IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF DON PABLO TECSON OCAMPO, DECEASED. TOMASA V. BULOS, PETITIONER AND ADMINISTRATRIX AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE TECSON, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE. JOSE TECSO…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija
denying a motion of Jose Tecson Tantoco, hereinafter referred to as the
appellant.

It appears that Pablo Tecson died in Manila on April 30, 1940. Soon
thereafter, or on May 15, 1940, Tomasa V. Bulos, his widow by second
marriage, initiated this proceeding with a petition for the probate of
a document said to be the last Will of the deceased. In due course,
said court issued, on October 16, 1940, an order allowing said
instrument to probate. Subsequently, or on November 28, 1953, appellant
filed a motion praying that, after due hearing, he be declared an
illegitimate child of the deceased, with the right to succeed him and
have in his estate a share equivalent to four-fifths (4/5) of the
legitime of an acknowledged natural child. Vicente Tecson, a legitimate
child of the deceased, objected to said motion and, when the same was
heard, the parties stipulated:

“* * * that Jose Tecson Tantoco was born on April
10, 1904; that the movant Jose Tecson Tantoco is the son of the
deceased Pablo Tecson with Felisa Tantoco y Clemente; that the movant
Jose Tecson Tantoco was conceived and born when the deceased Pablo
Tecson was legally married to Juana Mendoza; that the marriage was then
subsisting; that consequently the movant Jose Tecson Tantoco is an
illegitimate, not natural, son of said deceased Pablo Tecson; that this
Court has not made any declaration as to the heirs of the deceased
Pablo Tecson; that the document marked as Exhibit ‘A’ is an exact copy
of the portions of the record of Criminal Case No. 734 of the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan, filed against the deceased Pablo Tecson, for
seduction.”

On December 2, 1960, the lower court issued an order holding that
appellant’s rights, as an adulterous son of the deceased, should be
determined pursuant to the provisions of the Spanish Civil Code, the
same being the law in force when Pablo Tecson died in 1940; that an
illegitimate child, other than a natural child, is entitled, under said
Code, not to a legitime, but, only, to support, which may not be
availed of by appellant, he being already of age; and that, since the
rights of the heirs of Pablo Tecson under said Code vested immediately
upon his death in 1940 and the legitime of four-fifths (4/5) of the
share of an acknowledged natural child under the Civil Code of the
Philippines cannot be given to appellant herein without affecting the
rights thus vested in said heirs under the Civil Code of Spain,
appellant can not avail himself of the benefits of the Civil Code of
the Philippines and his aforementioned motion should be and was denied.

Appellant maintains that the lower court erred in not granting said
motion for the estate of the deceased is still undistributed and the
Civil Code of the Philippines, provides:

“ART. 287. Illegitimate children other than natural
in accordance with article 269 and other than natural children by legal
fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as are
granted in this Code.”

ART. 2264. The status and rights of *
* * illegitimate children mentioned in article 278, shall also be
acquired by children born before the effectivity of this Code.”

ART. 2266. The following shall have not only prospective but also retroactive effect:

* * * * * *

“(3) Articles 283, 284 and 289, concerning the proof of illegitimate filiation.”

There is no merit in this appeal. Although the status and rights of
illegitimate children under Article 278 of our new Civil Code are,
also, extended, by Article 2264, thereof, to children born before the
effectivity of said Code, said Article 2264, in so far as relevant to
cases of succession, applies only when the illegitimate father dies after said
Code has become effective, for Article 2263 thereof explicitly provides
that “rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without
will, before the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws and by the Rules of Court” (Uson vs. Del Rosario, 92 Phil., 530; Montilla vs. Montilla, 112 Phil., 598).

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Jose Tecson Tantoco. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.