ARTURIO TRINIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX TRINIDAD (DECEASED) AND LOURDES TRINIDAD, RESPONDENTS.

In the absence
of a marriage contract and a birth certificate, how may marriage and filiation
be proven?

The Case

This is the main
question raised in this petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals^[1] Decision promulgated on December 1,
1994^[2] and Resolution promulgated on
February 8, 1995^[3] in CA-GR CV No. 23275, which
reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed petitioner’s action for
partition and damages.

On August 10,
1978, Petitioner Arturio Trinidad filed a complaint^[4] for partition and damages against
Private Respondents Felix and Lourdes, both surnamed Trinidad, before the Court
of First Instance of Aklan, Branch I.^[5] On October 28, 1982, Felix died
without issue, so he was not substituted as a party.^[6]

On July 4, 1989,
the trial court rendered a twenty-page decision^[7] in favor of the petitioner, in
which it ruled:^[8]

“Considering therefore that
this court is of the opinion that plaintiff is the legitimate son of Inocentes
Trinidad, plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property left by his deceased
father which is 1/3 of the 4 parcels of land subject matter of this case. Although the plaintiff had testified that he
had been receiving [his] share from said land before and the same was stopped,
there was no evidence introduced as to what year he stopped receiving his share
and for how much. This court therefore
cannot rule on that.”

In its four-page
Decision, Respondent Court reversed the trial court on the ground that
petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that his parents were
legally married to each other and that acquisitive prescription against him had
set in. The assailed Decision disposed:^[9]

“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES
the appealed decision.

In lieu thereof, the Court
hereby DISMISSES the [petitioner’s] complaint and the counterclaim
thereto.

Without costs.”

Respondent Court
denied reconsideration in its impugned Resolution which reads:^[10]

“The Court DENIES
defendants-appellants’ motion for reconsideration, dated December 15, 1994, for
lack of merit. There are no new or
substantial matters raised in the motion that merit the modification of the
decision.”

Hence, this
petition.^[11]

The Facts

The assailed
Decision recites the factual background of this case, as follows:^[12]

“On August 10, 1978,
plaintiff [herein petitioner] filed with the Court of First Instance of Aklan,
Kalibo, Aklan, an action for partition of four (4) parcels of land, described
therein, claiming that he was the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad, one of
three (3) children of Patricio Trinidad, who was the original owner of the
parcels of land. Patricio Trinidad died
in 1940, leaving the four (4) parcels of land to his three (3) children,
Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. In 1970,
plaintiff demanded from the defendants to partition the land into three (3)
equal shares and to give him the one-third (1/3) individual share of his late
father, but the defendants refused.

In their answer, filed on
September 07, 1978, defendants denied that plaintiff was the son of the late
Inocentes Trinidad. Defendants contended
that Inocentes was single when he died in 1941, before plaintiff’s birth. Defendants also denied that plaintiff had
lived with them, and claimed that the parcels of land described in the
complaint had been in their possession since the death of their father in 1940
and that they had not given plaintiff a share in the produce of the land.

Patricio Trinidad and
Anastacia Briones were the parents of three (3) children, namely, Inocentes,
Lourdes and Felix. When Patricio died
in 1940, survived by the above named children, he left four (4) parcels of
land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo Aklan.

Arturio Trinidad, born on
July 21, 1943, claimed to be the legitimate son of the late Inocentes Trinidad.

Arturio got married in 1966
to Candelaria Gaspar, at the age of twenty three (23). Sometime after the marriage, Arturio
demanded from the defendants that the above-mentioned parcels of land be
partitioned into three (3) equal shares and that he be given the one-third
(1/3) individual shares of his late father, but defendants refused.

