G.R. No. L-7210. September 26, 1956

Remedios Obispo, born out of wedlock on 5 of August 1921, is the daughter of Sebastian Obispo  and Fructuosa Labrador who at the time  of  her  conception  and birth were free to marry, as in  fact they did marry on  4  February 1924 before the justice  of the peace of Botolan, Zambales.   Sebastian Obispo is  one  of the children of the late Francisco  Obispo  and  Dorotea  Apostol.  Sebastian Obispo died on 6 December 1940 and his widowed mother Dorotea Apostol on 15 June 1945.  On 12 of August 1940, Dorotea Apostol and her five children with her late husband Francisco Obispo executed a deed of partition not only  of the parcels of land which were the exclusive property of her late husband  but  also those belonging to her as paraphemal (Exhibit A).  Parcels No. 2, 3 and 4 described in the complaint belonged exclusively  to the late Francisco Obispo, whereas parcels Nos. 1 and 5 also described in the complaint were paraphemal of Dorotea Apostol. In accordance with the partition the live  parcels of land were awarded to Sebastian Obispo. On 17 October 1940, Sebastian Obispo executed a deed of donation of eleven  parcels of land including the five awarded to him in the  deed of partition (Exhibit A) to his wife Fructuosa Labrador and his daughter Remedios Obispo  Labrador  (Exhibit  B).  As  already  stated, on  15 June  1945 Dorotea Apostol died and her  daughter Olimpia  Obispo commenced  proceedings for the probate of a will  of her late mother where she was named executrix (Exhibit 1). Remedios Obispo brought an action against Olimpia  Obispo to recover possession of five  parcels  of land, alleging that the second,  third and fourth parcels of  land  described in the complaint were inherited by her from her late father Sebastian Obispo who in turn had inherited them from his late father  Francisco, by  virtue of a deed of partition executed by the surviving widow and her five children had with her late husband Froncisco Obispo (Exhibit A); and the first and fifth parcels of land also described in the complaint  were inherited by her from her  late grandmother Dorotea Apostol,  in  representation of her late  father Sebastian Obispo.  After  trial,  the  Court  of First  Instance of Zambales rendered judgment holding— 

* *  * that   Remedios   Obispo  y   Labrador  was  the  natural child of the late  Sebastian  Obispo and  Fructuosa  Labrador, duly acknowledged and legitimated by  the  subsequent marriage of her parents, and—as such—is entitled to inherit front both her  father and her grandmother, Dorotea Apostol; that the deeds  of partition (Exhibit “A”) and donation  (Exhibit “B”) were perfectly valid and binding with respect to Remedios  Obispo and her grandmother, Dorotea Apostol, and other children  of the latter and  with respect to the properties described therein; and that said Remedios  Obispo came into possession and became the owner of the said five parcels of land described in the complaint by  virtue of said two deeds. The court likewise orders the defendants to return to  the plaintiffs the above mentioned five  parcels of  land and to  deliver to the  latter  thirty  cavanes every year  or to  pay  them the plaintiffs) the equivalent market value of  P10  a  cavan or in all P300 from 1942 until  the delivery is  made, and  to pay the costs of this action.

Olimpia  Obispo appealed  from the  judgment to  the  Court’ of Appeals claiming that  Remedios  Obispo  could t not  be deemed legitimated  by subsequent  marriage because, she was not  duly acknowledged  by  her father in the  record of  birth, or in  a  will,  nor was  she  being then  a minor  acknowledged with judicial  approval,  as provided  for in  article  133  of the old Civil Code; that the deed  of partition was not  legally sufficient to convey and transfer  to  the parties thereto  the possession  and ownership of the  parcels of land partitioned therein  which included  parcels  of land  belonging  as paraphernal  to Dorotea Apostol, for she could  revoke said partition  by the execution of a  last will and  testament.   The  Court of Appeals affirmed  the  judgment of the trial court. The defendants come to  this Court  by way of certiorari to have the judgment of the Court of Appeals reviewed.

