Title
Supreme Court
Oribello vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 163504
Decision Date
Aug 5, 2015
A dispute over land ownership arose after Toribio Oribello’s death, involving his alleged adopted daughter, Remedios, and his surviving spouse, Berlinda. Remedios claimed co-ownership based on a contested adoption decree, but the Supreme Court ruled she failed to prove her entitlement to partition, upholding the RTC’s dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217285)

Procedural Background

The case began when Remedios Oribello, represented by her attorney-in-fact Alfredo Selga, filed an action for partition against Berlinda Oribello, the widow of Toribio Oribello, following Toribio's death on August 18, 1993. Remedios contended that she is an adopted daughter of Toribio based on a decree of adoption granted by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro in 1974. Berlinda, however, disputed this adoption's validity, claiming it was fraudulently obtained and asserting numerous infirmities in the adoption proceedings.

Judgment of the Regional Trial Court

On March 30, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for partition, determining that Remedios was not a co-owner of the properties belonging to Toribio Oribello, aside from three specific parcels. Additionally, the RTC awarded Berlinda attorney’s fees amounting to ₱25,000.

Appeals to the Court of Appeals

Remedios subsequently appealed the RTC's ruling, arguing against the dismissal and seeking to uphold her claimed rights stemming from the adoption decree. On July 31, 2003, the Court of Appeals vacated the RTC's judgment and remanded the case for a second phase of the partition suit, emphasizing the RTC’s lack of authority to annul the adoption decree.

Legal Issues Presented

This appeal presents several core issues:

  1. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion in the CA's decision allowing Remedios to pursue a claim based on the alleged adoption.
  2. Whether Remedios's claims can stand despite the allegations of fraudulent circumstances surrounding her adoption.
  3. The distinction between the authority of the RTC and the appellate courts in reviewing the annulment of judgment.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found merit in Berlinda's appeal, overturning the CA's decision. The Court reiterated that the validity of the adoption decree from the CFI could not be challenged within the partition action due to the risk of a collateral attack. Instead, any such challenge must be addressed through a direct action for annulment in the proper jurisdiction, which the CA had the exclusive authority to adjudicate.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Remedios failed to discharge her burden of proof to substantiate her cla

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.