Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20921)
Facts:
Marcelo Sotto v. Filemon Sotto, G.R. No. L-20921, May 24, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-Appellee Marcelo Sotto sued to be declared an illegitimate (other than natural) son of defendant Filemon Sotto, who was represented in the suit by temporary and later permanent guardians because of advanced age and doubts about his capacity.
The suit was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. That court had previously appointed Vicente A. Miranda as guardian of the property and Dr. Suga (Surra) Sotto Yuvienco as guardian of the person of Filemon Sotto; subsequently Dr. Yuvienco became permanent guardian of the person and Fr. Sergio R. Alfafara and Cesar M. Sotto were appointed co-guardians of the property. Dr. Yuvienco and the co-guardians filed oppositions/answers; after trial the Court of First Instance rendered judgment for plaintiff Marcelo. Dr. Yuvienco (guardian-appellant) took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
At trial Marcelo and several witnesses recounted that in 1932 Jovita Butalid cohabited with Don Filemon Sotto at a rented house on Mango Avenue, Cebu City, that Don Filemon supported her and the household, and that Marcelo was born of that illicit union. Testimony and documents showed that Don Filemon instructed the midwife to register the child as “Marcelo Sotto,” regularly provided for the child’s education and living expenses, brought him to the city and treated him as his son, procured his apprenticeship and employment, and that members of the family (including Don Filemon’s wife, Dona Carmen Hallos) visited and gave gifts to the child. Exhibits and photographs were introduced and several relatives, including Cesar Sotto, testified that Don Filemon had acknowledged Marcelo as his illegitimate son. Some guardians’ prior pleadings also expressly admitted that Marcelo was a child of Don Filemon.
Appellant Dr. Yuvienco challenged the lower court’s findings, moved to set aside the judgment and to reopen the case to present further evidence on the ground that her counsel had ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Does an appellant who appeals directly to the Supreme Court waive the right to challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, thereby confining review to questions of law?
- Substantive: Did plaintiff Marcelo establish continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged spurious (illegitimate) child and the filial relation to Filemon Sotto?
- Procedural/Substantive: Was the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reopen the case proper, and is there any legal impediment to an action to establ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)