Case Digest (G.R. No. 135216)
Facts:
Tomasa Vda. de Jacob, as Special Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo E. Jacob v. Court of Appeals, Pedro Pilapil, The Register of Deeds for the Province of Camarines Sur, and Juan F. Trivino, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob (hereafter petitioner), claiming to be the surviving spouse of the late Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob, was appointed Special Administratrix of his estates based on a reconstructed marriage contract. Pedro Pilapil (hereafter respondent) asserted he was the legally adopted son and sole heir of Dr. Jacob, supported by an Order dated July 18, 1961, purportedly signed by Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya granting the adoption.
At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with damages to restrain respondent from asserting heirship; respondent moved to intervene in the estate settlement (Case No. T-46) to press his claim. The RTC excluded the reconstructed marriage contract (Exh. B) as spurious under the best-evidence rule, found genuine an Order dated July 18, 1961 (Exh. 3) with Judge Moya’s signature (Exh. 34), set aside the provisional writ of injunction, and awarded attorney’s fees to respondent.
The Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) affirmed the RTC in toto on January 15, 1998, sustaining the exclusion of the reconstructed marriage contract and upholding the adoption order and Judge Moya’s signature after weighing conflicting handwriting expert reports. Petitioner f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the marriage between petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob and the deceased Alfredo E. Jacob valid?
- Is respondent Pedro Pilapil the legally adopted son of Alfredo E...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)