the mother effect legal recognition of a natural child, or was that right confined to the father?
- If the mother could recognize, was the excluded evidence (acts of rearing, baptismal certificate, testimony of those present at birt...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)