DIONICIA J. CID, AMADOR JULIAN, ESCOLASTICA J. AGCAOILI, DOMINGA J. SALMO AND TEODORO JULIAN, PETITIONERS, VS. NANCY W. BURNAMAN, ELIS J. BURNAMAN, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RES…

Petitioners, surnamed Julian, seek review and reversal of the
judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals, in Case No. CA-32182-R, ordering the
dismissal of their complaint against the validity of the sale to respondents Burnamans of an undivided one-fourth (1/4) of urban Lot No.
9008 of the Cadastral Survey of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, and reversing the decision of the Court of
First Instance of said province in its Civil Case No. 2609.

The following facts were found by the Court of Appeals:

The aforesaid lot was originally decreed in undivided halves, one
in favor of Gregoria Bonoan
(1/2) and the other half in favor of the five peti­tioners Julians
(Dionicia, Amador, Escolastica,
Dominga and Teodoro), as owners
in equal shares of said moiety.

Gregoria had in her possession Original
Certificate of Title No. 7139, covering the land in question.  When she died on 19 November 1938, the Cer­tificate passed to the
hands of her son, Cenon Bonoan
@ Cenon Hernando. 
The land tax assessment was also in the name of Gregoria,
but when she died, it was placed in the names of Cenon
Hernando (Cenon Bonoan) and
Engracia Hernando, her children.  Engracia was the
mother of the petitioners Julians.

On 4 May 1950, Cenon executed a sworn
affidavit (Exhibit “A”) adjudicating unto himself the entire half
interest of his mother, Gregoria Bonoan,
in Cadastral Lot No. 9008, as “her only legal heir the affiant named
herein who is her only child”, and this sworn statement was entered,
recorded on the same day, and annotated on the back of the certificate of
title, subject to a 2-year reservation in favor of possible claimants, in conformity with Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.  On the very same day, there was entered in
the Registry of Deeds a special power of attorney, executed by the Julians in favor of Cenon as
their attorney-in-fact, empowering him to mortgage the principals’ share and
interest to the Philippine National Bank. 
This mortgage was executed the next day and, likewise, recorded.

Six (6) years later, on 7
April 1956, Cenon ceded by way of
absolute sale –

“all his
rights, participation and interest over his entire share of one fourth unto
Nancy Warwick Burnaman“

for the price of
P1,500.00 (Exhibit “2”), but the deed was not recorded.

Eight months afterward, on 5 December 1956, Cenon
Bonoan, or Hernando subscribed another deed of sale
(Exhibit “3”) wherein, for a price of P2,500.00
he conveyed unto the same vendee, Nancy W. Burnaman,
not one-fourth but an undivided half (1/2) interest of Lot 9008, stating in the
deed of sale that he was “the absolute owner and actual possessor of the
said undivided half interest in the above-described parcel of land”.  This deed of sale was recorded on 17 December 1956.  A new Certificate of Title No. T-4215 was
issued, with Nancy as owner of an
undivided half and with the Julians as holders of the
other half (Exhibit “7”). 
Original Certificate of Title No. 719 was cancelled.  On 2
January 1957, at the instance of Nancy Burnaman,
the court ordered the cancellation of the two-year reservation in favor of
possible claimants, since more than two years had lapsed from the recording in
1950 of the extra judicial adjudication in favor of Cenon.

Petitioners Julians filed, on 18 July
1957, a complaint against Nancy Burnaman, her
husband, Ells J. Burnaman, and Cenon
Hernando, seeking the avoidance of the sale
by the latter in so far as concerned a one-fourth (1/4) undivided
interest in the lot, on the basis that the original half owner, Gregoria Bonoan, died leaving two
children, Cenon and Engracia,
the latter being the mother of plaintiffs Julians;
that upon Engracia’s death, her children, the Julia, became entitled to half of Gregoria’s half interest (i. e.
1/4 of the whole) in addition to their recorded half share; that the Burnamans were duly informed of the Julians‘
claim and were purchasers in bad
faith.  They prayed to be declared owners
of an undivided three-fourths (3/4) of Lot No. 9008, and
to be awarded damages and other relief.

The defendants Burnamans denied the
allegations of the complaint; pleaded good faith in their purchase from Cenon Hernando and counterclaimed damages; while Cenon answered admitting that Engracia
B. Hernando was his sister, but denied that she had any right or participation
in the land in question and pleaded that the lot was purchased with his
earnings as a soldier in the Philippine Scouts, and that his mother, Gregoria, and his sister, Engracia,
had recognized his rights to the undivided half of Lot No. 9008 of the Laoag Cadastre.

After trial, the court of first instance found for the plaintiffs
Julians; declared them owners of an undivided 3/4 of
the lot; annulled pro tanto the
adjudication in favor of Cenon, and his sale in favor
of the Burnaman spouses; ordered the cancellation of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4215; and ordered defendants to pay damages
at P5.00 per month from 6 December 1956.

Upon appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeals found, in its
turn, that Engracia (mother of the Julians) was an illegitimate child of Gregoria
Bonoan, and was never recognized voluntarily or
compulsorily, by her mother; that her certificate of baptism on 16 April 1879,
even if considered a public document at the time it was issued, was incompetent
evidence of her acknowledgment; that not being acknowledged, expressly or
tacitly, she could not inherit from Gregoria, unlike Cenon who was acknowledged, according to Dionicia Julian Cid’s testimony;
that Cenon’s admission that Engracia
was his sister did not make the former an acknowledged natural child of his
mother.  The Court of Appeals, likewise,
declared that the buyers acted in good faith, although this issue was
subordinate to the previous one. 
Reversing the court of first instance, the appellate court decreed that
the Julians‘ complaint be dismissed.  Hence, this appeal.

The first attack levelled at the
appealed decision by petitioners-appellants is that, their action being
“an ordinary civil action on the ground of fraud” (Brief, page 10),
it was Improper for the appellate court to “make a declaration of heirship which is within the exclusive competence and
jurisdiction of the court in special proceedings,” citing Litam vs. Espiritu, 100 Phil.
365.

Appellants suffer from a misconception of the true purpose of the
inquiry by the Court of Appeals into the filiation
and status of their mother, Engracia Bonoan (or Hernando). 
Plaintiffs, as claimants of an additional undivided fourth (1/4) of Lot
9008 are duty bound to rely on the strength of their title thereto, and not en
the weakness of the defendants’ claim (Civil Code, Article 434; Misamis Lumber Co. vs. Director of Lands, 57 Phil
881).  Since the plaintiffs Julians based their title upon hereditary succession from
the original recorded owner, Gregoria Bonoan, through their mother, Engracia
Bonoan, it was perfectly proper for the appellate
court to inquire whether Engracia was, or could be,
an heir of Gregoria. 
To be such heir, it is not enough that Engracia
was Gregoria’s daughter; for not every child is
entitled to inherit.  To succeed, a child
must be, under the rules of the Civil Code of 1889 (in force when Gregoria died in 1938), either a child legitimate,
legitimated, or adopted, or else an acknowledged natural child, for
illegitimates not natural are disqualified to inherit (Civil Code of 1889,
Article 807, 939).  As appel­lants’ own
Exhibits “G” and “H” showed that both Cenon
and Engracia were children of Gregoria
but with father unknown, their legitimacy or legitimation
was out of the question.  Hence, it
became imperative to ascertain whether Engracia was
properly acknowledged, assuming that her parents could marry each other when
she was conceived.  Because
if Engracia was not recognized, she could not inherit
from her mother Gregoria and, consequently, could not
transmit to her own issue any successional rights to Gregoria’s estate.

The court of
first instance held that Engracia was deemed
acknowledged by a public instrument, because her baptismal certificate
in the parish records was a public document before General Order No. 68 and Act
190; but the Court of Appeals correctly held that this’ certificate did not
constitute a sufficient ac, Of acknowledgment since the: latter must be
executed by the child’s father or mother,
and the parish priest can not acknowledge in their stead (Canales vs. Arrogante, 91 Phil. 6). 
This action of the appellate court was not a declaration of heirship but a testing
of the chain of title of herein petitioners-appellant plaintiffs in first
instance.  There being no other evidence
of her acknowledgement, Engracia and her children
were properly refused a share in her mother’s property.

It is true that Cenon Herrnando (or Bonoan) admitted in
his answer that Engracia was his sister, but this
certainly is not an admission that she was a
acknowledged by their common mother.  For
acknowledgment is not a consequent of filiation.

Petitioners also contest the finding in the decision of the Court
of Apeellee that
Cenon Bonoan was
acknowledged by his mother, Engracia; but they do
impugn the testimony of Dionicia Julian, cited by the
appellate court (Decision page 22), that he was acknowledged when their old
grandfather was sick in be At any rate, even if Cenon
was not properly acknowledged, that will not help plaintiffs-appellants’ case at all; for it will not make Engracia an heir, and complaint must still be dismissed for
lack of a cause of action.

The same thing can be said about the appellate court’s finding
that Burnamans were purchasers in good faith.  Even if they were in bad faith, such fact
would be irrelevant for the purposes of the present case, since the are not entitled to the proprietary interest that they
claim to have inherited through their mother, Engracia.  The question of appellees
Burnamans‘ good or
‘faith can be put in issue only by someone entitled to the ownership of
that Un­divided interest; either Cenon,
if he was properly acknowledged; and if not by some other heir of Gregoria, whether ascendant or collateral, who may be found
to be entitled thereto.

The other assignments of error, being mere consequence of those
here discussed, need not be separately resolved.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed.  Costs
against appellants Julians.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.