Title
Vizcarra vs. Vizcarra-Nocillado
Case
G.R. No. 205241
Decision Date
Jan 11, 2023
Heirs of Constancio contested respondents' claim to Ireneo's estate; Supreme Court ruled NSO documents insufficient to prove Silvestre's filiation, upholding the extrajudicial settlement.
dismissal of complaint
share in estate
filiation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205241)

Parties and Setting

Respondents were Lilia Vizcarra-Nocillado, Antonio A. Vizcarra, Norma Vizcarra-Sanchez, Rizalina Vizcarra-Hinkley, and Julieta V. Hunter-Sutton. They filed a complaint before the RTC of Paranaque City on October 4, 2007, seeking the declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial settlement and the consequent cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the heirs’ names. Respondents alleged that they were the heirs of Silvestre, who was purportedly the son of Ireneo by a woman named Rosalia Ferrer, and that Silvestre’s rights were impaired when the property was extrajudicially settled and titled to the other heirs.

Deaths and Execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement

The factual antecedents began with the death of Ireneo Vizcarra on September 5, 1993. He was survived by Constancio F. Vizcarra and Purificacion F. Vizcarra. Constancio died on August 18, 2004, leaving as heirs his wife, Concepcion, and his children: Feliciano (married to Maria), Victor, Evarista, and Dionisio. Purificacion died on November 19, 2006 without legitimate issue.

On December 31, 2006, the heirs of Constancio executed the Extra Judicial Settlement involving the estate of Ireneo, Constancio, and Purificacion. As a result, the heirs caused the cancellation of TCT No. 63087 and obtained new titles in their names, with issuance reflected as of January 20, 2007.

The Complaint for Nullity and Cancellation

On October 4, 2007, respondents filed their complaint before the RTC of Paranaque City. They prayed that the extrajudicial settlement and the subsequent certificates of title be nullified and cancelled. Respondents anchored their claim on their alleged descent from Silvestre, asserting that Silvestre was born on December 31, 1920 and was entitled to a share in Ireneo’s estate because he was Ireneo’s son.

Since Silvestre allegedly predeceased Ireneo, respondents brought the complaint in representation of Silvestre to assert his claimed inheritance. To prove Silvestre’s filiation to Ireneo, respondents submitted documents intended to show that Ireneo was the father of Silvestre. These included: (1) an NSO Certificate dated September 11, 2007 stating that Silvestre’s father was “Irineo Vizcarra”; (2) a Certification dated August 3, 1978 issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Paranaque, stating that Silvestre was born to “Irineo Vizcarra” and “Rosalia Ferrer”; and (3) the Marriage Contract between Silvestre and Trinidad Agner, which indicated that Ireneo was Silvestre’s father.

RTC Proceedings and Disposition

After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents. It declared the Extrajudicial Settlement null and void and ordered the cancellation of the later title issued in petitioners’ names. The RTC’s dispositive portion directed the Registry of Deeds of Paranaque City to cancel TCT No. 172560 and reinstate TCT No. 63087 in Ireneo’s name. It also required petitioners to reconvey the property covered by the cancelled title to Ireneo’s estate and ordered petitioners to pay joint and several attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

In reaching its conclusion, the RTC found that respondents had proven by preponderance of evidence that Ireneo was Silvestre’s father. The RTC emphasized the NSO Certificate. It also noted that petitioners did not present countervailing evidence to rebut the certificate’s statements.

Appeal and the Court of Appeals Ruling

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated October 4, 2012, the CA affirmed. Like the RTC, the CA relied on the NSO Certificate as sufficient proof of filiation. The CA specifically addressed the attack on the certificate’s validity and authenticity. Petitioners argued that the NSO Certificate was a reconstruction based on the 1978 Certification rather than the original 1920 record book, which was said to no longer be available. Thus, they contended the NSO Certificate was highly suspect and not conclusive.

The CA held that the NSO Certificate was a valid reconstruction even if it was based on the 1978 Certification and not the 1920 Record Book. The CA supported this by the testimony of Vivian Cruz, a representative of the Local Civil Registrar, who stated that before reconstruction, officials must first examine the authenticity and validity of the document used as the basis. For Silvestre’s record, Vivian Cruz testified that the signatures in the 1978 Certification used as basis for the reconstruction were indeed authentic.

Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated January 14, 2013.

Issues Raised in the Petition

In the present petition, petitioners argued that both the CA and the RTC committed reversible error when they relied on the NSO Certificate as proof of Silvestre’s filiation to Ireneo. They insisted that the NSO Certificate was highly suspect because it was issued based on the 1978 Certification, and the 1920 Record Book allegedly containing the details of Silvestre’s birth was unavailable. Petitioners further maintained that the 1978 Certification presented by respondents was only a photocopy.

Petitioners also argued that the birth certificate records did not show that Ireneo had intervened in the preparation of Silvestre’s birth record. Thus, petitioners contended that the document was not evidence of paternity. They likewise assailed the marriage contract’s evidentiary value, arguing that it only proved the celebration of Silvestre’s marriage and did not establish the relationship between Silvestre and Ireneo.

Respondents, for their part, contended that petitioners failed to impeach the NSO Certificate’s genuineness and authenticity. They maintained that the NSO Certificate was prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, particularly Silvestre’s filiation to Ireneo.

Rule on Review Under Rule 45 and the Court’s Choice to Reexamine Facts

The Court began by reaffirming that a Rule 45 petition generally raises questions of law only. It acknowledged that factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are ordinarily binding. However, the Court recognized that review of factual matters may be undertaken when exceptions apply, including instances where the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

Applying those principles, the Court found compelling reason to review the factual findings because the core matters raised by the parties required an assessment of the evidence submitted in the RTC proceedings.

Nature of Respondents’ Cause and Requirement to Prove Illegitimate Filiation

The Court characterized respondents’ complaint as one seeking declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial settlement. Yet, the thrust of respondents’ claim was that they were descendants of Ireneo and were deprived of their legal share in his estate. Respondents claimed that their father, Silvestre, was the son of Ireneo and Rosalia.

The Court observed that respondents relied primarily on the NSO Certificate, which indicated Silvestre’s record of birth as reconstructed pursuant to an endorsement through Civil Registry Form No. 1A. The endorsement itself was based on the 1978 Certification because the 1920 Registry Book was no longer available.

Importantly, the Court noted that respondents did not allege, nor provide proof, that Ireneo was married to Silvestre’s mother, Rosalia. Consequently, no presumption of legitimacy arose in favor of Silvestre. As a result, while respondents sought nullification of the extrajudicial settlement, their standing depended on establishing Silvestre’s illegitimate filiation to Ireneo as the putative father.

Burden of Proof and High Standard for Paternity

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving paternity lies with the party who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. It further emphasized that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. It warned that a court could not declare a person to be an illegitimate heir of a decedent without evidence satisfying that standard, even when the complaint was styled as one for declaration of nullity of documents.

The Court discussed that illegitimate children may establish illegitimate filiation through the modes recognized for legitimate children under Article 172 of the Family Code, and that the action must generally be brought within the period specified in Article 173, except when based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

In that framework, the Court held that in the case at bar, the circumstances allowing respondents, as heirs of Silvestre, to establish Silvestre’s filiation under Article 173 were absent. Hence, the Court concluded that respondents’ right to claim Silvestre’s filiation was not shown to have been transferred to them, thereby affecting their standing to file the action in the first place.

Even assuming arguendo that respondents could proceed, the Court found the evidence insufficient.

Insufficiency of the NSO Certificate to Establish Filiation

The Court found that the NSO Certificate was a reconstruction of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms