Title
Tison vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 121027
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1997
Petitioners, niece and nephew of deceased Teodora, claimed inheritance by representation after Martin Guerrero sold property post-Teodora's death. SC ruled in favor, granting petitioners a 1/4 share as co-owners.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 22041)

Petitioners

Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene R. Dezoller, claiming inheritance by right of representation from their aunt, Teodora Dezoller Guerrero.

Respondents

Court of Appeals (for procedural posture) and Teodora Domingo, who acquired the contested land from Martin Guerrero.

Key Dates

• Death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero: March 5, 1983
• Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement by Martin Guerrero: September 15, 1986
• Sale to Teodora Domingo: January 2, 1988
• Filing of reconveyance suit: November 2, 1988
• RTC order granting demurrer to evidence: December 3, 1992
• CA decision affirming dismissal: June 30, 1995
• Supreme Court decision: May 25, 1998

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Civil Code (Articles 975, 995, 1001 on succession and right of representation)
• Family Code (Article 172 on proof of filiation; Articles 170–171 on legitimacy)
• Rules of Court (Rules 74, 130)

Factual Background

Teodora died intestate and without descendants; her sole survivors were spouse Martin and petitioners (as representatives of their predeceased father, Hermogenes Dezoller). Martin executed an extrajudicial settlement declaring himself sole heir, secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. 358074, and later sold the property to Domingo, who obtained TCT No. 374012. Petitioners filed for reconveyance of half the estate reserved to Martin’s conjugal share.

Procedural History

The trial court granted respondent’s demurrer to evidence, dismissing petitioners’ complaint for reconveyance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioners’ legitimacy and filiation to Teodora Dezoller Guerrero were properly proven.
  2. Whether the presumption of legitimacy applied and, if so, which party bore the burden of proof.
  3. Admissibility and sufficiency of petitioners’ documentary and testimonial evidence.
  4. Proper division of the decedent’s estate between widow and collateral heirs.

Legal Analysis: Presumption of Legitimacy

• A child born in wedlock is presumed legitimate; legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally but only by direct action within the periods prescribed.
• Respondent, contesting petitioners’ legitimacy, had the burden to rebut the presumption. By filing a demurrer to evidence and presenting no counter-evidence, respondent effectively admitted petitioners’ legitimacy.

Legal Analysis: Declaration of Pedigree

• Petitioner Corazon testified that Teodora, before her death, declared Corazon to be her niece—a cognizable exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 130, Section 39 (pedigree exception).
• Although collateral proof is generally required, an exception exists when one seeks to recover from the declarant’s estate. Teodora’s out-of-court declaration thus sufficed.
• Respondent failed to timely object to baptismal, marriage, death certificates, certifications of destroyed records, joint affidavits, and a family photo; such objections were deemed waived. These documents corroborated the declarant’s statement and established petitioners’ relationship.

Di



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.