1. GR NO.

167109 FEBRUARY 6, 2007 records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their naturalization and
divorce.
FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, petitioner,
The Court noted that it was the petitioner who alleged in her
vs.
complaint that they acquired American Citizenship and that respondent
COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN and MEROPE E. obtained a judicial divorce decree. It is a settled rule that one who alleges
BRAGANZA, respondents. a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.

YNARES- SANTIAGO, J.: Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause
arising after marriage. It has two types: a. absolute divorce or a vinculo
FACTS: matrimonii; and b. limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind
Petitioner Felicitas married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond
Pangasinan. They then migrated to the US and allegedly became in full force.
naturalized citizens. After 38 years of marriage, they divorced in April of If the divorce obtained by Felicitas and Orlando falls on the first
1988. type, then the decision of the CA is correct in ruling that petitioner has no
In June 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Pangasinan. legal personality to file the present case. But if it falls on the second type,
Petitioner then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with then the decision of the trial court will apply.
damages in the RTC against respondents Orlando and Merope on the A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
contention that it was bigamous. jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of the foreigner.
cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in-interest but it Before it can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it
was denied. must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
The RTC rendered judgement in favor of the petitioner, but on foreign law allowing it. Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part
appeal to the CA, the decision was reversed. of the evidence, the Court cannot rule on the issue presented.

ISSUE: Case is REMANDED to the trial court.

Whether or not petitioner has the personality to file a petition for

the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the ground of
bigamy?

HELD:

The Court stated that we first need to determine whether the

divorce decree was judicially granted. Both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were naturalized
American Citizens and that they obtained divorce decree. However, the
2. GR NO. 124862 DECEMBER 22, 1998 existed between private respondent and Arturo, much less was it shown
that the alleged Padlan children had been acknowledged by the deceased
FE D. QUITA, petitioner,
as his children with her. Only petiutioner Fe and Ruperto were declared
vs. the intestate heirs of Arturo.

COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN, respondents. On motion for reconsideration, the private respondent were allowed
to present proofs of recognition of the children by the decease as his
BELLOSILLO, J.: legitimate children. Partial recognition was granted declaring five children
FACTS: except Alexis to /12 of the estate and ½ to Ruperto.

Fe and Arturo were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. On appeal, the CA declared the decision of the trial court as null
They were not blessed with children. Eventually, Fe and Arturo obtained a and void and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further
final judgement of divorce. Fe then married two times on different dates proceedings.
to different persons. ISSUE:
Arturo died on April 1972. He left no will. A certain Lino Inciong Whether or not petitioner Fe was still entitled to inherit from the
filed a petition with the RTC for issuance of letters of administration decedent.
concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company.
HELD:
Respondent Blandina Dandan claiming to be the surviving spouse of
Arturo and 6 of their children all surnamed Padlan opposed the petition. No. Petitioner insist that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained
They submitted certified photocopies of the July 19, 1950 prtivate writing legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. Reading
and the final judgement of divorce between petition and Arturo. Later, the between the lines, it is implied that petitioner is no longer a Filipino Citizen
brother of the deceased, Ruperto Padlan claimed to be the sole surviving at the time of the divorce. This should have prompted the trial court to
brother intervened. conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship.

At the scheduled hearing, private respondent as well as the 6 The Supreme Court deduce that the finding on their citizenship
children and Ruperto failed to appear despite due notice. The trial court pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not
required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children supplied with sufficient basis to determine petitioner’s citizenship at the
within 10 days from receipt of notice but the prescribed period lapsed time of the divorce. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino Citizen
without these documents. at the time of the divorce, Fe would lose her right to inherit from Arturo.

The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escano held that a foreign In the case of Private respondent Blandina, she and Arturo were
divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of married while the prior marriage of petitioner and Arturio was subsisting
the present Civil Code was not entitled to recognition as valid in this thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considering void from the
jurisdiction. The trial court disregarded the divorce between petitioner and beginning. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse that can inherit
Arturo. Neither did it consider the extrajudicial settlement as valid lacking from him.
judicial approval. It opined that there was no showing that marriage
Petition is DENIED.
 entitled to a share equal to ½ portion of share of the legitimate children of
Jose Sr.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the decision