In order to
appreciate more clearly the evidence adduced by both parties, this Court hereby
reproduces pertinent portions of the trial court’s decision:^[13]

“EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Plaintiff presented as his first witness,
Jovita Gerardo, 77 years old, (at the time she testified in 1981) who is the
barangay captain of barrio Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan, since 1972. She testified that before being elected as
barrio captain she held the position of barrio council-woman for 4 years. Also she was [a member of the] board of
director[s] of the Parent-Teachers Association of Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan. That she knows the plaintiff because they
are neighbors and she knows him from the time of his birth. She knows the father of the plaintiff as
Inocentes Trinidad and his mother Felicidad Molato; both were already dead,
Inocentes having died in 1944 and his wife died very much later. Witness recalls plaintiff was born in 1943
in Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan, on July 21, 1943. At the time of the birth of the plaintiff, the house of the
witness was about 30 meters away from plaintiff’s parents[‘] house and she used
to go there 2 or 3 times a week. That
she knows both the defendants as they are also neighbors. That both Felix and Lourdes Trinidad are the
uncle and aunt of Arturio because Inocentes Trinidad who is the father of the
plaintiff is the brother of the defendants, Felix and Lourdes Trinidad. She testified she also knows that the father
of Inocentes, Felix and Lourdes[,] all surnamed Trinidad[,] was Patricio
Trinidad who is already dead but left several parcels of land which are the 4
parcels subject of this litigation. That she knows all these [parcels of] land because they are located in
Barrio Tigayon.

When asked about the adjoining
owners or boundaries of the 4 parcels of land, witness answered and mentioned
the respective adjoining owners. That
she knew these 4 parcels belonged to Patricio Trinidad because said Patricio
Trinidad was a native also of Barrio Tigayon. Said Patricio died before the [war] and after his death the land went to
his 3 children, namely: Inocentes, Felix and Lourdes. Since then the land was never partitioned or divided among the 3
children of Patricio.

A picture, Exhibit A, was shown to
the witness for identification and she identified a woman in the picture as the
defendant, Lourdes Trinidad. A man with
a hat holding a baby was identified by her as Felix Trinidad, the defendant. The other woman in the picture was pointed
by the witness as the wife of the plaintiff, Arturio Trinidad. When asked if Arturio Trinidad and Lourdes
Trinidad and Felix Trinidad pointed to by her in the picture are the same
Arturio, Felix and Lourdes, who are the plaintiff and the defendants in this
case, witness answered yes.

Another picture marked as Exhibit B
was presented to the witness for identification. She testified the woman in this picture as Lourdes Trinidad. In said picture, Lourdes Trinidad was
holding a child which witness identified as the child Arturio Trinidad. When
asked by the court when xxx the picture [was] taken, counsel for the plaintiff
answered, in 1966. When asked if
Arturio Trinidad was baptized, witness answered yes, as she had gone to the
house of his parents. Witness then
identified the certificate of baptism
marked as Exhibit C. The name Arturio
Trinidad was marked as Exhibit C-1 and the name of Inocentes Trinidad and
Felicidad Molato as father and mother respectively, were marked as Exhibit
C-2. The date of birth being July 21,
1943 was also marked. The signature of
Monsignor Iturralde was also identified.

On cross-examination, witness
testified that she [knew] the land in question very well as she used to pass by
it always. It was located just near her
house but she cannot exactly tell the area as she merely passes by it. When asked if she [knew] the photographer
who took the pictures presented as Exhibit A and B, witness answered she does
not know as she was not present during the picture taking. However, she can identify everybody in the
picture as she knows all of them.

At this stage of the trial, Felix
Trinidad [died] without issue and he was survived by his only sister, Lourdes
Trinidad, who is his co-defendant in this case.

Next witness for the plaintiff was
ISABEL MEREN who was 72 years old and a widow. She testified having known Inocentes Trinidad as the father of Arturio
Trinidad and that Inocentes, Felix and Lourdes are brothers and sister and that
their father was Patricio Trinidad who left them 4 parcels of land. That she knew Inocentes Trinidad and
Felicidad Molato who are the parents of Arturio, the plaintiff, were married in
New Washington, Aklan, by a protestant pastor by the name of Lauriano
Lajaylajay. That she knows Felicidad
Molato and Lourdes Trinidad very well because as a farmer she also owns a
parcel of land [and] she used to invite Felicidad and Lourdes to help her
during planting and harvesting season. That she knows that during the lifetime of Inocentes the three of them,
Inocentes, Felix and Lourdes possessed and usufructed the 4 parcels they
inherited from their father, Patricio. That upon the death of Inocentes, Lourdes Trinidad was in possession of
the property without giving the widow of Inocentes any share of the
produce. As Lourdes outlived her two
brothers, namely: Felix and Inocentes, she was the one possessing and
usufructing the 4 parcels of land up to the present. The witness testified that upon the death of Inocentes, Lourdes
took Arturio and cared for him when he was still small, about 3 years old,
until Arturio grew up and got married. That while Arturio was growing up, he had also enjoyed the produce of
the land while he was being taken care of by Lourdes Trinidad. That a misunderstanding later on arose when
Arturio Trinidad wanted to get his father’s share but Lourdes Trinidad will not
give it to him.

