JOSE MANANGOL BARTOLOME, ANTONIO BARTOLOME, AND ADALAIDA BARTOLOME, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. JUSTO BARTOLOME, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Bartolome versus Bartolome

The Case

This is the case of Bartolome versus Bartolome, decided by the Supreme Court in December 1967. Jose Manangol Bartolome, together with Antonio and Adalaida Bartolome, sued Justo Bartolome to be declared acknowledged natural children of the late Venancio Bartolome and to recover their shares in his estate. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules on the presumption of marriage, the difference between possessing the status of a natural child and actually being acknowledged as one, the prescriptive period for compulsory recognition, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court over paternity and acknowledgment. It is a favorite of examiners for heirs who come too late and ask for the wrong remedy.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs first filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court dismissed it on three grounds: that the complaint stated no cause of action, that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed by writ of error to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal.

Facts

Venancio Bartolome died intestate in Manila in August 1948. In November 1953, Flaviana Fajardo, claiming to be his widow, and Justo Bartolome, claiming to be his only legitimate son, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition and adjudicated to themselves, in equal shares, three houses in Sampaloc, Manila.

In July 1955, Jose Manangol Bartolome petitioned to be appointed administrator, to annul that partition, and to have the estate settled according to law. The trial court dismissed his petition, finding that he was not a legitimate son of Flaviana and Venancio but an illegitimate child of Venancio and one Sotera, also called Emilia, Pangilinan. The Court of Appeals affirmed in March 1959. Flaviana died in May 1959. In December 1959, the trial court approved a project of partition between her estate and Justo, in equal shares. In January 1960, Justo executed an affidavit adjudicating to himself the estates of Flaviana and Venancio, consisting of cash of 5,896 pesos and 52 centavos and the three houses, and the proceeding was closed.

More than three years later, in November 1963, Jose Manangol, together with Antonio and Adalaida Bartolome, sued Justo. They alleged that Antonio and Adalaida were children of Venancio with Francisca Untalan; that they had enjoyed the status of children of Venancio; that they had believed Venancio and Flaviana were married and so thought themselves illegitimate; that in 1962 they discovered the marriage did not appear in the Manila marriage indices from 1900 to 1904; and that Justo and Flaviana had fraudulently deprived them of their shares. They prayed to be declared acknowledged natural children and to recover one fourth of the estate each.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint shows that Venancio Bartolome and Flaviana Fajardo were not married, so as to overcome the presumption that a man and woman living together as husband and wife are legally married.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs' alleged continuous possession of the status of acknowledged natural children entitles them to share in the estate without a prior decree of recognition.
• Whether or not the action for compulsory recognition is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over an action for acknowledgment of natural children.
• Whether or not Jose Manangol Bartolome's claim is barred by the earlier judgment declaring him an illegitimate son of Venancio and Sotera Pangilinan.

Applicable Provisions

Article 137 of the Civil Code of Spain, the law in force at the death of Venancio, provides:

An action for compulsory recognition of a natural child may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except: 1. If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may commence the action within the four years next following the attainment of its majority. 2. If, after the death of the father or mother, some document, before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. In this case the action must be commenced within the six months next following the discovery of such document.

This fixes the periods within which recognition must be sought, and the Court uses it to show that the plaintiffs sued too late.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint does not show the couple were unmarried. Absence from the marriage indices for 1900 to 1904 does not prove it, for they may have married at another time or place. Having lived together as husband and wife for many years, they are presumed legally married unless the contrary is satisfactorily proven, and the allegations are inadequate to offset that presumption.

On the second issue, the Court held that possession of the status of a natural child does not by itself confer that status. The plaintiffs themselves thought their father was married to Flaviana, so the status they possessed was that of illegitimate, not natural, children. Under the old Civil Code, such possession was at best a ground for compulsory recognition, which must precede an action for a share of the estate, for a natural child not acknowledged has no successional rights.

On the third issue, the Court held the action barred. Only Adalaida came within the exception, having reached majority in December 1949, yet she sued only in November 1963, long after the period under Article 137, and also beyond the period under Section 45 of Act Number 190 and Article 285 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction. Under Republic Act Number 1401, such jurisdiction in Manila is vested exclusively in the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations, and, as held in Paterno versus Paterno, recognition of children and recovery of hereditary shares can no longer be joined as causes of action.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Jose Manangol's claim is barred by the earlier judgment declaring him the illegitimate son of Venancio and Sotera Pangilinan, affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

A man and woman who live together as husband and wife are presumed legally married, and the presumption stands unless satisfactorily rebutted. Possession of the status of a natural child is not the same as being an acknowledged natural child; it is only a ground for compulsory recognition, which must be obtained first, because an unacknowledged natural child has no successional rights. The action for compulsory recognition under Article 137 of the old Civil Code must be brought within the periods it fixes, and failure to do so bars the claim. Jurisdiction over paternity, acknowledgment, and recognition of children belongs exclusively to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and may not be joined with an action for hereditary shares.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the plaintiffs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of the status of a natural child does not make one an acknowledged natural child, and recognition must be sought within the period fixed by law. Examiners use this case for the presumption of marriage, the prescriptive bar on compulsory recognition, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.