IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LEONCIO PACTOR (DECEASED). MIGUEL G. PACTOR, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. LUCRECIA P. PESTAÑO, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

In the intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
Leoncio Pactor, petitioner herein Miguel G. Pactor filed a petition for
the issuance of letters of administration in his favor and the
settlement of the intestate estate of said deceased. According to the
petition, the surviving heirs of the deceased are Clemencia R. Pactor,
his widow, and the petitioner, his illegitimate child. Attorney Alfredo
Marigomen, allegedly representing the widow and the nieces and nephews
of the deceased, opposed the petition and prayed that Pantaleon Pepito
be appointed administrator of the estate. The court appointed Luerecia
Pactor’de Pestano, a niece of the deceased, as special administratrix.

Thereafter, said Lucrecia P. Pestaño filed a motion, dated February
1, 1955, to exclude Miguel Paetor from participation in the proceedings
on the ground that he is not acknowledged and cannot bring an action to
compel recognition as an illegitimate child. The court denied said
motion on the ground that no regular administrator had yet been
appointed. In an order dated March 3, 1956, the court appointed
Pantaleon Pepito as regular administrator. Thereafter, on December 26,
1956, attorney for Lucrecia P. Pestaño asked the court to call a
hearing of the case and, at the same time, that a ruling be made
excluding Miguel Pactor. The surviving spouse of the deceased filed a
manifestation explaining that Miguel Pactor is an illegitimate child of
the deceased and a maid and that the deceased had recognized Pactor as
his child, giving him support and education, spending for his marriage,
and assigning him some parcels of land for cultivation. Despite this
opposition the court on December 29, 1956, found the motion to exclude
Miguel Pactor to be well founded for the reason that as there was no
showing that said Miguel Pactor was recognized by the deceased in a
will or in an undisputable right or by an order of the court, his
intervention in the proceedings cannot be allowed. Miguel Pactor filed
a motion for reconsideration attaching a copy of an affidavit of the
widow to the effect that he, Miguel Pactor, had been born of the
deceased with one Cirila Gitgano, and that he had been in continuous
possession of the status of a child of the deceased, and prayed that
the order disallowing his intervention in the proceedings be
reconsidered and that he be permitted to resume the termination of the
presentation of his evidence regarding his relationship to the deceased
Leoncio Pactor. This motion was denied and after a motion to reconsider
the denial was also denied, Miguel Pactor brought this case to us.

The motion of the widow of the deceased and her affidavit attached
to the motion for reconsideration of Miguel G. Pactor, which have not
in any manner been denied by the oppositors, show that the petitioner
Miguel G. Pactor is an illegitimate child of the deceased and had,
during the lifetime of the latter, been recognized by the latter as an
illegitimate child, receiving support not only for himself but also for
his child. The order of the court prohibiting Miguel Pactor from
proceeding to submit any evidence that may prove his status is
certainly premature and incorrect. It is a denial of Pactor’s day in
court. Since it is not denied that the petitioner Miguel P. Pactor had
been in continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,
recognized as such by the deceased, it is possible that there may have
been other evidence that petitioner had desired to submit, to support
his claim to the status of an illegitimate child of the deceased,
although the same had not been disclosed. The trial court seems to have
been of the impression that inasmuch as the petitioner had not been
recognized by the deceased. in a will or by an order of the court
during his lifetime, he has no right at all and should be excluded from
the proceedings. It is not in a will alone or by an order of the court
that petitioner’s status as an illegitimate child may be recognized by
a court, especially as it is not denied that he had been in possession
of such status during the lifetime of the deceased. It will be noted
that Article 289 of the Civil Code of the Philippines allows the
investigation of the paternity of illegitimate children under the
circumstances specified in Articles 283 and 284 of said code. Inasmuch
as it is not denied that Miguel Pactor had been in continuous
possession of the status of a child of the deceased by the latter’s own
acts and by that of his wife in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article
283, the investigation of the paternity of the petitioner is fully
justified. Whether or not he shall be recognized as having such a
status and entitled to the hereditary rights of an illegitimate child
is to be determined after the results of the investigation above
mentioned have been disclosed.

For the foregoing considerations, the order appealed from is hereby
set aside and the case is hereby remanded to the court below for
further proceedings in accordance with this decision. Costs against
oppositor Lucrecia P. Pestaño. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., on leave.