Case Digest (G.R. No. 205241)
Facts:
Concepcion A. Vizcarra, et al. v. Lilia Vizcarra‑Nocillado, et al., G.R. No. 205241, January 11, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Concepcion A. Vizcarra, Feliciano A. Vizcarra (married to Maria Luisa A. Vizcarra), Victor A. Vizcarra, Evarista A. Vizcarra, and Dionisio A. Vizcarra; respondents are Lilia Vizcarra‑Nocillado, Antonio A. Vizcarra, Norma Vizcarra‑Sanchez, Rizalina Vizcarra‑Hinkley, and Julieta V. Hunter‑Sutton.The subject property is a parcel in Parañaque registered in the name of Ireneo Vizcarra under TCT No. 63087. Ireneo died on September 5, 1993, leaving surviving relatives including Constancio and Purificacion. Constancio died August 18, 2004, survived by the petitioners as his heirs; Purificacion died November 19, 2006 without legitimate issue. On December 31, 2006 the Heirs of Constancio executed an Extra Judicial Settlement purporting to divide the estate of Ireneo (and of Constancio and Purificacion), which led to cancellation of TCT No. 63087 and issuance of new titles in the heirs’ names on January 20, 2007.
On October 4, 2007 respondents filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paranaque City, seeking nullification of the Extra Judicial Settlement and cancellation of the subsequently issued titles. Respondents claimed to be heirs of Silvestre F. Vizcarra (born December 31, 1920), alleging Silvestre was a son of Ireneo by Rosalia Ferrer and had predeceased Ireneo; respondents sued as Silvestre’s heirs. To prove filiation they offered (1) an NSO Certificate (a reconstructed birth record) stating Silvestre’s father was “Irineo Vizcarra,” (2) a 1978 Certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Parañaque, and (3) Silvestre’s marriage contract naming Ireneo as father.
After trial, the RTC (Presiding Judge Fortunito L. Madrona) found respondents established Silvestre’s filiation to Ireneo, declared the Extra Judicial Settlement null and void, ordered cancellation of the reissued titles and reinstatement of TCT No. 63087, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated October 4, 2012 (and a subsequent Resolution denying reconsideration on January 14, 2013) affirmed the RTC, relying primarily on the presumption of regularity and the NSO Certificate’s reconstruction process and testimony by the Local Civil Registrar’s representative that the 1978 Certification was authentic.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review and re‑examine factual findings of the lower courts in this case?
- Did respondents prove the filiation of Silvestre to Ireneo so as to entitle respondents to a share in Ireneo’s estate and to invalidate the Extra Ju...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)