Case Summary (G.R. No. 208912)
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Arts. II, Sec. 13; VIII, Sec. 1; XV, Sec. 3(2)
– Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386, 1950), Arts. 283–285 (compulsory recognition), 982 (right of representation), 992 (successional barrier)
– 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45 (questions of law on certiorari)
– Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. 06-11-5-SC)
Procedural History
• May 7, 2003 – Rodolfo files for letters of administration over Miguel’s estate (RTC Davao City)
• July 2, 2003 – Angela moves to be included in distribution as Arturo’s daughter
• April 22, 2005 – RTC grants Angela’s motions, declaring her an acknowledged natural child of Arturo and directing allowances
• Aug. 23, 2012 – CA denies Rodolfo’s certiorari petition
• Jan. 21, 2013 – CA reverses RTC, holding Angela failed to prove filiation and is barred by Art. 992
• Nov. 11, 2013 – Supreme Court Third Division denies both appeals; later grants reconsideration and en banc referral
Issues
- Did Angela timely and sufficiently prove her filiation to Arturo?
- Does Article 992’s “iron curtain” conclusively bar an illegitimate grandchild from inheriting from a legitimate grandparent by representation?
Ruling (En Banc)
• Timeliness: Angela, born Oct 9, 1978, had a vested right under Civil Code Art. 285 to seek recognition within four years after attaining majority. Her July 2, 2003 motion was timely.
• Filiation: No evidence was received at trial to establish her continuous possession of Arturo’s child-status under Art. 283. The Baptismal Certificate and hospital Certification attached to her motion were never properly offered, and a Certificate of Live Birth introduced before this Court suggests she was recognized as the daughter of “Enrique A. Ho.”
• Nature of Art. 992: It embodies only a disputable presumption – that animosity exists between legitimate and illegitimate lines – and may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof of the decedent’s contrary intentions. It does not create a conclusive bar to representational succession when the presumption is disproved.
• Right of Representation: Article 982, which makes no distinction as to birth status, applies once filiation is established; Art. 992 applies only to inheritance in one’s own right, not to representation.
Remedy and Guidance for Trial Court
Given unresolved factual issues, the case is REMANDED for trial and reception of evi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 208912)
Facts
- Miguel T. Aquino (dec’d), died intestate on July 5, 1999, leaving a settled first‐wife estate and surviving second wife Enerie B. Aquino.
- He had four children by first wife Amadea C. Aquino: Abdulah C. Aquino, Rodolfo C. Aquino, Wilfredo (predeceased) and Arturo C. Aquino (predeceased).
- Arturo died January 10, 1978; his only alleged child, Amadea Angela Kuan Aquino (Angela), was born October 9, 1978 to Arturo and Susan Kuan (unmarried but no legal impediment).
- Angela lived with her mother and Aquino clan; baptized “Amadea Angela Aquino” with Arturo’s brother Abdulah as godfather.
- Miguel assisted Susan’s pregnancy expenses, provided for Angela’s needs and education, called her “Maggie,” and instructed that Angela receive a commercial lot.
Procedural History
- May 7, 2003: Rodolfo filed RTC petition for letters of administration of Miguel’s estate.
- July 2, 2003: Angela moved to be included in distribution as Arturo’s child by right of representation.
- Sept. 3, 2004: RTC appointed Abdulah administrator.
- April 22, 2005: RTC granted Angela’s motions, declaring her an acknowledged natural child of Arturo and directing monthly allowance.
- Abdulah appealed; Rodolfo filed CA certiorari (wrong remedy, forum shopping, res judicata).
- Aug. 23, 2012: CA denied Rodolfo’s petition. Aug. 1, 2013: CA denied reconsideration.
- Jan. 21, 2013: CA granted Abdulah’s appeal, reversed RTC, declared Angela disqualified to inherit ab intestato from Miguel.
- Oct. 2, 2013 & Oct. 7, 2013: Angela and Rodolfo filed separate Supreme Court petitions (G.R. 208912 & 209018).
- Nov. 11, 2013: SC Third Division