G.R. No. 222259 - Yap vs. Yap

Decedent: Diosdado Yap, Sr. died January 1995, leaving wife Almeda and marital children Hearty and Diosdado, Jr.; Josie was initially pleaded as a child but later dropped; Lowella claimed to be his acknowledged nonmarital child.
Respondents: Almeda (wife), Hearty Yap-Dybongco, and Diosdado Yap, Jr. (marital children) opposed Lowella’s claim and denied her heirship.

March 12, 1996: Lowella and Josie filed a complaint for partition, accounting, receivership, and preliminary injunction, alleging extrajudicial partition by Almeda, Hearty, and Diosdado, Jr. that excluded them.
Relief sought: Partition of the decedent’s estate and acknowledgement of their respective shares as heirs, with Lowella asserting status as acknowledged nonmarital child.

Respondents’ defenses: Denied Lowella’s filiation; alleged Lowella’s father was Bernardo Lumahang, whom her mother, Matilde Lusterio, married on January 15, 1953; presented marriage records and birth certificates of other children of Matilde and Bernardo.
Intervention: Adonis and Adam Lou Yap claimed to be acknowledged nonmarital children; their complaint-in-intervention was later dismissed for failure to prosecute following their non-participation.

Case streamlining: By January 21, 2002, Josie was dropped as a litigant for failure to appear; only Lowella pursued the case.
Lowella’s testimonial and documentary evidence:

Testified she was born April 1, 1961 to Diosdado Sr. and Matilde; lived with the decedent’s family in high school; worked in his construction business; used the name “Lowella” despite “Nelie” on civil registry.
Exhibits included: Civil Registrar of Bacolod certification of the registration of “Nelie Lusterio YAP” as daughter of “Diosdado YAP” and “Matilde Lusterio”; Special Power of Attorney executed by Diosdado Sr. naming “my daughter” Lowella; photographs of Lowella nursing Diosdado Sr.; letters from Almeda to Lowella signed “Mama Mie”; memorial program listing Lowella among the decedent’s children; Diosdado Sr.’s sworn affidavit stating “I am the natural father of Lowella Yap” and that “Lowella” and “Nelie” are one and the same person.

Civil Registrar’s testimony: Bacolod MCR Liza Taculod produced the Book of Live Births (pre-1980 records unavailable) and read the entry for “Nelie Lusterio Yap” born April 1, 1961 to “Diosdado Yap” and “Matilde Lusterio.”
Defense evidence and testimony:

Ofelia Ho (Almeda’s sister) denied the authenticity of signatures on Lowella’s documents attributed to Diosdado Sr.
Presented NSO certifications showing no records for “Lowella Yap” and “Nelie Yap” born April 2, 1961; marriage contract and civil registrar certification of Matilde’s marriage to Bernardo; birth certificates of Matilde and Bernardo’s children born 1957–1974.

Ruling: Judgment for Lowella; ordered partition among Lowella and respondents in accordance with law; directed parties to submit instruments of conveyance within 60 days from finality or commissioners to be appointed.
Findings: Civil registry entries are prima facie evidence; NSO negative certifications not controlling and themselves directed verification with Bacolod LCR; marriage to Bernardo deemed irrelevant given proof of Diosdado’s paternity; accepted Lowella’s unrefuted testimony that Matilde and Bernardo separated and during separation Matilde had a relationship with Diosdado resulting in Lowella’s birth; dismissed intervenors’ complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Disposition: Set aside the RTC’s declaration of Lowella as acknowledged nonmarital child; dismissed Lowella’s complaint for partition and accounting.
Rationale: Lowella, born during Matilde’s subsisting marriage to Bernardo, enjoys Article 164 presumption of legitimacy; legitimacy may be impugned only by the husband or his heirs (Arts. 170–171) in a direct action; Lowella’s claim of illegitimacy in a partition case is a prohibited collateral attack.

Petitioner’s arguments: Article 164 inapplicable because the civil registry shows Diosdado as father; impractical and illogical to require Bernardo to impugn when he is not even listed as father; challenges CA’s application barring her proof of true filiation.
Respondents’ arguments: Lowella failed to establish filiation; questioned authenticity of SPA and affidavit; relied on presumption of legitimacy and the bar on collateral attacks; asserted absence of birth certificate and mismatch in dates.
Petitioner’s reply: No proof of falsification; respondents did not prove she is Bernardo’s marital child; insists on weight of civil registry entries and decedent’s admissions.

Whether a child born during a subsisting marriage may, in her own action, overcome the Article 164 presumption of legitimacy using Article 166 grounds, and thereby establish nonmarital filiation with another man for purposes of succession and partition.

Whether the CA erred in holding that only the husband or his heirs may impugn legitimacy under Articles 170–171 and that Lowella’s claim is a collateral attack barred in a partition case.
Whether the best interests of the child and jurisprudence allow the reception of evidence (including DNA) to establish true filiation notwithstanding the presumption.

Whether the RTC correctly found that the presumption of legitimacy had been overthrown based on Lowella’s evidence, including the claimed separation of Matilde and Bernardo.

Whether mere separation suffices to show physical impossibility of access under Article 166(1).
Whether additional scientific evidence (DNA) is proper and necessary.

Whether to affirm RTC’s declaration and order partition, to affirm CA’s dismissal, or to remand for reception of further evidence, including DNA testing.