3/10/22, 11:24 AM G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.

htm

Supreme Court of the Philippines

23 Phil. 350

G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912

FLORENTINO ADRIANO Y TIBURCIO, PETITIONER AND
APPELLEE, VS. HIPOLITO DE JESUS ET AL., OPPONENTS
AND APPELLANTS.

DECISION
TORRES, J.:

This appeal has been  brought before us by counsel for Hipolito de Jesus and Lorenza
Sombillo, against the judgment rendered in  special proceedings by the Honorable
Estanislao Yusay, formerly judge of the Fifth District.
The proceedings in the case  referred to were initiated in the Court of  First Instance of
Bulacan by Florentino Adriano y Tiburcio, in  the matter  of the probate  of the will 
executed by the deceased Magdalena  Carreon on November  5, 1895, before  the
notary of that province, Sr. Aguedo  Velarde, and in the  presence of  three witnesses.
Notwithstanding the opposition made by the spouses, Lorenza Sombillo and Hipolito de
Jesus", the judge, on July 30, 1908, overruled, their objections and decreed that the said
will be admitted, with the costs against the opponents, and  appointed the  said
Florentino Adriano as the administrator of the estate of the deceased testatrix, holding
that there were  no legal grounds  to order his removal  as the special  administrator of
the said estate appointed by the court.   A copy of  this judgment appears on pages  15
to 23 of the record of the said proceedings.
Subsequently, on February 27, 1909, counsel for Lorenza Sombillo filed a written
motion with that court, and in the same probate proceedings in the matter of the will of
the deceased Carreon, praying that  his client be held to be an heiress, by forge of law, of
the said deceased and entitled to two-thirds of the estate left by her at her  death, as his
client's  legal portion, in  accordance  with article 808 of the Civil  Code.   Said  counsel
alleged that Lorenza Sombillo, married  to  Hipolito  de Jesus,  was the  legitimate
daughter of Magdalena Carreon and that the latter was not survived by  any other
daughter than the petitioner, Lorenza Sombillo.

By order of March 31  of the same year, the motion presented by counsel for Lorenza
Sombillo was granted and the beginning of the next term of court was set for the
hearing thereon, in order that the parties might bring forward their evidence in those
proceedings to prove whether or not Lorenza Sombillo was in fact the  legitimate
daughter, and consequently the heiress by  force of law, of  Magdalena Carreon.   An 
exception to this  order was  taken  by the administrator,  Adriano.
Evidence having been adduced by both parties, the judge, by order of March 26,1910,
ruled that there weremo grounds for declaring Lorenza Sombillo to be the legitimate
daughter of Magdalena Carreon, and that the petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to
file:///Users/carlsantos/Documents/Desktop Files/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1912/G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm 1/5
3/10/22, 11:24 AM G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm

any of the estate left by the said deceased. An appeal from this ruling was taken by
counsel for Lorenza Sombillo.  A certified copy of such of the proceedings and exhibits
as was deemed necessary for the purposes of the appeal having been forwarded, the case
was,  in accordance with law, brought up before this court.

This suit concerns the.'filiation of the appellant, Lorenza Sombillo Ignacio, a woman
about forty years old, the wife of Hipolito de Jesus.   She seeks to be declared the legal
heir of the deceased Magdalena Carreon and'entitled to two-thirds of the estate left by
the latter at her  death, on the ground that she is the deceased's legitimate daughter.  In
proof of. this .allegation  she exhibited a certified copy of her certificate of baptism,
issued on March 11, 1906, which document sets forth that the appellant, born the day
before, was  baptized in the parish  of the pueblo of Paombong, Bulacan, on August 10,
1870, that she was the legitimate daughter, born  in lawful wedlock, of Tranquilino
Sombillo Ignacio  and Magdalena Carreon,  and that her godmother was Eugenia 
Carreon.
In order to obtain a successful issue of the claim made by the appellant, Lorenza 
Sombillo, it  is necessary  that there should  have  been  presented at trial  some of the
several kinds of proof of  her filiation  as the  legitimate daughter of the said spouses, 
Tranquilino and Magdalena, whose names appear in the aforementioned baptismal
certificate, in accordance with the provisions of the following articles of the Civil Code: 

"Art. 115.  The filiation of legitimate children is proven by the record of the
birth,  entered in the civil registry, or by an authentic instrument, or a final
judgment in the cases referred to in articles 110 to 113 of the preceding
chapter. 

"Art. 116.  In the  absence of  the documents mentioned in the preceding
article, filiation shall be proven by the uninterrupted enjoyment of the status
of a legitimate child.