In support of their  contention that lack  of  judicial approval   of  the acknowledgment of  minor  Remedios Obispo as  natural child made under oath on 17  October 1940 before the justice of the peace of Cabangan, Zambales, by her father Sebastian  (Exhibit E),  prevents her from acquiring the  condition or  status  of legitimated child by subsequent marriage,  the  petitioners cite article 121 of the old Civil  Code which provides: 

Children  shall be considered as legitimated  by a subsequent marriage only when they  have been acknowledged  by  the parents before or after the celebration thereof;

the second paragraph of article 133 of the same  Code which  provides: 

The approval  of  the  court to  be granted  after  hearing  the prosecuting  officers,  shall  be necessary to the acknowledgment of a minor, unless such acknowledgment be made  in  a certificate of birth or in a will;

and  the decisions of  this  Court,  to wit:  Legarre  vs. Cuerques,  34 Phil., 221; Madridejo vs. De Leon,  55 Phil 1; and In re: Judicial approval of  the  acknowledgment of Zenaida Jiro Mori, 46 Off.  Gaz., 5460.

In Legarre vs. Cuerque,  supra, and In re: Judicial approval  of  the acknowledgment of  Zenaida   Jiri  Mori supra, there was no marriage  of the natural parents; and an acknowledgment before a notary public  was  held  insufficient.  In Madridejo vs. De Leon, supra,  the marriage of the natural parents alone without an acknowledgment by them of the natural  child could not bring  about  legitimation of  the child.   For the validity or  legality of an  acknowledgment of a  minor natural child  by any of  his natural parents, under the provisions of Article  133 of the old Civil  Code, judicial approval thereof was  necessary. Article 133 of the old Civil Code, comes under Chapter IV, Title V,  Book I, that deals with  illegitimate children and acknowledgment of natural children,  whereas Article 121 of the same Code comes under the preceding chapter that treats  of legitimated  children.  The  acknowledgment  required in article 121 is not the same as that required in Article 133 when the natural child to be acknowledged is a minor.  The acknowledgment under the  former  article does not need judicial approval.  Commenting on this article Manresa says: 

En que forma se ha  de  hacer  el reconocimiento?  El Codigo la establece taxativamente en el  art. 131,  y a el noa remitimos para esta cuestion. 

Pero  ;bastara  la manifestation a que  se  refiere el Articulo  67 numero 3.” de la  ley del Registro civifl?  Segun dicho numero, en  las inscripciones  de matrimonio deben constar  los nombres de los hijos naturales que por el matrimonio se legitiman y que los constrayentes hayan manifestado haber tenido.   Esta manifestation,  seguida de su insercion en el acta de matrimonid, y de las notas que debe motivar en las respectivas actas de nacimiento, no pueden raenos de considerarse como un reconocimiento formal de los  hijos naturales, consignado en forma que  merece .fe, por lo  cual creemos que es desde luego  suficiente  a  los  efectos  del   art.  121.  * * *  (Comentarios  al Codigo Civil Espanol, Vol. 1, p. 569, 5th ed.)

From this  it may  be  inferred that the  judicial  approval of an acknowledgment of a minor  natural child for the purpose of legitimation by marriage of the natural parents is not  necessary.   And commenting on Article  133, the same author says: 

Los padres, como dijimos en su lugar, pueden contraer matrimonio, y hacer constar en  el acta los nombres  de sus hijos naturales que por el matrimonio han de ser  legitimados.  Hemos considerado este ncto  suficiente a los efectos del reconocimiento; pero como no consta hecho ni en  el  acta  de  nacimiento,  ni en  el  testamento  de los padres si el  hijo, o los  hijos son menores de edad,  como sera lo mas  frecuente, se necesitara la  aprobacion judicial,  con  arreglo al art.  133?  Parece a  primera vista  irremediable  ese requisito,  lo que  equevaldria  a arrebatar  a  esos hijos, en muchos casos, algo irreflexivamente,  la legitimidad que debia corresponderles.  Aunque tenemos la  creencia de que el  legislador, lo mismo en este articulo que en el 131 y aun en el 121, no tuvo en cuenta la  cuestion presentada, debe, en nuestra opinion, resolverse en el sentido mas favorable  a los hijos,  atendiendo al espiritu del Codigo  en  la  materia, a los principios generales de Derecho,  y las razones Qegales siguientes:  primera, que la  manifestation hecha por los padres en el acta de su matrimonio de  tener determinados  hijos naturales  y  querer legitimarlos,  debe hacerse constar por nota en  las actas de nacimiento de esos  hijos, con arreglo a  la  ley  del  Registro  civil con lo cual, el reconocimiento del menor resultara en el acta de su nacimiento,  debiendo asi  estimarse cumplido el art. 133;  y segunda, que este articulo exige  el consentimiento del hijo para ser reconcido como natural solamente;  pero no  hay  articulo  alguno  considere necesario  ese consentimiento, o, en su defecto, la aprobacion judicial para  ser  considerado como  legitimo, y  la exigencia de tal requisito y  consiguiente  aplicacion del  articulo  133 al caso propuesto, solo conduciria a privar a los hijos en ciertos casos de su condicion  de legitimos, por vanas, absurdas e  innecesarias exigencias  literales de interpretacion.  (supra,  pp. 595-596.)

