NAME OF THE CASE:

INGRID V. HILARIO, petitioner, vs. THELMA V. MIRANDA and IRENEA BELLOC,

G.R. NUMBER:

196499

DATE OF THE CASE:

November 28, 2018

PONENTE:

JARDELEZA, J

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the October 13, 2009 Decision and
April 4, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The assailed Decision reversed and
set aside the January 25, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and declared
the respondent, Irenea Belloc (Irenea), as sole heir of Antonio Belloc (Antonio) and
Dolores Retiza (Dolores). The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioner's
motion for reconsideration of the assailed Decision, ordered petitioner to surrender the
letters of administration issued in her favor, and issued new letters of administration in
favor of Ramon Belloc, Jr., the legal representative of Irenea's estate.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner filed two petitions for the issuance of letters of administration with an
application for appointment of a special administratrix involving the properties of
Antonio and Dolores, respectively. The petitions contained similar allegations except for
the names of the decedents. It was alleged that the petitioner, Ingrid, was the daughter
of Magdalena Varian (Magdalena), who was the heir of Antonio and Dolores, who both
died intestate and left real properties located in Sibonga, Cebu. The petitioner further
prayed for her appointment as special administratrix of the properties of the decedents,
and to be issued letters of administration after notice, publication, and hearing, pursuant
to the Rules of Court.

The petitioner’s petitions was inspired by the May 31, 2000 Decision rendered by the
same RTC in Civil Case No. AV-929 filed by Magdalena against the respondents. The case
sought the declaration of nullity of five deeds of sale involving Dolores' properties,
allegedly executed by either all of Magdalena, Dolores, Silveria Retiza, and Teresito
Belloc, or Dolores alone, in favor of the Miranda spouses, which deeds according to
Magdalena were simulated or fictitious.

The RTC’s May 31, 2000 Decision pronounced that Magdalena Varian was an illegitimate
daughter of the deceased Antonio Belloc with Balbina dela Cruz. The Decision in Civil
Case No. AV-929 nullified the subject deeds of sale, and declared all the parcels of land
subject matter of the deeds to form part of the intestate estate of Antonio and Dolores,
which should be inherited by "the latter's intestate heirs, upon proper showing or proof
of filiation/paternity."

The defendants claimed that Antonio Belloc was married to his live-in partner Silveria
Retiza on August 20, 1974 as shown in a marriage contract presented. However, this was
not accepted by the Court because of the circumstances and facts of the alleged
marriage appeared highly suspicious and seriously doubtful.

On July 31, 2002, Magdalena filed an ex-parte motion to be declared as the sole heir of
both Antonio and Dolores. However, this was opposed by Thelma, Magdalena's other
daughter, asserting that Magdalena, an illegitimate child, could not inherit from Dolores
under Article 992 of the Civil Code.

On August 26, 2002, Magdalena filed an amended ex-parte motion for declaration as the
sole heir of both Antonio and Dolores, and filed a motion to strike the opposition filed
by Thelma.

On August 25, 2004, Irenea filed a motion for leave to intervene and opposition-in-
intervention. The RTC granted the motion for intervention on February 3, 2005.

And after the joint trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on January 25, 2006 which declared
that Magdalena Varian was heir of decedents Antonio Belloc and Dolores Retiza and
denied the claim of intervenor-oppositor, Irenea Belloc, as the sole heir of decedents
Antonio Belloc and Dolores Retiza, and her claim for appointment as administratrix of the
estate of the said decedents.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Thelma and Irenea filed their respective motions for
reconsideration. And on April 3, 2006, the RTC issued Orders denying the motions on the
ground that the issues raised therein had already been passed upon in the May 31, 2000
Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. AV-929.

Aggrieved by the result, Thelma and Irenea elevated the case to the CA arguing that the
RTC erred in declaring Magdalena as the intestate heir of Antonio and Dolores.

On October 13, 2009, the CA rendered a Decision declaring that the RTC erred in
declaring Magdalena and her legal heirs as the heirs of the estates of Antonio and
Dolores since Magdalena's right to inherit depends upon "the acknowledgment or
recognition of her continuous enjoyment and possession of the status of child of her
supposed father."

Displeased with the CA Decision, Ingrid filed a motion for reconsideration. And on April
4, 2011, the CA issued a Resolution denying her motion for lack of grounds sufficient to
compel the reversal of its Decision.

Ingrid appealed the Decision and Resolution of the CA before the Court arguing that
Magdalena's and Dolores' status as illegitimate children of Antonio and his intestate heirs
had already been settled by the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929.

Thus, the Court granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Irenea was the sole heir of Antonio and Dolores.

THESIS:

No, Irenea was not the sole heir of Antonio and Dolores.

RULING:

According to Article 962 of Civil Code, “In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree
excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes
place.”

Even if the claim that Irenea was the niece of Antonio and the first cousin of Dolores, and
thus related to Dolores within the fourth civil degree was true, Magdalena, on the other
hand, was still the relative nearest in degree to Antonio and Dolores excludes collateral
and distant relatives including Irenea.

However, Irenea’s claim that she was the niece of decedent Antonio Belloc and first
cousin of Dolores Retiza was bare declaration. In fact, the RTC held that she rested her
case without presenting any documentary evidence. Neither did she present witnesses to
corroborate her testimony.

The basic rule is that the party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving
it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Since Irenea failed to present
a proof of her relationship with both Antonio and Dolores, there was no ground for the
Court to affirm the CA ruling declaring her the sole heir of both decedents.

CONCLUSION:
Hence, Irenea was not the sole heir of Antonio and Dolores.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Magdalena was the intestate heir of both Antonio and Dolores.

THESIS:

Yes, Magdalena was the intestate heir of both Antonio and Dolores.

RULING:

Res judicata, as defined, "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment." It also refers to the rule that a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of
the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the
former suit. It rests on the principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the
same issue more than once. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has
been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.

Here, RTC had consistently found Magdalena to be an illegitimate child of Antonio, and
thus his intestate heir. In its Decision, the RTC held that "the conclusion is inevitable, that
[Antonio] died single, survived by his two illegitimate children- Magdalena Varian,
Dolores Retiza, and his grandson Teresito Flamor. Accordingly, he died intestate and his
intestate estate will pass on and will be inherited by his intestate heirs upon his death."

In addition, under paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Family Code, "final judgment" is a
means of establishing filiation. It refers to a decision of a competent court finding the
child legitimate or illegitimate. The Court was compelled to rule in favor of petitioner on
the basis of the final judgment rendered by the RTC in Civil Case No. AV-929 which
established Magdalena's filiation. The Court found no need to disturb the RTC's findings
which were based on the evidence presented for its consideration in the course of the
proceeding. While the subject of Civil Case No. AV-929 is the declaration of nullity of
certain documents, the ruling on Magdalena's filiation could not be considered obiter
dictum since the RTC determinedly discussed and settled that issue as a means to decide
the main issue brought for its disposition. Being a final judgment, the Decision in Civil
Case No. AV-929 constitutes res judicata.

CONCLUSION:

Hence, Magdalena was an intestate heir of both Antonio and Dolores.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed October 13, 2009 Decision and April
4, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01703 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 25, 2006 of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court,
Argao, Cebu, in Special Proceeding Nos. A-522 and A-523 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED