DIVISION

[ GR No. 200169, Jan 28, 2015 ]

RODOLFO S. AGUILAR v. EDNA G. SIASAT +

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to set aside the August 30,
2006 Decision[2] and December 20, 2011 Resolution[3] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 64229 affirming the August 17, 1999
Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 49 in
Civil Case No. 96-9591 and denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.[5]

Factual Antecedents

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar

spouses) died, intestate and without debts, on August 26, 1983 and
February 8, 1994, respectively.  Included in their estate are two parcels of
land (herein subject properties) covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070 of the Registries of Deeds of Bago and
Bacolod (the subject titles).[6]

In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod
City (Bacolod RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages
against respondent Edna G. Siasat.  Docketed as Civil Case No. 96-9591 and
assigned to Branch 49 of the Bacolod RTC, the Complaint[7] alleged that
petitioner is the only son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses;
that he (petitioner) discovered that the subject titles were missing, and thus
he suspected that someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen the same;
that he executed affidavits of loss of the subject titles and filed the same
with the Registries of Deeds of Bacolod and Bago; that on June 22, 1996, he
filed before the Bacolod RTC a Petition for the issuance of second owner's
copy of Certificate of Title No. T-25896, which respondent opposed; and
that during the hearing of the said Petition, respondent presented the two
missing owner's duplicate copies of the subject titles.  Petitioner thus
prayed for mandatory injunctive relief, in that respondent be ordered to
surrender to him the owner's duplicate copies of the subject titles in her
possession; and that damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit be awarded
to him.

In her Answer,[8] respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole
surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised
by the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart; that
petitioner is not a natural or adopted child of the Aguilar spouses; that
since Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, the
latter inherited the conjugal share of the former; that upon the death of
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as
she had no issue; and that the subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted
to her for safekeeping by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt.  By
way of counterclaim, respondent prayed for an award of moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

During trial, petitioner testified and affirmed his relationship to the Aguilar
spouses as their son.  To prove filiation, he presented the following
documents, among others:

1. His school records at the Don J.A. Araneta Elementary School, Purok
No. 2, Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company (BMMC), Bacolod City
(Exhibit "C" and submarkings), wherein it is stated that Alfredo
Aguilar is petitioner's parent;

2. His Individual Income Tax Return (Exhibit "F"), which indicated that
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar is his mother;

3. Alfredo Aguilar's Social Security System (SSS) Form E-1 dated

October 10, 1957 (Exhibit "G"), a public instrument subscribed and
made under oath by Alfredo Aguilar during his employment with
BMMC, which bears his signature and thumb marks and indicates
that petitioner, who was born on March 5, 1945, is his son and
dependent;
 4. Alfredo Aguilar's Information Sheet of Employment with BMMC
dated October 29, 1954 (Exhibit "L"), indicating that petitioner is his
son;

5. Petitioner's Certificate of Marriage to Luz Abendan (Exhibit "M"),

where it is declared that the Aguilar spouses are his parents; and

6. Letter of the BMMC Secretary (Exhibit "O") addressed to a BMMC

supervisor introducing petitioner as Alfredo Aguilar's son and
recommending him for employment.

7. Certification dated January 27, 1996 issued by the Bacolod City Civil
Registry to the effect that the record of births during the period 1945
to 1946 were "all destroyed by nature," hence no true copies of the
Certificate of Live Birth of petitioner could be issued as requested
(Exhibit "Q").[9]

Petitioner also offered the testimonies of his wife, Luz Marie Abendan-
Aguilar (Abendan-Aguilar), and Ester Aguilar-Pailano (Aguilar-Pailano),
his aunt and sister of Alfredo Aguilar.  Abendan-Aguilar confirmed
petitioner's identity, and she testified that petitioner is the son of the
Aguilar spouses and that during her marriage to petitioner, she lived with
the latter in the Aguilar spouses' conjugal home built on one of the subject
properties.  On the other hand, 81-year old Aguilar-Pailano testified that
she is the sister of Alfredo Aguilar; that the Aguilar spouses have only one
son herein petitioner who was born at BMMC; that after the death of the
Aguilar spouses, she and her siblings did not claim ownership of the subject
properties because they recognized petitioner as the Aguilar spouses' sole
child and heir; that petitioner was charged with murder, convicted,
imprisoned, and later on paroled; and that after he was discharged on
parole, petitioner continued to live with his mother Candelaria Siasat-
Aguilar in one of the subject properties, and continues to live there with his
family.[10]

For her evidence, respondent testified among others that she is a retired
teacher; that she does not know petitioner very well, but only heard his
name from her aunt Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar; that she is not related by
consanguinity or affinity to petitioner; that she attended to Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar while the latter was under medication in a hospital until her
death; that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar's hospital and funeral expenses were
paid for by Nancy Vingno; that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar executed an
affidavit to the effect that she had no issue and that she is the sole heir to
her husband Alfredo Aguilar's estate; that she did not steal the subject
titles, but that the same were entrusted to her by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar;
that a prior planned sale of the subject properties did not push through
because when petitioner's opinion thereto was solicited, he expressed
disagreement as to the agreed price.[11]

Respondent likewise offered the testimony of Aurea Siasat-Nicavera

(Siasat-Nicavera), 74 years old, who stated that the Aguilar spouses were
married on June 22, 1933 in Miag-ao, Iloilo; that she is the sister of
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar; that she does not know petitioner, although she
admitted that she knew a certain "Rodolfo" whose nickname was "Mait";
that petitioner is not the son of the Aguilar spouses; and that Alfredo
Aguilar has a sister named Ester Aguilar-Pailano.[12]

Respondent also offered an Affidavit previously executed by Candelaria

Siasat-Aguilar (Exhibit "2") announcing among others that she and Alfredo
have no issue, and that she is the sole heir to Alfredo's estate.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 17, 1999, the Bacolod RTC issued its Decision, decreeing as
follows:

From the evidence thus adduced before this Court, no solid evidence
attesting to the fact that plaintiff herein is either a biological son or a legally
adopted one was ever presented.  Neither was a certificate of live birth of
plaintiff ever introduced confirming his biological relationship as a son to
the deceased spouses Alfredo and Candelaria S. Aguilar.  As a matter of
fact, in the affidavit of Candelaria S. Aguilar (Exhibit 2) she expressly
announced under oath that Alfredo and she have no issue and that she is
the sole heir to the estate of Alfredo is (sic) concrete proof that plaintiff
herein was never a son by consanguinity nor a legally adopted one of the
deceased spouses Alfredo and Candelaria Aguilar.

This being the case, Petitioner is not deemed vested with sufficient interest
in this action to be considered qualified or entitled to the issuance of the
writ of mandatory injunction and damages prayed for.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff's
complaint with cost.

The counterclaim of the defendant is likewise dismissed for lack of legal

basis.

SO ORDERED.[13]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.[14]  Docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV No.
64229, the appeal essentially argued that petitioner is indeed the Aguilar
spouses' son; that under Article 172 of the Family Code,[15] an admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument signed by the parent concerned constitutes proof of filiation;
that through the documentary evidence presented, petitioner has shown
that he is the legitimate biological son of the Aguilar spouses and the sole
heir to their estate.  He argued that he cannot present his Certificate of Live
Birth as all the records covering the period 1945-1946[16] of the Local Civil
Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed as shown by Exhibits "Q" to "Q-3";
for this reason, he presented the foregoing documentary evidence to prove
his relationship to the Aguilar spouses.  Petitioner made particular
reference to, among others, Alfredo Aguilar's SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G"),
arguing that the same was made under oath and thus sufficient under
Article 172 of the Family Code to establish that he is a child and heir of the
Aguilar spouses.  Finally, petitioner questioned the trial court's reliance
upon Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar's affidavit (Exhibit "2") attesting that she
and Alfredo have no children and that she is the sole heir to the estate of
Alfredo, when such piece of evidence has been discarded by the trial court
in a previous Order dated April 1, 1998, stating thus:

Except for defendant's Exhibit "2", all other Exhibits, Exhibits "1", "3", "4"
and "5", together with their submarkings, are all admitted in evidence. [17]

On August 30, 2006, the CA issued the assailed Decision affirming the trial
court's August 17, 1999 Decision, pronouncing thus:
The exhibits relied upon by plaintiff-appellant to establish his filiation with
the deceased spouses Aguilar deserve scant consideration by this Court. 
The Elementary School Permanent Record of plaintiff-appellant cannot be
considered as proof of filiation.  As enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
case of Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 439:

"Student record or other writing not signed by alleged father do not

constitute evidence of filiation."

As regards the Income Tax Return of plaintiff-appellant filed with the

Bureau of Internal Revenue, WE hold that it cannot be considered as
evidence of filiation.  As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of
Labagala vs. Santiago, 371 SCRA 360:

"A baptismal certificate, a private document is not conclusive proof of

filiation.  More so are the entries made in an income tax return, which only
shows that income tax has been paid and the amount thereof."

With respect to the Certificate of Marriage x x x wherein it is shown that the

parents of the former are Alfredo and Candelaria Siasat Aguilar does not
prove filiation.  The Highest Tribunal declared that a marriage contract not
signed by the alleged father of bride is not competent evidence of filiation
nor is a marriage contract recognition in a public instrument.

The rest of the exhibits offered x x x, except the Social Security Form E-1
(Exhibit "G") and the Information Sheet of Employment of Alfredo Aguilar
(Exhibit "L"), allegedly tend to establish that plaintiff-appellant has been
and is presently known as Rodolfo Siasat Aguilar and he has been bearing
the surname of his alleged parents.

WE cannot sustain plaintiff-appellant's argument.  Use of a family surname

certainly does not establish pedigree.

Insofar as the SSS Form E-1 and Information Sheet of Employment of

Alfredo Aguilar are concerned, WE cannot accept them as sufficient proof
to establish and prove the filiation of plaintiff-appellant to the deceased
Aguilar spouses.  While the former is a public instrument and the latter
bears the signature of Alfredo Aguilar, they do not constitute clear and
convincing evidence to show filiation based on open and continuous
possession of the status of a legitimate child.  Filiation is a serious matter
that must be resolved according to the requirements of the law.

All told, plaintiff-appellant's evidence failed to hurdle the "high standard of

proof" required for the success of an action to establish one's legitimate
filiation when relying upon the provisions regarding open and continuous
possession or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws.

Having resolved that plaintiff-appellant is not an heir of the deceased

spouses Aguilar, thereby negating his right to demand the delivery of the
subject TCTs in his favor, this Court cannot grant the writ of mandatory
injunction being prayed for.

xxxx

In the present case, plaintiff-appellant failed to show that he has a clear and
unmistakable right that has been violated.  Neither had he shown
permanent and urgent necessity for the issuance of the writ.

With respect to the damages prayed for, WE sustain the trial court in
denying the same.  Aside from the fact that plaintiff-appellant failed to
show his clear right over the subject parcels of land so that he has not
sustained any damage by reason of the withholding of the TCTs from him,
there is no clear testimony on the anguish or anxiety he allegedly suffered
as a result thereof.  Well entrenched in law and jurisprudence is the
principle that the grant of moral damages is expressly allowed by law in
instances where proofs of the mental anguish, serious anxiety and moral
shock were shown.

ACCORDINGLY, in line with the foregoing disquisition, the appeal is

hereby DENIED.  The impugned Decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED
IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[19] but in a December 20, 2011

Resolution, the CA held its ground.  Hence, the present Petition.

Issues
In an August 28, 2013 Resolution,[20] this Court resolved to give due course
to the Petition, which raises the following issues:

In issuing the assailed DECISION affirming in toto the Decision of RTC

Branch 49, Bacolod City, and the Resolution denying petitioner's Motion
for Reconsideration, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible
error [in] not taking into consideration petitioner's Exhibit "G" (SSS E-1
acknowledged and notarized before a notary public, executed by Alfredo
Aguilar, recognizing the petitioner as his son) as public document that
satisfies the requirement of Article 172 of the [Family] Code in the
establishment of the legitimate filiation of the petitioner with his father,
Alfredo Aguilar.

The herein [P]etition raises the issue of pure question of law with respect to
the application of Article 172 of the Family Code particularly [paragraph] 3
thereof in conjunction with Section 19 and Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court relating to public document which is substantial enough to merit
consideration of this Honorable Court as it will enrich jurisprudence and
forestall future litigation.[21]

Petitioner's Arguments

In his Petition and Reply[22] seeking to reverse and set aside the assailed CA
dispositions and praying that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to
surrender the owner's duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-
25896 and T-(15462) 1070, petitioner argues that Alfredo Aguilar's SSS
Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation and
relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the Family Code. 
Petitioner contends that said SSS Form E-1 is a declaration under oath by
his father, Alfredo Aguilar, of his status as the latter's son; this recognition
should be accorded more weight than the presumption of legitimacy, since
Article 172 itself declares that said evidence establishes legitimate filiation
without need of court action.  He adds that in contemplation of law,
recognition in a public instrument such as the SSS Form E-1 is the "highest
form of recognition which partake (sic) of the nature of a complete act of
recognition bestowed upon" him as the son of the late Alfredo Aguilar; that
respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy and cannot
collaterally attack his legitimacy; that the action to impugn his legitimacy
has already prescribed pursuant to Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code;
[23]
 and that having proved his filiation, mandatory injunction should issue,
and an award of damages is in order.

Respondent's Arguments

In her Comment[24] and Memorandum,[25] respondent simply echoes the

pronouncements of the CA, adding that the Petition is a mere rehash of the
CA appeal which has been passed upon succinctly by the appellate court.

Our Ruling

The Court grants the Petition.

This Court, speaking in De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon,[26] has held that

The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established

by (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 thereof, 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.  The due
recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is,
in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and
no further court action is required.  In fact, any authentic
writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition;
it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a
separate action for judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for
recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove
paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court
of record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable
statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the child's
acknowledgment.

A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during

the marriage of their parents.  The certificates of live birth would also
identify Danilo de Jesus as being their father.
There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly
established and founded on sounder morality and more
convincing reason than the presumption that children born in
wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in
the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between
the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately
precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the
husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the
husband and wife are living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse
is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely
prevents sexual intercourse.  Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the
periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171, of the
Family Code (which took effect on 03 August 1988), the action to impugn
the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible and the status
conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.
[27]
 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, applying the foregoing pronouncement to the instant case, it must be

concluded that petitioner who was born on March 5, 1945, or during the
marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar[28] and before
their respective deaths[29] has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate
issue of the Aguilar spouses.  As petitioner correctly argues, Alfredo
Aguilar's SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for proof of
filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the
Family Code; by itself, said document constitutes an "admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned."

Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth
since all the records covering the period 1945-1946  of the Local Civil
Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed, which necessitated the
introduction of other documentary evidence particularly Alfredo Aguilar's
SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") to prove filiation.  It was erroneous for the CA
to treat said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of
the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of
the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof,
the same being an express recognition in a public instrument.

To repeat what was stated in De Jesus, filiation may be proved by an

admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due
recognition in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of
acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. And,
relative to said form of acknowledgment, the Court has further held that:

In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt
the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of
the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein
an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

1)  Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence
submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the
requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent;
and

2)  Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other

relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation
therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the
acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.

Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the "paramount
consideration" in resolving questions affecting him. Article 3(1) of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child of which the
Philippines is a signatory is similarly emphatic:

Article 3

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or

private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.

It is thus "(t)he policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the
investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of
illegitimate children x x x."  Too, "(t)he State as parens patriae affords
special protection to children from abuse, exploitation and other conditions
prejudicial to their development."[30] (Emphasis supplied)
This case should not have been so difficult for petitioner if only he obtained
a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth from the National Statistics Office
(NSO), since the Bacolod City Civil Registry copy thereof was destroyed. 
He would not have had to go through the trouble of presenting other
documentary evidence; the NSO copy would have sufficed.  This fact is not
lost on petitioner; the Certification dated January 27, 1996 issued by the
Bacolod City Civil Registry (Exhibit "Q") contained just such an advice for
petitioner to proceed to the Office of the Civil Registrar General at the NSO
in Manila to secure a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, since for every
registered birth in the country, a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is
submitted to said office.

As to petitioner's argument that respondent has no personality to impugn

his legitimacy and cannot collaterally attack his legitimacy, and that the
action to impugn his legitimacy has already prescribed pursuant to Articles
170 and 171 of the Family Code, the Court has held before that

Article 263[31] refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, to

assert and prove that a person is not a man's child by his wife. However, the
present case is not one impugning petitioner's legitimacy. Respondents are
asserting not merely that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Jose, but
that she is not a child of Jose at all.[32]

Finally, if petitioner has shown that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar
spouses, then he is as well heir to the latter's estate.  Respondent is then left
with no right to inherit from her aunt Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar's estate,
since succession pertains, in the first place, to the descending direct line. [33]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.  The August 30, 2006

Decision and December 20, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CEB-CV No. 64229, as well as the August 17, 1999 Decision  of the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 49 in Civil Case No. 96-9591
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Respondent Edna G. Siasat is hereby
ordered to SURRENDER to the petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar the owner's
duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462)
1070.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* , Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.