3. GR NO. 112193 MARCH 13, 1996
alleging loss of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court due to the passage
JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., SIMEONA SAN JUAN ARUEGO, MA. IMMACULADA T. of EO No. 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines.
ALANON, ROBERTO A. TORRES, CRISTINA A. TORRES, JUSTO JOSE
This was denied by the lower court. On Petition for Prohibition and
TORRES and AGUSTIN TORRES, petitioners,
Certiorari before the CA, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
vs.
ISSUE:
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DIVISION and ANTONIA
Whether or not the application of the Family Code in the case
ARUEGO, respondents.
prejudice or impair any vested right of the private respondent?
HERMOSISIMA, JR. J.:
HELD:
FACTS:
Yes. The phrase “vested or acquired rights” under Art. 256 is not
Private respondents, Antonia and Evelyn, represented by their defined by the Family Code, thus leaving it to the courts to determine what
mother Luz, filed a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement it means as each particular issue is submitted to them.
of Successional Rights before the RTC. Defendants Joe Jr., and five (5)
The SC cited the case of Tayag v. CA as it finds application to the
minor children of the deceased Gloria represented by their father Julio, are
present case as it involves a similar complaint denominated as “Claim for
the petitioners.
Inheritance.” In the case cited, the Court held that the fact of filing of the
The complaint avers that the late Jose Sr. had an amorous petition already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the
relationship with Luz from 1959, until his death on March of 1982. Out of same proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at
their relationship were born Antonina and Evelyn. The complaint prayed the time, and such right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the
for an order that herein private respondents be declared the illegitimate enactment of the new law.
children of the deceased Jose Sr.; that the petitioners be compelled to
Accordingly, Article 175 of the Family Code finds no proper
recognize and acknowledge them as compulsory heirs of the deceased and
application to the instant case since it will ineluctably affect adversely a
that their share and participation in the estate of their deceased father be
right of private respondent and, consequentially, of the minor child she
determined and ordered delivered to them.
represents, both of which have been vested with the filing of the complaint
The main basis of the action was alleged as the open and in court. The trial court is, therefore, correct in applying the provisions of
continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children of the deceased Article 285 of the Civil Code and in holding that private respondent’s cause
who showered the private respondents with the continuous and clear of action has not yet prescribed.
manifestations of parental care and affection.
Thus, the present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as
The lower court rendered judgement in favor of the private the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested
respondents declaring Antonia as illegitimate daughter of the deceased and right of private respondent.
 Petition DENIED. construction of the houses on Lot No. 3548 was also not considered as
evidence in respondents' favor, since no proof was submitted establishing
respondents' right to occupy the place.
4. GR NO. 101929 JANUARY 06, 1993
On appeal, the respondent CA reversed the decision of the trial
BENJAMIN DIZON, ET. AL , petitioners, court. The CA declared co-ownership on the basis of the affidavit executed
by Galang.
vs.
ISSUE:
COURT OF APPEALS and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents.
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence of Co-ownership over
PADILLA, J.: the subject lots.
FACTS: HELD:
The spouses Hilario and Martina owned two lots in the province of No. Though the affidavit executed by Galang was accepted by the
Pampanga, which was mortgaged to a certain Camilo Angeles. The Court as a fact, it pointed out that there is no reference to Lot Nos. 3548
spouses have six children. It was alleged that the lot was redeemed by and 3562. Said affidavit is not therefore a sufficient basis or support for
their son Dionisio Galang and had it in his name despite the fact that the what is alleged by respondents as a partition among Dionisio and his now
funds used for the redemption came from his sisters. deceased sisters.
On a Cadastral proceeding, the CFI issued a Certificate of Title for The Court agreed with the trial court that in the absence of definite
lots 3548 and 3562 in the name solely of Dionisio Galang. proof establishing respondents' link/relationship to their alleged
Respondents claim that Galang and his five sisters had partitioned predecessors-in-interest, they do not have any cause of action, and the
the subject lots in 1920 as embodied in an unnotarized affidavit executed suit for partition must necessarily fall. The private respondent failed to
by Galang. Galang’s sisters constructed their houses on Lot 3548 which establish their connection or relationship with any of the five sisters save
passed from generations to generations undisturbed until the petitioners for their unfounded averment that they are indeed descendants and heirs
informed them that the lots in question were titled in Galang’s name and of the deceased sisters.
had been partitioned on the basis of an Extrajudicial Partition by the three Petition is GRANTED.
children of Galang.

Petitioners contend that the cadastral case which caused the

issuance of the Certificate of Title in favor of Galang was a proceeding in
rem, thus binding to the whole world. It was pointed out that when the
Original Certificates of Titles were issued, respondents did not raise any
objection up until 61 years.

