G.R. No. 18058 - Severino vs. Severino

Plaintiff and Appellee: Fabiola Severino, claiming status as the natural daughter and sole heir of Melecio Severino, deceased, seeking conveyance of four parcels or P800,000 in damages.
Defendant and Appellant: Guillermo Severino, brother of Melecio, in whose name the parcels were registered in 1917; answered with a general denial.
Intervenor and Appellee: Felicitas Villanueva, administratrix of Melecio’s estate, claiming the same relief on behalf of the estate.
Trial Court Judgment: Recognized Fabiola as natural child; ordered Guillermo to convey 428 hectares to the intervenor, deliver mortgage proceeds, and pay costs.

Parcels: Lots Nos. 827 (61 ha 74 a 79 ca), 828 (76 ha 34 a 79 ca), 834 (52 ha 86 a 60 ca), and 874 (608 ha 77 a 28 ca) in Silay, Negros Occidental; total 799 ha 75 a 46 ca of continuous tract.
Possessory Proceedings (1901): Recorded 428 hectares in the name of Melecio via his brother Agapito’s possessory information petition.
Cadastral Proceedings (1916–17): Land surveyed and divided into four lots; Guillermo, through counsel Roque Hofilena, filed answers claiming the lots; no opposition; decree and titles issued in March 1917.
Occupation: During Melecio’s life and after his death (25 May 1915), Guillermo acted as administrator, occupying and managing the land; in 1913 he testified under oath in another case confirming his role as encargado of Melecio.

Plaintiff: Offered evidence of maternal acknowledgment and presumption under Civil Code art. 130 and CCP §334(1) to establish Fabiola’s status as natural child.
Defendant: Sought to show common ownership by all heirs of Ramon Severino and absence of fraud; relied on the final cadastral decree and Land Registration Act §38 to assert indefeasible title.
Intervenor: Relied on fiduciary relationship and breach of trust by Guillermo to compel reconveyance to the estate.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting and finding evidence that Fabiola was the legally acknowledged natural child of Melecio.

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Guillermo’s evidence of good faith and in concluding he procured title by fraud.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering conveyance despite the cadastral decree and Torrens indefeasibility (Land Registration Act §38).

Whether the trial court erred in finding 428 hectares (versus 324 ha) as Melecio’s land at death.
Whether the trial court erred in fixing value at P500 per hectare.

Whether the trial court erred in granting an ex parte attachment and in refusing to dissolve it without hearing.