Plaintiff, ARTURIO TRINIDAD,
himself, was presented as witness. He
testified that defendants, Lourdes and Felix Trinidad, are his aunt and uncle,
they being the brother and sister of his father. That the parents of his father and the defendants were Patricio
Trinidad and Anastacia Briones. That
both his father, Inocentes Trinidad, and mother, Felicidad Molato, were already
dead having died in Tigayon, his father having died in 1944 and his mother
about 25 years ago.

As proof that he is the son of
Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, he showed a certificate of baptism
which had been previously marked as Exhibit C. That his birth certificate was burned during World War 2 but he has a
certificate of loss issued by the Civil Registrar of Kalibo, Aklan.

When he was 14 years old, the
defendants invited him to live with them being their nephew as his mother was
already dead. Plaintiff’s mother died
when he was 13 years old. They treated him
well and provided for all his needs. He
lived with defendants for 5 years. At
the age of 19, he left the house of the defendants and lived on his own. He got married at 23 to Candelaria Gaspar
and then they were invited by the defendants to live with them. So he and his wife and children lived with
the defendants. As proof that he and
his family lived with the defendants when the latter invited him to live with
them, he presented a picture previously marked as Exhibit B where there appears
his aunt, Lourdes Trinidad, carrying plaintiff’s daughter, his uncle and his
wife. In short, it is a family picture
according to him. Another family
picture previously marked Exhibit A shows his uncle, defendant Felix Trinidad,
carrying plaintiff’s son. According to
him, these 2 pictures were taken when he and his wife and children were living
with the defendants. That a few years
after having lived with them, the defendants made them vacate the house for he
requested for partition of the land to get his share. He moved out and looked for [a] lawyer to handle his case. He testified there are 4 parcels of land in
controversy of which parcel 1 is an upland.

Parcel 1 is 1,000 square meters,
[has] 10 coconut trees and fruit bearing. The harvest is 100 coconuts every 4 months and the cost of coconuts is
P2.00 each. The boundaries are :
East-Federico Inocencio; West-Teodulo Dionesio; North-Teodulo Dionesio; and
South-Bulalio Briones; located at Tigayon.

Parcel 2 is an upland with an area
of 500 square meters; it has only 1 coconut tree and 1 bamboo groove; also
located in Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan. Adjoining owners are : East-Ambrosio Trinidad; North-Federico Inocencio;
West-Patricio Trinidad and South-Gregorio Briones.

Parcel 3 is about 12,000 square
meters and 1/4 of that belongs to Patricio Trinidad, the deceased father of the
defendants and Inocentes, the father of the plaintiff.

Parcel 4 is a riceland with an area
of 5,000 square meters. The harvest is
40 cavans two times a years [sic]. Adjoining owners are: East-Gregorio Briones; West-Bulalio Briones;
South-Federico Inocencio and North-Digna Carpio.

Parcel 1 is Lot No. 903.

Parcel 2 is Lot No. 864 of the
cadastral survey of Kalibo and only Lot 864-A with an area of 540 square meters
is the subject of litigation.

Parcel 3 is Lot No. 979 of the
cadastral survey of Kalibo covered by Tax Decl. No. 703310 with reference to
one of the owners of the land, Patricio Trinidad married to Anastacia Briones,
one-half share.

Parcel 4 is covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 22502 RO-174 covering Lot No. 863 of the cadastral
survey of Kalibo. The title is in the
name of Patricio Trinidad married to Anastacia Briones.

