G.R. No. L-42007. June 22, 1984
MARIA B. DIAZ, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER CHILDREN PABLO DIAZ, LOURDES DIAZ-ROQUE, GERVACIO DIAZ, JR., AND MARIO DIAZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO AZARRAGA, ROSARI…
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
named (1) Rosario, (2) Natividad, (3) Juan, (4) Amador, (5) Severo, (6)
Ester, (7) Leopoldo (8) LEODEGARIO, (9) Filomena and (10) Pastora (not
in order of ages). It is not questioned that Filomena (No. 9) was a
legitimate child, her mother being Calixta Lozada, wife of ISIDRO. It is
neither questioned that children Nos. (1) to (7) were illegitimate
children of ISIDRO with his mistress Valentina Abarracoso.
The controversy between the parties is in reference to LEODEGARIO (No.
8) whom petitioner MARIA B. Diaz claims to be the brother in full blood
of her mother Filomena (No. 9) and of her aunt Pastora (No. 10). On the
other hand, private respondents claim that LEODEGARIO (No. 8) was the
illegitimate son of ISIDRO and Valentina Abarracoso and, hence, the
brother in full blood of children Nos. (1) to (7). Private respondents
further claim that Pastora (No. 10) was an illegitimate daughter of
ISIDRO and one Guadalupe Villareiz.
On September 10, 1949, LEODEGARIO (simply referred to hereinafter as the
DECEDENT) died intestate (while the Spanish Civil Code was still in
effect), leaving no surviving spouse nor descendants. He had properties
in Capiz, acquired during his lifetime, which are now the subject matter
of this Petition.
On October 15, 1949, MARIA Bellosillo Diaz (the original petitioner
herein before she was substituted by her legal heirs as she died during
the pendency of the suit), filed in the Court of First Instance of Capiz
the basic petition for the issuance of Letters of Administration in
her favor for the settlement of the DECEDENT’s estate.
On October 25, 1949, one Amador Azarraga filed a formal opposition
praying that he, instead of MARIA, be appointed as Administrator.
On March 1, 1950, the Court of origin, after hearing, issued the following Order:
“This is a petition filed by Maria B. Diaz for her appointment as
Administrator of the estate of the deceased, Leodegario Azarraga. The
petition has been duly published in accordance with law, and an
opposition has been filed by Amador Azarraga who claimed that the
deceased left other half-sisters and half-brothers not included in the
petition. When the case was called for hearing, the oppositor manifested
to the Court that if the determination or declaration of heirs be
postponed to a later date, they would not object to the appointment of
an Administrator in the discretion of the Court.”“From the testimony given in open Court by the petitioner, we
deduced the following facts: The Leodegario Azarraga was a resident of
Capiz, Capiz for some time previous to the month of September, 1949,
that on Sept. 10, 1949 Leodegario Azarraga, while in Manila,
accidentally died in said city (Annex ‘A’); that the deceased left no
will known to his relatives, and therefore, died intestate; that the
petitioner Maria B. Diaz is a daughter of the sister of the deceased,
and therefore a niece of the late Leodegario Azarraga; that the said
Leodegario Azarraga left properties in the Municipality of Pilar
consisting of real estate valued at P28,000.00 more or less.”“Considering that Maria B. Diaz was the one who filed the petition and the fact that Pastora Azarraga, a legitimate sister
of the deceased is living with her and agreeable to her appointment as
administratrix, and considering further that Maria B. Diaz is
sufficiently educated and capable of administering the properties of the
deceased consisting mostly of residential lots, we believe that she
should be appointed as administratrix of the estate.”“WHEREFORE, said Maria B. Diaz is hereby appointed as
administratrix of the intestate estate of the late Leodegario Azarraga
upon the filing of a bond in the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS
(P2000.00). Once said bond is approved by the Court, let letters of
administration be issued in her favor.” (Underlining ours)
On August 17, 1970, or more than twenty years later, Eduardo Azarraga,
heir of the original oppositor Amador Azarraga, who died in 1957, filed
before the then Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch I, a petition
to remove MARIA as Administratrix for failing, among others, to submit a
final accounting of her administration and a project of partition as
required by the Court, and prayed that he be appointed instead as
Adminstrator (Special Proceedings No. V-517).
On October 14, 1970, Eduardo Azarraga and his brothers, sisters,
nephews and nieces, who are private respondents herein (referred to
hereinafter as Oppositors-appellants) filed a petition for declaration
as DECEDENT’s heirs, which petition they amended on January 12, 1971 to
include other alleged heirs.
The question here is to determine who should be the DECEDENT’s intestate
heir? Is it MARIA B. Diaz, the legitimate daughter of Filomena (No. 9)?
Or should it be the other children of ISIDRO (Nos. 1 to 7), who,
allegedly, like the DECEDENT, are the illegitimate children of ISIDRO
and Valentina Abarracoso?