"Art. 117. In the absence of the record of birth, authentic document, final
sentence, or enjoyment of status legitimate filiation  may be proven by  any
means, provided there is a foundation of proof in writing coming from  both 
parents, either jointly or severally."

As civil registry was  never established in these Islands during the former sovereignty, a
certified copy of a canonical certificate of baptism constitutes, as a public document,
proof of the  facts that originated  its issue or execution by the parish priest, though it
can be impugned and assailed by contrary proof.

The  certified copy,  Exhibit A, which  contains  the baptismal  certificate of  Lorenza
Sombillo Ignacio,  does  not constitute the  authentic document specified  in the
aforesaid articles 115 and 117 wherewith to prove the legitimate filiation  of a  person. 
The said  sacramental certificate is merely  proof  of the special  act, the only one which 
the parish priest  or the party  in charge of the  civil  registry may attest from personal
knowledge as having been performed  by himself or  in his presence, and no value can
be attributed to the mere statements contained in such certificate in  their relation  to
prior and different facts, for the proof of which other separate and specific evidence is
indispensable.  (Decisions  of the supreme court of Spain,  of November 25, 1875, and
March 28,  1896.)

file:///Users/carlsantos/Documents/Desktop Files/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1912/G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm 2/5

3/10/22, 11:24 AM G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm

In another  decision of the  13th of  July, 1899, the same high tribunal established the
following legal doctrine:

A baptismal certificate, like all  documents  in  general,  attests the fact that originated its
execution, and  the date of the same, to writ, the administration of the sacrament on the
day specified, but not to the veracity  of the statements made therein respecting the
kinsfolk of the person baptized. Though the filiation  of legitimate children be proven, as
established by article 115 of the Civil Code, by the record of birth entered in the civil
registry and which is analogous to the certificates of baptism issued prior to the creation
of that civil service,such record is presumptive evidence only, and is susceptible of proof
to the contrary, and when,  by virtue of that proof, the presumption is overcome, the
said article of the Code is not violated."

Of the several means of proof authorized by  the Code, Lorenza  Sombillo chose to 
rely  upon one conducive  to prove that she had  uninterruptedly enjoyed the status  of a
legitimate daughter of the said spouses  who appear as her legitimate father and mother
in the aforementioned baptismal certificate, Exhibit A.

The uninterrupted possession of the status of a legitimate daughter is equivalent to the

enjoyment of the consideration, on the part of the public, of a legitimate  daughter  of
the said spouses, by the use of the father's surname and by the treatment which, as a
legitimate daughter, she received from her father and mother and  from her parents'
family, and also by her parents having constantly attended to her support and education;
these facts she did not succeed in proving, as held by the  trial court in the judgment
appealed from.

The results obtained as a whole, the preponderance and weight of the evidence adduced
by both parties, evidently and conclusively  demonstrate that  Lorenza Sombillo, 
notwithstanding the text of the sacramental certificate, Exhibit A, and the testimony of
her witnesses,  is not the legitimate daughter of Magdajena Carreon by her husband 
Tranquilino Sombillo,  but the daughter of Toribia  Carreon, an unmarried woman 
and  sister  of Magdalena,  and an  unknown father.  The trial court so held in the
judgment appealed from, after duly weighing the merits of the case  as disclosed by the
evidence and in accordance with the  law.
The  aforementioned canonical certificate is conclusive proof only of the baptism
administered, in conformity with the rites of the Catholic Church, by the priest who
baptized the child, Lorenza Sombillo, but it does not prove the veracity of the
declarations and statements contained in the said certificaterthat concern the
relationship of the person baptized.    Such declarations and statements, in order that
their truth may be admitted, must indispensably be shown by some of the kinds of proof
recognized by law.

The statement contained in the aforementioned certificate, Exhibit A, relative to the

parents and to the paternal and maternal grandparents of the baptized child, appears to
be negatived by similar statements found in the certified copies of the marriage
certificate of the same party, Lorenza Sombillo, and the baptismal certificates of her
children, Matias and Guillerma, Exhibits  2, 3, and 4.  It is stated in the certificate A
that the baptized child, Lorenza Sombillo, is the legitimate daughter of Magdalena
Carreon and Tranquilino Sombillo, while in the certificates designated as Nos. 2, 3, and
4 it appears that the said Lorenza bears the surname Carreon and not that of Sombillo,
and is the natural child of the unmarried woman, Toribia Carreon, and an unknown
father.    So that if some value might be ascribed to the statements contained in the
file:///Users/carlsantos/Documents/Desktop Files/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1912/G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm 3/5
3/10/22, 11:24 AM G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm

baptismal certificate of Lorenza Sombillo, they are vitiated by other similar ones
repeatedly made in  other documents of the same  kind,  executed in different years.
If the  statement  of relationship,  contained  in the  certificate of marriage of Lorenza
Carreon to Hipolito de Jesus, or the statements found in the certificates  of baptism of
her two children, Matias and Guillerma, were not true, for those of the latter contradict
that of the former, the said Lorenza and  her husband could have  sought the
amendment of the text of any of those certificates during the lifetime of Magdalena
Carreon and thus established the truth; but they did not do so and waited until the
death of the testatrix, Magdalena Carreon, and then  claimed the estate on the  ground
that Lorenza Carreon was her legitimate daughter, as set forth in the latter's baptismal
certificate which, according to well-settled juridical  principles, is not sufficient proof of
the legitimate filiation alleged.
The will, Exhibit 1, inserted on page 4 of the bill of exceptions and executed by
Magdalena Carreon on November 5, 1895, before the notary Aguedo Velarde and in
the presence of three witnesses, corroborates the result derived from the evidence
adduced at trial, to wit, that the claimant, Lorenza Sombillo, was not the daughter of
the  testatrix, Magdalena Carreon, for the latter stated in the third clause of her will 
that she had  only been married once  and with Tranquilino  Sombillo e Ygnacio, then
deceased, by whom she had had eleven children, all likewise deceased, and that she had
no living descendant. If Lorenza Sombillo  were really the legitimate daughter of the
said testatrix, she would  have been  mentioned in the  will  as one  of the daughters who
was living at the time of its execution, and the testatrix, Magdalena Carreon, would not
have expressly declared that she had eleven children by her husband and that all were
dead on the  date when she made her  will.
As  Magdalena Carreon in  her will devised three rural properties as a legacy to her four
sisters, Toribia, Engracia, Eugenia, and Simona, and to her five nephews and nieces, the
children of her other  sister, Maria, then deceased, it is not-explained how, without
moral or legal reason she omitted . from her said will, and not so much as mentioned
therein, Lorenza Sombillo, who claims to be her legitimate daughter. If the testatrix did
not name her as an heir, as she did her son-in-law, the widower of one of her deceased
daughters, it was because it was unquestionably  true that all her eleven children were
then deceased, that none of them were alive on the date she executed her last will and
testament, and that  Lorenza Sombillo was not, and is not, a daughter  of hers,
notwithstanding what is set  forth  in her baptismal certificate, Exhibit A.
With regard to natural children, article 136 of the Civil Code prescribes that the mother
is obliged to recognize the natural child:  "2.    When, the fact of the birth and the
identity of the child are duly proven."
The contention of Lorenza Sombillo is  that she should be recognized as the legitimate
daughter of Magdalena, yet she could have proved that the latter gave birth to her in the
house where the latter's husband was living.  Lorenza furnished no such proof.  Lucio
Pahati, on the other hand, a witness for the appellee, testified that he had seen Toribia
Carreon in a pregnant state and afterwards give birth to a child who was subsequently
called Lorenza.    This witness swore that the latter's mother was Toribia Carreon, a
sister of the testatrix, Magdalena Carreon.

The document, Exhibit B, drawn up  in Tagalog  and which is alleged to be the will of
the deceased Magdalena Carreon, is not shown to have been  probated, nor does  it
appear to have been admitted as proof of the arguments advanced  in the opposition
file:///Users/carlsantos/Documents/Desktop Files/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1912/G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm 4/5
3/10/22, 11:24 AM G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm

made by Lorenza Sombillo to the probate of the aforementioned previous will of the
said deceased; and,  therefore, not being an authentic document, it could not be legally
admitted as proof of the filiation in question.

The appellant Lorenza Sombillo, being convinced that she lacked the requisites 
specified in  article  115 of the Civil  Code, endeavored to prove  her  filiation by the
uninterrupted enjoyment of the status of a legitimate child of the testatrix.    In this
attempt she was unsuccessful, as so held by the lower court, the judge basing his
conclusion on the evidence presented at trial, which  conclusively  shows the
impropriety of the appellant's claim.
For the foregoing reasons,  whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from
have been refuted, we are of opinion that the said judgment should be and it is hereby
affirmed, as it  is in accordance with the  law and the evidence.  The costs  of  this 
instance  shall be against the appellant.  So  ordered.
Arellano, C.  J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ..concur.

Batas.org

file:///Users/carlsantos/Documents/Desktop Files/Jurisprudence 1901-2018/cases/sc/1912/G. R. No. 6169, November 05, 1912.htm 5/5