Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22469)
Applicable Constitution
Decision date: October 23, 1978. The applicable constitutional framework at the time of decision is the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (i.e., the pre‑1987 constitutional regime).
Procedural History — Probate and Early Appeals
Teodoro Yangco’s will was probated in CFI Manila (Special Proceeding No. 54863) and probate decree was affirmed by this Court in 1941. Pursuant to probate court order, a project of partition dated November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and legatees. The project was opposed by the estate of Luis R. Yangco (arguing intestacy because the will allegedly lacked an institution of heir) and by counsel for Juanita Corpus (arguing the will intended to “conserve” property rather than permit physical partition). The probate court approved the 1945 partition project on December 26, 1946, finding no legal ground to declare intestacy. Appeals from that order were dismissed after compromise agreements in October 1947; entries of judgment became final on October 14 and November 4, 1947.
Compromises, Receipts, and the 1949 Agreement
Under the 1947 compromise, legatees agreed to pay sums (including P35,000) to various claimants; Tomas Corpus signed the compromise as sole heir of Juanita Corpus and later signed a receipt (Oct. 24, 1947) acknowledging P2,000 received “as settlement in full.” On September 20, 1949, legatees executed an agreement for settlement and physical partition of the Yangco estate, which the probate court approved and which modified the 1945 partition pro tanto.
Plaintiff’s Suit and Trial Court Disposition
On October 5, 1951, Tomas Corpus, as sole heir of Juanita Corpus, filed suit in CFI Manila to recover what he asserted to be Juanita’s share of Yangco’s intestate estate, contending the will’s perpetual alienation prohibitions were void under article 785 (Spanish Civil Code) and that the 1949 partition was invalid, thus necessitating intestate distribution. The trial court (decision July 2, 1956) dismissed the action on grounds of res judicata and laches and held that the will’s intrinsic validity had already been passed upon by the probate court’s December 26, 1946 order approving partition.
Certification and Issues on Appeal
The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this Court (CA resolution Jan. 23, 1964) because the controversy involved real property valued above the jurisdictional threshold. Appellant raised three principal errors: (1) that Teodoro R. Yangco was a natural (illegitimate) child rather than legitimate; (2) that Yangco’s will was not duly legalized; and (3) that plaintiff’s action was not barred by res judicata and laches. The Supreme Court stated it was unnecessary to resolve all three questions to dispose of the appeal.
Central Legal Question and Approach
The dispositive question was whether Juanita Corpus was a legal heir of Teodoro Yangco such that Tomas (her son) could seek recovery of an intestate share. Resolution required determining Yangco’s filiation (i.e., whether he was legitimate or an acknowledged natural child), because succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives is governed by exclusionary rules under the Civil Code.
Filiation Evidence and Presumptions
The trial court had found Yangco to be an acknowledged natural child based largely on the will of Luis R. Yangco (dated June 14, 1907), which expressly declared four “hijos naturales reconocidos” including Teodoro. The Court held the authenticity and probative value of that document (part of the official probate record and reproduced as Exhibit 1) to be incontestable. Although appellant invoked the presumption of legitimacy (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) and other secondary assertions (e.g., a biographical statement suggesting different marriages), the Supreme Court found no merit in attacking the public judicial record that recognized Teodoro as an acknowledged natural child.
Legal Effect of Illegitimacy on Succession
Applying article 943 of the old Civil Code (now article 992 of the Civil Code), the Court emphasized the settled rule that there is no reciprocal intestate succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives: an illegitimate (natural or legitimated) child cannot inherit ab intestato from legitimate children and relatives of the parent, and vice versa. The Court cite
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-22469)
Procedural Posture and Decision
- The Supreme Court, Second Division, issued its decision on October 23, 1978 in G.R. No. L-22469.
- The lower court's judgment dismissing plaintiff-appellant Tomas Corpus's complaint was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- The Court ordered no costs and recorded concurrence by Barredo (Acting Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ.; Fernando, J. was on leave.
Parties and Basic Facts
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Tomas Corpus, who sued as sole heir of Juanita (Juanita/ Juana) Corpus.