Oppositors-appellants’ submission is that since the DECEDENT was an
illegitimate issue of ISIDRO and Valentina Abarracoso, MARIA, who is a
daughter of Filomena (No. 9), a legitimate issue of ISIDRO and his wife
Calixta Lozada, is barred from inheriting from the DECEDENT by virtue of Article 943 of the Spanish Civil Code,[1]
(Article 992 of the present Civil Code). MARIA’s version, on the other
hand, is that the DECEDENT was a legitimate son of ISIDRO and his wife
Calixta Lozada, hence it is she, considering the waiver in her
favor by her aunt Pastora (No. 10), who is entitled to inherit from the
DECEDENT.
On October 9, 1971, the Court of origin, in its Decision, denied
Oppositors-appellants’ petition for a declaration of heirship in their
favor, and instead, declared Pastora (No. 10) and MARIA as the persons
entitled to inherit ab intestato to the DECEDENT’s estate.
Oppositors-appellants filed a timely appeal to the then Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision promulgated on November 12, 1974,[2] affirmed the appealed judgment in toto.
Oppositors-appellants sought reconsideration and succeeded in securing a
reversal from a Special Division of Five, which rendered a new Decision
on May 22, 1975,[3] holding thus:
“WHEREFORE, finding the motion for reconsideration meritorious,
the same is granted. The decision of Nov. 12, 1974 is hereby set aside
and a new one entered as follows:1. Declaring the oppositors-appellants as the legal heirs of the deceased Leodegario Azarraga;
2. Declaring the aforementioned heirs co-owners in equal shares of the properties left by the said deceased;
3. Removing appellee Maria B. Diaz as administratrix of the
estate of the deceased Leodegario Azarraga and appointing in her stead
Eduardo Azarraga;4. Ordering appellee Maria B. Diaz, to deliver and relinquish
to the new administrator the possession of all the properties left by
the deceased Leodegario Azarraga and to submit to the lower court an
accounting of her stewardship of the estate of the deceased Leodegario
Azarraga. Whether the new administrator Eduardo Azarraga will serve with
or without bond is left to the sound discretion of the lower Court.“SO ORDERED.”
MARIA’s first Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision was denied, likewise by a Special Division of Five.[4] A second Motion for Reconsideration met the same fate with respondent Court also voting three to two.[5]
Hence, this petition, centering on the focal question of whether or not
respondent Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in
reversing itself an finding that the DECEDENT is an illegitimate son of
ISIDRO and that it is the collateral relatives, the
oppositors-appellants who stand to inherit his entire estate.
We are constrained to reverse. We agree with the Trial Court that the
preponderance of evidence sustains a finding of the DECEDENT’s
legitimacy. His school records from the University of Sto. Tomas dated
March 18, 1897 (Exhibits “Q”, “Q-1” to “Q-5”); from 1903 – 1904, as a
senior student in the College of Law (Exhibits “R”, “R-1” to “R-3”);
and that of March 18, 1908 (Exhibit “A”), show that he was enrolled as
“Leodegario Azarraga y Lozada“. Although those records by themselves are not proof of legitimate filiation, they constitute strong evidence thereof.
True, his Certificate of Admission to the Philippine Bar on April 16,
1904 (Exhibit “H”) names him simply as “Leodegario Azarraga”. It cannot
be concluded therefrom, however, that he was not the legitimate son of
Isidro Azarraga and Calixta Lozada. The several letters wherein
he signed simply as “Leodegario Azarraga” neither disprove legitimacy.
Even nowadays, the dropping of the maternal surname in correspondence
or written documents is commonplace for convenience and/or brevity.
Oppositors-appellants’ explanation that the name Lozada was used by the
DECEDENT at the instance of their father, ISIDRO, who was anxious to
cover up the DECEDENT’s illegitimacy from the priests of the University
of Sto. Tomas, and that they, too, were told to use Lozada as their
middle name but that the DECEDENT and they dropped that name after the
death of their father on May 2, 1911, is belied by Court records which
show that even in 1908, the DECEDENT, as counsel of record in several
cases, had simply used “Leodegario Azarraga” and had already dropped
Lozada.[6]
The Last Will and Testament of Pastora Azarraga, executed on August 3,
1961, which, although standing alone does not establish DECEDENT’s
legitimacy, enhances that conclusion. That Will was duly probated on
January 9, 1967 without objection and specifically indicates that the
DECEDENT (No. 8), Pastora (No. 10) and Filomena (No. 9) [petitioner’s
mother] are “brother and sisters of the full blood they being children
of Isidro Azarraga and Calixta Lozada”.