The trial court upheld the title of Galang over the lots stating that
the action of the respondents had long prescribed. The presence or
 educational assistance received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor
children discharge the estate of Sima Wei from any and all liabilities.

The RTC denied the Joint Motion to dismiss as well as the

5. GR NO. 163707 SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that it had not been stablished
MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner, that she was the duly constituted guardian of her minor daughters. Thus,
there is no renunciation.
vs.
The CA also denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., Presiding Judge, Petitioners argued that private respondents do not have the legal
RTC, Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and personality to institute the petition for letters of administration as they
KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother, REMEDIOS OANES, failed to prove their filiation during the lifetime of Sima Wei in accordance
respondents. with Art. 17 of the Family Code.
YNARES- SANTIAGO, J.: ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not the Release and Waiver of Claim precludes private
Private respondent-minors Karen and Kamille Wei, represented by respondents from claiming their successional rights - NO
their mother Remedios Oanes, filed a petition for letters of administration Whether or not private respondents are barred by prescription from
before the RTC of Makati. They alleged that they are the duly proving their filiation. – NO
acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died intestate leaving
an estate valued at P10 million consisting of real and personal properties. HELD:
His known heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and 5 children all
The SC find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The
surnamed Guy. Private respondents prayed for the appointment of a
Release and Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of its
regular administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate and
execution. It merely states that Remedios received P30k and an
the appointment of petitioner Michael Guy as Special Administrator of the
educational plan for her minor daughters by way of financial assistance
estate.
and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever nature and kind
In their comment, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the against the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim. The document did not
petition. Michael asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that specifically mention private respondent’s hereditary share in the estate of
his estate can be settled without securing letters of administration. He Sima Wei, it cannot be construed as a waiver of successional rights.
further argued that private respondents should have established their
Even assuming that Remedios really waived the hereditary rights of
status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of Sima Wei.
private respondents, such will be void. According to Art. 1044 of the Civil
On a Manifestation as supplement to the joint motion to dismiss, Code, parents and guardians may not repudiate the inheritance of their
petitioner and his co-heir alleged that private respondents already waived ward without judicial approval. Not having been judicially authorized, the
and abandoned their claim when their mother Remedios executed a Release and Waiver of Claim in the instant case is void and will not bar
Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for financial and private respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased.
 With regard to the issue on private respondent’s filiation, the Court
agreed with the CA that a ruling on the same would be premature
considering that private respondents have yet to present evidence.

6. GR NO. 140422 AUGUST 7, 2006

Before the Family Code took effect, the governing law on actions for
recognition of illegitimate children was Article 285 of the Civil Code. MERCEDES CRISTOBAL CRUZ, ANSELMO A. CRISTOBAL and ELISA
Under the Family Code, when filiation of an illegitimate child is established CRISTOBAL SIKAT, petitioners,
by a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an
admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten vs.
instrument signed by the parent concerned, the action for recognition may EUFROSINA CRISTOBAL, FLORENCIO CRISTOBAL, JOSE CRISTOBAL,
be brought by the child during his or her lifetime. HEIRS OF NORBERTO CRISTOBAL and THE COURT OF APPEALS,
However, if the action is based upon open and continuous possession of respondent
the status of an illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the rules CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
or special laws, it may only be brought during the lifetime of the alleged
parent. FACTS:

It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends Petitioners Mercedes, Anselmo Elisa and the heirs of Socorro claim
on the type of evidence to be adduced by private respondents in proving that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his
their filiation. first marriage to Ignacia.