We  are  of the opinion that  the acknowledgment  under oath of  minor  Remedios Obispo  as natural  child of Sebastian  Obispo  made by the  latter on 17 October  1940 before a justice of  the  peace  (Exhibit E)  did not need judicial  approval  for her  to  acquire the  status of  legitimated  child by  the  marriage of her natural parents.

As regards the claim that the partition was null and void  and of no  effect because Dorotea Apostol  could not enter  into  an  agreement or contract regarding  future inheritance with  her  children,  suffice it to   say  that, as to the three  parcels of land which belonged exclusively to her late spouse Francisco  Obispo,  said partition  was lawful and valid as  she did  not  have  any right  to  said parcels  of land  except her usufruct as widow  which she could  waive.  As  to the first  and  fifth parcels of  land which are paraphernal, the  Court of  Appeals  found: 

*  *   *   We have gone carefully  over  the evidence  of record, and we fully concur with  the trial  court that each of the  heirs of the late Francisco  Obispo  took  possession of their respective shares alloted to them after the execution of the deed of  partition (Exhibit  A).  In  fact,  it  would even appear  from the  deed  of partition itself that some of the heirs have possessed and sold some of their shares  even  before the execution of  the  deed of partition. Andres Obispo, another brother of appellant Olimpia, also said that all of the heirs took possession of  their respective  shares  after the execution of  the deed  of partition.  While  this  witness was presented  as a  witness for the  appellees, his testimony  deserves full faith and credit because we  find  nothing in the  evidence  of record to  show why he took the side of plaintiff  Remedios Obispo, his niece, as against defendant Olimpia  Obispo, his own sister. 

We also  agree with  the findings of the Court below  that parcels Nos. 2, 3  and 4,  of the complaint, were originally the  exclusive property of the late Francisco Obispo, while the other two parcels of land “were the property of the late Dorotea  Apostol.  Parcels Nos. 2, 3  and 4  are  declared  in the name of Francisco  Obispo while parcels Nos. 1 and 5 are declared under the name of Dorotea Apostol.  Furthermore, Andres  Obispo also testified  that parcels Nos. 2, 3  and 4  belonged to his father, Francisco  Obispo,  and parcels Nos. 1 and 5 to  his mother,  Dorotea Apostol.  We find, therefore,  no valid  reason why  the  extrajudicial  partition  made between  Dorotea  Apostol and  her  children  had  with  the  late Francisco  Obispo, with  respect  to  the estate of  said Francisco Obispo, should not be respected.   Its due execution is not impugned, and it has  always  been the tendency in courts, whether  sittings as a probate courts or courts of  ordinary  jurisdiction,  to  respect the wishes of a deceased or the  division made by  his heirs, unless the disposition  or  division  is  not in accordance with  law.  With respect to the estate of Dorotea Apostol, such as  parcels Nos. 1  and 5 of the complaint,  which  were also adjudicated in favor of the late Sebastian  Obispo  in the  partition, we agree with counsel for the appellant that, upon the authority of the doctrine laid down by this Court  in Maria Reyes  vs, Anicia Reyes, 45 off. Gaz., April, 1949, p. 1836, the late Dorotea Apostol had the right to revoke  the partition insofar as  her own  properties were concerned as she, in fact, did when she executed her will (Exhibit 1).  But she could not deprive her granddaughter,  Remedios,. of  her just  share  in  the inheritance. The right  of Remedios Obispo to represent her  father is not affected by the fact that her said father predeceased Dorotea Apostol, because she  enjoys the same rights  as  legitimate  children  (Article  122, old  Civil  Code).  This  is one  of  the rights  appertaining to   a legitimated natural  child of  a descendant  who predeceases his own legitimate  parent, which is r.ot  enjoyed by an  acknowledged natural child (Llorente vs, Rodriguez, 10  Phil. 595).  Since it has not been shown that the apportionment of parcels Nos. 1 and 5 in  favor of the  late Sebastian  Obispo  affects the two-thirds,  legitlme  of the others  heirs of Dorotea Apostol, such  apportionment  should also be respected.

Finding  no  error  in the  judgment appealed from, we affirm it, with  costs  against the petitioners.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes,  J. B. L., Endencia,  and Felix, JJ., concur.