Castro v. CA

JUAN CASTRO and FELICIANA CASTRO vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, CIPRIANO NAVAL

and BENITA C. NAVAL
G.R. No. L-50974-75 May 31, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioners Juan Castro and Feliciana Castro are the brother and sister of the late Eustaquio
Castro while respondent Benita Castro Naval is the only child of Eustaquio. Respondent
Cipriano Naval is the husband of Benita Castro.
The plaintiffs filed an action for partition of properties against the defendant alleging, among
other things that they are the forced heirs of Pedro Castro.
The defendants in their amended answer allege that Benita Castro Naval is the only child of the
deceased Eustaquio and that said Eustaquio Castro is the son of Pedro Castro, therefore, the
complaint for partition has no cause of action.
It appears that defendant Benita Castro Naval, a child of Eustaquio Castro and Pricola
Maregmen, was born in San Bartolome, Tarlac. Eustaquio Castro, who caused the registration
of said birth gave the date indicated in the civil registry that he was the father. Benita Castro
was later baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, wherein the baptismal certificate appeared
that her parents are deceased Eustaquio Castro and Pricola Maregmen. When Eustaquio
Castro died, pictures were taken wherein the immediate members of the family in mourning
were present, among whom was Benita Castro Naval.
The evidence further shows that Pricola Maregmen, the natural mother of Benita C. Naval was
wedded to Felix de Maya against her wishes. While the celebration of the wedding was going
on, the guests soon found out that Pricola Maregmen surreptitiously left the party and went to
the house of her first cousin and there she cried that she did not want to get married to Felix
de Maya. That evening Pricola proceeded to Barrio San Bartolome, Mayantoc, Tarlac, where she
united with her real sweetheart, Eustaquio Castro, the father of Benita Castro Naval.
There is no dispute that Eustaquio Castro at the time he lived with Pricola Maregmen, was a
widower, and was, therefore, free to marry Pricola. As a result of their cohabitation Benita
Castro Naval, herein defendant, was born on March 27, 1919. After the death of her mother,
when she was only five years old, she continued to live with her father Eustaquio Castro until
his death. Moreover, when Benita Castro Naval got married to Cipriano Naval, it was Eustaquio
Castro who gave her away in marriage. Even after Benita's marriage, she was taken care of by
her father.
ISSUE:
Whether Benita Castro Naval is the acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child of
Eustaquio Castro.
RULING:
There is no question that the private respondent is an illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro.
Her father Eustaquio was a widower when Pricola Maregmen, her mother, went to live with
him. The two could not validly enter into a marriage because when Pricola fled from her own
wedding party, the wedding rites to Felix de Maya had already been solemnized. In other words,
the marriage was celebrated although it could not be consummated because the bride
hurriedly ran away to join the man she really loved.
Under the Civil Code, whether "new" or "old", illegitimate children or those who are conceived
and born out of wedlock. For an illegitimate child other than natural to inherit, she must first
be recognized voluntarily or by court action.
Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of acknowledgment — voluntary and compulsory.
Article 131 of the old Civil Code states that "The acknowledgment of a natural child must be
made in the record of birth, in a will or in some other public document."
In these cases, the appellate court ruled that the private respondent was voluntarily recognized
by her father, Eustaquio Castro through the record of birth, hence there was no need for any
judicial pronouncement.
The record of birth referred to by the appellate court is actually the birth certificate of the
private respondent. It appears in the certificate that Eustaquio Castro is the respondent's
father.
Under the Code's Title VI on Paternity and Filiation there are only two classes of children —
legitimate and illegitimate.
Article 175 provides that "Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children." (Emphasis supplied).
Articles 172 and 173 on establishing the filiation of legitimate children provide:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten

instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a; 267a)
There can be no dispute that Benita Castro enjoyed the open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro and that the action of Benita in defending
her status in this case is similar to an "action to claim legitimacy" brought during her lifetime.

Castro v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Castro v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Castro v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUAN CASTRO and FELICIANA CASTRO vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, CIPRIANO NAVAL

G.R. No. L-50974-75 May 31, 1989

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten

You might also like