While the original action filed by private respondents was a petition for Buenaventura entered into a second marriage with Donata and
letters of administration, the trial court is not precluded from receiving bore four children, herein respondents, Eufrosina, Florencio, Jose and
evidence on private respondents’ filiation. Its jurisdiction extends to Norberto.
matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers in Buenaventura purchased a parcel of land with an area of 535 sq
handling the settlement of the estate, including the determination of the meters covered by TCT No. 10878-2.
status of each heir. That the two causes of action, one to compel
recognition and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one Buenaventura died intestate in 1930.
complaint.
Petitioners only learned of the extrajudicial settlement of the
Petition is DENIED. private respondents over the said property only in 1994 when Petitioner
Elisa was offered by private respondent Eufrocina to choose between a
portion of the subject property or money, as one of the children of private
respondent Jose wanted to construct an apartment on the subject
property.
 Elisa inquired about the status of the property and learned that the No. the initial fact that needs to be established is the filiation of
title to the subject property had been transferred to the names of private petitioners with the deceased Buenaventura. Art. 172 of the Family Code
respondents to the exclusion of herself and her siblings from the first provides:
marriage.
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of
Petitioners filed a petition in their barangay to attempt to settle the the following:
case between them and private respondents, but no settlement was
1. The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
reached. Thus, a Complaint for Annulment of Title and Damages was filed
judgement
before the RTC by petitioners against private respondents to recover their
2. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
alleged pro-indiviso shares in the subject property.
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
To prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura, the
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
baptismal certificate of Elisa, Anselmo and the late Socorro were
proved by:
presented. In the case of Mercedes, she produced a certification issued by
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the fact that records of 1. The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
birth for the year 1909 is included to those that were all destroyed due to child
ordinary wear and tear. 2. Any other means allowed by the Rules of court and special laws.
The trial court rendered a judgement dismissing the case, ruling The SC stated that the child’s baptismal certificate, a judicial admission,
that petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased a family bible in which the child’s name has been entered are some of the
Buenaventura as the baptismal and birth certificate presented have scant other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws.
evidentiary value and that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time
amounts to laches. The baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo and the late Socorro
are acceptable documentary evidence to prove their filiation, and in the
Petitioner sought recourse in the CA which decided that the case of Mercedes, the certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil
petitioners were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Registrar was also sufficient.
Buenaventura thru “other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special
Laws,” but affirmed the ruling of the trial court that petitioners are barred In contrast, it bears to point out that private respondents were unable
by laches. to present any proof to refute the petitioners’ claim and evidence of
filiation to Buenaventura.
ISSUE:
As to the validity of the Deed of Partition of the subject property,
Whether or not petitioners’ right to question the Deed of Partition under the Rules of Court, it was stated that without the participation of all
had prescribed persons involved in the proceedings, the extrajudicial settlement is not
binding on said person.
Whether or not petitioners’ right to recover their share of the
property is barred by laches. In the case at bar, since the estate of the deceased Buenaventura
Cristobal is composed solely of the subject property, the partition thereof
HELD:
by the private respondents already amounts to an extrajudicial settlement
of Buenaventura Cristobal’s estate. The partition of the subject property by
the private respondents shall not bind the petitioners since petitioners
were excluded therefrom. Petitioners were not aware of the Deed of
Partition executed by private respondents among themselves in 1948.

Pursuant to Art. 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner shall be obliged 7. GR NO. 181132 JUNE 5, 2009
to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime
the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is HEIRS OF LORETO C. MARAMAG, represented by surviving spouse
concerned. In Budlong v. Bondoc, the SC has interpreted said provison of VICENTA PANGILINAN MARAMAG, petitioners,
law to mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be vs.
barred by prescription.
EVA VERNA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG, ODESSA DE GUZMAN MARAMAG,
It appears that the 535 square meters subject property was a KARL BRIAN DE GUZMAN MARAMAG, TRISHA ANGELIE MARAMAG, THE
conjugal property of Buenaventura Cristobal and Donata Enriquez, the INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., and GREAT PACIFIC LIFE
second wife, as the property was purchased in 1926, during the time of ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
their marriage. Both deaths of Buenaventura and Donata occurred before
th enactment of the New Civil Code in 1950, all the four children of the NACHURA, J.:
first marriage and the 4 children of the second marriage shall share equally FACTS:
in the subject property in accordance with the Old Civil Code. Absent a
Will and Testament, the subject property shall be divided into eight equal
parts pursuant to Arts. 921 and 931.

Respondents were not barred by laches because there is no

negligence or omission on the part of the petitioners. When Elisa had
knowledge of the extrajudicial settlement with the exclusion of herself and
her 3 other siblings, they immediately lodged a complaint before the
evidence showing failure or neglect on their part.

Petition is GRANTED.
8. GR NO. 112483 OCTOBER 8, 1999 9. GR NO. 197310 JUNE 23, 2021

ELOY IMPERIAL, petitioner, DAIEL RIVERA AND ELPIDIO RIVERA, petitioners

vs. v.

COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGASPI CITY, CESAR FLORA VILLANUEVA, RUPERTO PACHECO, VIRGILIO PACHECO and the
VILLALON, JR., TERESA VILLALON, ANTONIO VILLALON, AUGUSTO HEIRS F DONATO PACHECO JR., namely, ESTELITA, RONALD, ANILO AND
VILLALON, ROBERTO VILLALON, RICARDO VILLALON and ESTHER EDMOND ALL SURNAMED PACHECO
VILLALON, respondents
CARANDANG, J.:
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
FACTS:
FACTS: