ADORACION FADEROGAO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELIA M. DE LEON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Faderogao versus De Leon

The Case

This is the story of Adoracion Faderogao, who sued Celia M. de Leon for a declaration of heirship, partition, and damages, claiming that she is the niece of the late Simeon Faderogao and therefore a collateral heir of his estate. Celia, on the other hand, claims to be the adopted child of Simeon and his wife Paz, and holds the properties under a deed of partition executed by Paz in her favor. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the burden of proof in civil cases and of the strict requirements for proving pedigree under the Rules of Evidence. Second, it teaches a memorable rule about names: no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority, and a name is not a trifle to be discarded on anyone's mere instruction.

Procedural History

Adoracion filed her complaint for declaration of heirship, partition, and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in her favor, declaring her a collateral heir of Simeon, declaring her and Celia co-owners of the properties in the deed of partition in the shares of one fourth and three fourths respectively, and ordering Celia to pay ten thousand pesos in nominal damages. Celia appealed. The Court of Appeals did not decide the case; the appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it in this decision. The Supreme Court granted the appeal, set aside the trial court's decision, and dismissed the complaint.

Facts

Adoracion claimed that she is the surviving daughter of Vicente Fetalver, whom she alleged was the brother of Simeon Faderogao. Celia, the defendant, claimed to be the legal child of Simeon and his wife Paz. When Juan Faderogao, the alleged father of Vicente and Simeon, died, only Simeon inherited the three parcels of land belonging to Juan. Adoracion thus asserted that she was entitled to inherit from Simeon, since Simeon and Paz died without legitimate issue. For her part, Celia relied on a deed of partition and adjudication of parcels of land executed by Paz in her favor, treating her as an adopted child.

At trial, Adoracion testified, together with her sisters Magdalena and Juanita, and with Adelina Selodio and Fernando Fetalver. The witnesses tried to explain the different surnames: they claimed that Simeon himself instructed Vicente to use the surname Fetalver, the maternal surname of Vicente's mother, and that Paz did not want Vicente to inherit from Juan. Fernando testified that Vicente's children were all surnamed Fetalver and that none of them used Faderogao until Adoracion filed this complaint. Juanita claimed the surname Faderogao but could not even agree on its spelling, saying she was Juanita Paderogao. Not one of Vicente's children could present a single document proving the link between Vicente and Simeon or proving prior use of the surname Faderogao.

Before Celia could finish presenting her evidence, Adoracion died. The trial court directed her counsel to submit the pleading for substitution within thirty days, but counsel did not comply. Two of Adoracion's sisters, however, had already testified in court. The trial court nonetheless rendered judgment in Adoracion's favor, and Celia appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court retained jurisdiction over the case despite the death of the plaintiff and the failure of her counsel to effect substitution of heirs.
• Whether or not the plaintiff proved by preponderance of evidence that she is a collateral heir of Simeon Faderogao, that is, that Vicente and Simeon were brothers and that she is a Faderogao.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

This provision governs whether the action survived Adoracion's death and whether the trial court could still validly proceed.

Section 39, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, on declarations about pedigree, requires the following:

The declarant must be dead or unable to testify. The pedigree is in issue or is relevant thereto. The person whose pedigree is in question must be related to the declarant by birth or marriage. The declaration must be made before the controversy, that is, ante litem motam. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration.

This provision governs the testimonies offered to establish that Vicente and Simeon were brothers.

Section 40, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, on family reputation or tradition, requires:

There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of the members of a family. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy, ante litem motam. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person is a member of the family of said person, either by consanguinity or affinity.

This provision governs the testimonies of Adelina and Fernando on the family's genealogy.

Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:

No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

This provision defeats the claim that Vicente simply dropped the surname Faderogao upon Simeon's instruction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's jurisdiction subsisted despite Adoracion's death. The purpose of substitution is to protect due process, and the question is whether the cause of action survived. Here the primordial issue concerned property and property rights, so the action survived. Although counsel failed to comply with the order on substitution, the deceased plaintiff remained represented by her counsel, and two of her sisters, who were similarly situated and perhaps her only heirs, actively participated and testified. There was therefore no violation of due process.

On the second issue, the Court held that Adoracion failed to discharge the burden of proof, which never parts from the plaintiff. The Court found the testimonies incredible. Adelina first said Juan had only three children, then wavered only after being led by counsel. Fernando's testimony collided with Adelina's. The fifth requisite of Section 39, Rule 130 was not satisfied by credible evidence independent of the alleged declaration. As to Section 40, Rule 130, Adelina failed to prove how she was related to the family, and Fernando's account was improbable. The Court stressed that a name cannot be changed at anyone's whim:

No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

The Court also noted that the validity of the deed of partition and Celia's right to inherit from Paz could not be reviewed, because judicial power is exercised only over actual controversies, not conjectural ones.

Doctrine

First, the substitution of heirs is not a jurisdictional requirement; non-compliance violates due process only where parties substantially affected were not notified, and the trial court retains jurisdiction where the cause of action survives the death of a party. Second, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff and never shifts; preponderance of evidence means the greater weight of credible evidence. Third, declarations about pedigree under Section 39, Rule 130 require that the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question be shown by evidence other than the declaration itself. Fourth, family reputation under Section 40, Rule 130 requires that the witness be a member of the family by consanguinity or affinity and that the tradition be ante litem motam, meaning before the controversy. Fifth, under Article 376 of the Civil Code, no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority; a name is fixed by law and cannot be discarded on mere instruction.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, the trial court's decision was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed; Celia won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority, so a plaintiff cannot build an heirship on the claim that a surname was dropped on someone's mere instruction. Examiners use this case for the burden of proof and pedigree rules under Sections 39 and 40 of Rule 130, and for the substitution of heirs under Section 16, Rule 3.