Title
Yap vs. Yap
Case
G.R. No. 222259
Decision Date
Oct 17, 2022
Lowella Yap claims inheritance as Diosdado Sr.'s nonmarital child; dispute over filiation and estate partition. Supreme Court remands for DNA testing, prioritizing child's welfare.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 222259)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner Lowella Yap filed a Complaint for partition and accounting with prayer for receivership and injunction against respondents Almeda Yap (widow of decedent), Hearty Yap-Dybongco, and Diosdado Yap, Jr. (marital children).
    • Petition alleged that upon the January 1995 death of Diosdado Yap, Sr., his heirs were Almeda, their marital children (Josie May Yap, Hearty, Diosdado Jr.) and an acknowledged nonmarital daughter, Lowella Yap.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • Defendants denied heirship of Lowella (and Josie), asserting Josie’s father was Manuel Saavedra and Lowella’s father was Bernardo Lumahang, to whom her mother Matilde Lusterio was married.
    • Lowella testified she was fathered by Diosdado Sr., lived with his family from high school, worked in his business, and used the name “Lowella” by his consent. She presented:
      • Certification of birth registration naming Diosdado Sr. as father.
      • Special Power of Attorney referring to her as his daughter.
      • Photographs nursing Diosdado Sr. and letters addressing her “Mama Mie.”
      • His Affidavit acknowledging paternity.
    • Defendants introduced certifications of no birth record under “Lowella” or “Nelie” Yap, marriage contract of Lusterio and Lumahang, and birth certificates of their children.
    • On March 28, 2012, RTC Branch 15, Ozamiz City, found Lowella to be Diosdado Sr.’s nonmarital daughter, ordered partition among her and respondents, and dismissed intervenors’ claim for failure to prosecute.
  • Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings
    • Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 03083-MIN), which on April 30, 2015, set aside the RTC’s filiation finding, holding Lowella enjoyed the presumption of legitimacy as Lusterio and Lumahang’s marital child and that legitimacy cannot be impugned collaterally in a partition case.
    • Lowella’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 13, 2015.
    • Lowella filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, contesting the CA’s application of Article 164 of the Family Code and arguing the presumption of legitimacy was already rebutted by her birth registration naming Diosdado Sr. as father.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioner Lowella Yap sufficiently overthrew the presumption of legitimacy attaching to her birth during the valid marriage of her mother to Bernardo Lumahang.
  • Whether the presumption of legitimacy may be impugned and filiation with the biological father established in a partition case without a prior direct action by the husband or his heirs.
  • Whether additional evidence, including DNA testing, should be ordered to resolve Lowella’s filiation.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.