Oppositors-appellants contend that said Will cannot prove pedigree for being self-serving and for not being ante litem motam
as mandated by Section 33, Rule 130 of Rules of Court.6 Be that as it
may, it is not being considered as independent evidence but collectively
with other evidence on record. Besides, the actual controversy herein
may be said to have arisen only in 1970 when oppositors-appellants filed
their Petition for declaration of heirship. In the opposition filed by
Amador Azarraga to the basic petition for Letters of Administration
filed by MARIA in 1949, and even when Pastora expressed her conformity
on November 15, 1949 to MARIA’s appointment as administratrix (Exhibit
“I”), Pastora had already mentioned that she was the only living sister
of the DECEDENT. The Court Order of March 1, 1950 also mentioned Pastora
as the “legitimate sister” of the DECEDENT. No objection was heard to
said declarations until twenty years later. Oppositors-appellants,
therefore, cannot now be heard to aver that Pastora was the illegitimate
daughter of ISIDRO and one Guadalupe Villareiz.
To offset MARIA’s documentary evidence, oppositors-appellants presented
a copy of the Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Capiz in a
land registration case (Expediente No. 53, G.L.R.O. Record No. 14529)
where it appears that MARIA was referred to as the “universal heir” of
Isidro Azarraga. That, they allege, points to the conclusion that MARIA
is the only legitimate heir of Isidro Azarraga and that the DECEDENT and
Pastora were deprived of their successional rights by reason of their
illegitimacy. The fallacy is evident because a universal heir is not
synonymous with sole forced heir. Besides, the same Decision also
mentions a distribution among the heirs in that “Los bienes del finado
Isidro Azarraga fueron debidamente distribuidos entre sus herederos en
el proyecto de reparticion que se ha presentado en dicha testamentaria y
que fue debidamente aprobado por este Juzgado” (Exhibit “K”).
Significant also in this regard is the narration of facts in Sison vs.
Azarraga, 30 Phil. 129 (1915), of which case we can take judicial
notice, eloquently showing that not only had the DECEDENT been already
given his share of the inheritance but that he was also appointed
executor of his father Isidro’s estate, as well as a guardian of
petitioner and her brother Jesus. To quote:
“On April 27, 1911, Isidro Azarraga executed his final will and
testament, in which he appointed his son Leodegario Azarraga x x x
executor, and distributed his property among his children and other relatives,
the said Leodegario receiving a certain number of carabaos (clause 5 of
the will) and a legacy of P8,115.72 for the valuable services rendered
to the testator (clause 6); he further instituted as his sole and
universal heirs his two grandchildren called Maria Felisa and Jesus,
both surnamed Bellosillo y Azarraga, children of the deceased spouses
Ignacio Bellosillo and Filomena Azarraga, the last named being the
testator’s daughter (clause 4). Said testator also directed that his son
Leodegario Azarraga and his son-in-law Miguel Robledo be apointed
guardians of his said grandchildren without being required to furnish
bond therefor x x x” (Italics ours).
The foregoing is an additional index of legitimacy of the DECEDENT and
serves to corroborate MARIA’s testimony that it was her uncle, the said
DECEDENT, who attended to her personal and proprietary interests, which
declaration was disbelieved by respondent Appellate Court.
In the overall, the presumption in DECEDENT’s favor of legitimacy has
not been successfully contradicted nor overcome by
oppositors-appellants’ testimonial or documentary evidence.
In reversing its original Decision, respondent Appellate Court
misappreciated the chain of circumstances detailed by the totality of
the evidence. Instead, it isolated piecemeal evidence and held each of
them to be insufficient and inconclusive to prove legitimacy thereby
leading it to an erroneous conclusion.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals, dated May 22,
1975, is hereby set aside, and its Decision of November 12, 1974
affirming in toto the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch I, is hereby reinstated.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.
[1] “ARTICLE 943. A natural or a legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestato
the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who has
acknowledged it; nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from
the natural or legitimated child.
[2] Penned by Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Luis B. Reyes and Pacifico P. de Castro.
[3] Justice Crisolito Pascual
penned the new Decision; which was concurred in by Justices Luis B.
Reyes and Pacifico P. de Castro. Justices Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. and
Conrado M. Vasquez dissented.
[4] Justice Luis B. Reyes
penned the Resolution, concurred in by Justices Pacifico P. de Castro
and Francisco Tantuico, Jr. vice Justice Crisolito Pascual, who had
inhibited himself for personal reasons. Justices Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr.
and Conrado M. Vasquez maintained their dissent.
[5] Special Division of Five
composed of Justices Ramon C. Fernandez, Luis B. Reyes, Ramon G.
Gaviola, Jr. Conrado M. Vasquez, and Mama Busran.
[6] see Suilliong & Co.,
et al vs. Silvina Chutayasan, 12 Phil. 13, November 8, 1908; Manuel
Guevarra vs. Carmen de Pascual, 12 Phil. 311, December 22, 1908.
[6] “Act or declaration about pedigree – The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or outside of the Philippines, or
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related
to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two
persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The
word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where those facts
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of
family history intimately connected with pedigree.”