- Defendants-Appellees: Administrator and/or executor of the estate of Teodoro R. Yangco, and named legatees and other parties including Rafael Corpus, Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, Ramon L. Corpus, Enrique J. Corpus, S.W. Stagg, Soledad Asprer, and Cipriano Navarro.
- Decedent: Teodoro R. Yangco, died in Manila on April 20, 1939, aged seventy-seven.
- Yangco executed a will dated August 29, 1934; the will was probated in CFI Manila (Special Proceeding No. 54863) and the decree of probate was affirmed by this Court in Corpus v. Yangco, 73 Phil. 527 (1941). The complete will text is quoted in that prior decision.
Family Relationships and Filiation Facts Presented
- Yangco had no forced heirs.
- Nearest relatives at his death included:
- Brother: Luis R. Yangco.
- Sister: Paz Yangco, wife of Miguel Ossorio.
- Children of his half-brother Pablo Corpus: Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus.
- Daughter of his half-brother Jose Corpus: Juana (Juanita) Corpus (died October 1944 at Palauig, Zambales).
- Parentage and blended family background:
- Teodoro R. Yangco was the son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles, who was the widow of Tomas Corpus.
- Before union with Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona had five children with Tomas Corpus, including Pablo Corpus and Jose Corpus.
Probate Proceedings and Early Challenges
- Pursuant to probate court order, a project of partition dated November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and the legatees named in the will.
- Opposition to the 1945 project of partition:
- The estate of Luis R. Yangco opposed, arguing intestacy should be declared because the will allegedly lacked an institution of heir.
- Atty. Roman A. Cruz appeared for Juanita Corpus (who was deceased by the time of his appearance), Pedro Martinez and Juliana de Castro, alleging the proposed partition did not conform to the will because the testator had intended his estate to be "conserved" rather than physically partitioned.
- Atty. Cruz prayed, in part, "que declare que el finado no dispuso en su testamento de sus bienes y negocios y que ha lugar a sucesion intestada..." requesting a date for reception of evidence to declare legal heirs abintestato.
- The probate court's order of December 26, 1946:
- Approved the project of partition.
- Held that certain clauses of the will intended to "conserve" properties to prevent waste ("tales bienes fuesen malgastados o desfilparrados por los legatarios"), not to impose perpetual prohibitions against alienation.
- Noted that, if the testator intended a perpetual prohibition against alienation, that condition would be regarded "como no puesta o no existente."
- Concluded "no hay motivos legales o morales para que la sucesion de Don Teodoro R. Yangco sea declarada intestada."
- Cited Barretto v. Tuason, 50 Phil. 888 (which references Art. 785 Spanish Civil Code) and Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, L-28734, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 546.
Appeals from Probate Court and Compromises
- From the December 26, 1946 order, appeals were taken to this Court (L-1476) by Pedro Martinez, Juliana de Castro, Juanita Corpus (deceased), and the estate of Luis R. Yangco.
- Appeals were dismissed in this Court's resolutions of October 10 and 31, 1947 after compromise agreements were entered into between legatees and appellants.
- The compromise dated October 7, 1947:
- Legatees agreed to pay P35,000 to Pedro Martinez, heirs of Pio V. Corpus, heirs of Isabel Corpus, and heirs of Juanita Corpus.
- Tomas Corpus signed as sole heir of Juanita Corpus.
- Receipt by Tomas Corpus dated October 24, 1947 (Exh. D or 17):
- Tomas acknowledged receipt of P2,000 "as settlement in full of my share of the compromise agreement as per understanding with Judge Roman Cruz, our attorney in this case."
- The estate of Luis R. Yangco entered a similar compromise agreement.
- As resolutions dismissing the appeals became final and executory on October 14 and November 4, 1947, entries of judgment were made on those dates.
Later Agreement and Continued Controversy
- On September 20, 1949, the legatees executed an agreement for the settlement and physical partition of the Yangco estate.
- The probate court approved that agreement and noted that the 1945 project of partition was pro tanto modified.
- Despite these proceedings and agreements, controversy over the estate continued and another suit was later filed.
Civil Action by Tomas Corpus (1951) and Trial Court Ruling (1956)
- On October 5, 1951, Tomas Corpus, as sole heir of Juanita Corpus, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover what he claimed was his mother's share in Yangco's intestate estate.
- Allegations in