Case Summary (G.R. No. 187273)
Applicable Laws
The governing laws in this case are derived from the Family Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 172, 173, and 175, which discuss the establishment of filiation, the action to claim legitimacy, and the manner to establish illegitimate children’s filiation, respectively.
Background and Legal Proceedings
The dispute began after Josefa's death when petitioners, along with other claimants, sought a partition of Josefa's properties. Josefa had multiple partners, and the petitioners claimed to be her illegitimate children by virtue of their relationships with her. Respondent Pizarro asserted she was Josefa's legitimate daughter, denying any of the other claimants were her siblings. After failed attempts at conciliation through the Barangay Lupon, the case was brought before the Regional Trial Court for judicial partition.
Trial Court's Decision
The Regional Trial Court recognized the relationship between the petitioners and Josefa, ruling that Ara and Garcia were indeed her illegitimate sons, and ordered a partition of the estate. Pizarro appealed, arguing the trial court erred in this finding and sought to exclude the petitioners from the partition, while Rossi also disputed the inclusion of his property.
Court of Appeals' Findings
The Court of Appeals modified the Trial Court's decision, concluding that only Pizarro and Ramon A. Garcia were legitimate children entitled to inherit from Josefa's estate. The Court ruled that the trial court had incorrectly admitted evidence of the petitioners' claims of filiation after Josefa's death, emphasizing that under Article 285 of the Civil Code, recognition of natural children must be made during the lifetime of the parent, barring certain exceptions.
Rationale for Denial of Petitioners' Filiation Claims
The Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence that could establish their claims of being Josefa's children after her death. Evidence such as delayed birth registrations and Certificates of Live Birth did not attribute legal parentage to Josefa. The court pointed out that the only means to establish filiation after a putative parent's demise required concre
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187273)
Introduction
- This case revolves around a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The petitioners, Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia, seek to set aside the Decision dated August 1, 2008, and Resolution dated March 16, 2009, of the Court of Appeals.
- The case primarily concerns the claim of filiation and the partition of properties left by the deceased Josefa A. Ara.
Parties Involved
- Petitioners:
- Romeo F. Ara
- William A. Garcia
- Respondents:
- Dra. Fely S. Pizarro
- Henry Rossi
- All parties claim to be children of the late Josefa A. Ara, who passed away on November 18, 2002.
Background of the Case
- Josefa A. Ara had several relationships throughout her life, leading to the birth of several children:
- Vicente Salgado: Josefa's first husband, deceased during World War II.
- Darwin Gray: An American soldier with whom Josefa had a relationship, resulting in the birth of Romeo F. Ara.
- Alfredo Garcia: Josefa's second partner, with whom she had two sons, Ramon and William A. Garcia.
- Frank Rossi: An Italian missionary who allegedly fathered Henry Rossi.
- Respondent Pizarro claims to be the only legitimate child of Josefa, while the petitioners assert their rights as her illegitimate children.
Initial Proceedings
- The petitioners sought a partition of Josefa’s properties, which included:
- A lot in Bukidnon
- A Tamaraw FX vehicle
- A bank deposit of Php 108,000 in RCBC
- Respondent Pizarro refused to partition these properties, leading the petitioners to seek conciliation via the Barangay Lupon, which ultimately failed.
- A