Parcel 1 is covered by Tax Decl.
No. 11609 in the name of Patricio Trinidad while parcel 2 is covered by Tax
Decl. No. 10626 in the name of Anastacia Briones and another Tax Declaration
No. 11637 for Parcel 3 in the name of Ambrosio Trinidad while Parcel 4 is
covered by Tax Decl. No. 16378 in the name of Patricio Trinidad.

On cross-examination, plaintiff
testified that during the lifetime of his mother they were getting the share in
the produce of the land like coconuts, palay and corn. Plaintiff further testified that his father
is Inocentes Trinidad and his mother was Felicidad Molato. They were married in New Washington, Aklan,
by a certain Atty. Lajaylajay. When
asked if this Atty. Lajaylajay is a municipal judge of New Washington, Aklan,
plaintiff answered he does not know because he was not yet born at that time. That he does not have the death certificate
of his father who died in 1944 because it was wartime. That after the death of his father, he lived
with his mother and when his mother died[,] he lived with his aunt and uncle,
the defendants in this case. That
during the lifetime of his mother, it was his mother receiving the share of the
produce of the land. That both
defendants, namely Lourdes and Felix Trinidad, are single and they have no
other nephews and nieces. That
[petitioner’s] highest educational attainment is Grade 3.

EVIDENCE FOR THE
DEFENDANTS:

First witness for the
defendants was PEDRO BRIONES, 68 years old, unemployed and a resident of
Nalook, Kalibo, Aklan. He testified having known the defendants, Felix and
Lourdes Trinidad. They being his first
cousins because the mother of Lourdes and Felix by the name of Anastacia
Briones and his father are sister and brother. That he also knew Inocentes Trinidad being the brother of Felix and
Lourdes and he is already dead. According to the witness, Inocentes Trinidad [died] in 1940 and at the
time of his death Inocentes Trinidad was not married. That he knew this fact because at the time of the death of
Inocentes Trinidad he was then residing with his aunt, “Nanay Taya”, referring
to Anastacia Briones who is mother of the defendants, Felix and Lourdes
Trinidad, as well as Inocentes Trinidad. That at the time of the death of Inocentes Trinidad, according to this
witness he stayed with his aunt, Anastacia Trinidad, and with his children
before 1940 for only 3 months. When
asked if he knew Inocentes Trinidad cohabited with anybody before his death, he
answered, “That I do not know”, neither does he kn[o]w a person by the name of
Felicidad Molato. Furthermore, when
asked if he can recall if during the lifetime of Inocentes Trinidad witness knew
of anybody with whom said Inocentes Trinidad had lived as husband and wife,
witness, Pedro Briones, answered that he could not recall because he was then
in Manila working. That after the war,
he had gone back to the house of his aunt, Anastacia, at Tigayon, Kalibo, as he
always visit[s] her every Sunday, however, he does not know the plaintiff,
Arturio Trinidad. When asked if after
the death of Inocentes Trinidad, he knew anybody who has stayed with the defendants
who claimed to be a son of Inocentes Trinidad, witness, Pedro Briones,
answered: “I do not know about that.”.

On cross examination,
witness testified that although he was born in Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan, he
started to reside in Nalook, Kalibo, as the hereditary property of their father
was located there. When asked if he was
aware of the 4 parcels of land which is the subject matter of this case before
the court, witness answered that he does not know. What he knew is that among the 3 children of Patricio Trinidad,
Inocentes is the eldest. And that at
the time of the death of Inocentes in 1940, according to the witness when cross
examined, Inocentes Trinidad was around 65 years old. That according to him, his aunt, Anastacia Briones, was already
dead before the war. When asked on
cross examination if he knew where Inocentes Trinidad was buried when he died
in 1940, witness answered that he was buried in their own land because the
Japanese forces were roaming around the place. When confronted with Exhibit A which is the alleged family picture of
the plaintiff and the defendants, witness was able to identify the lady in the
picture, which had been marked as Exhibit A-1, as Lourdes Trinidad, and the man
wearing a hat on the said picture marked as Exhibit 2-A is Felix Trinidad. However, when asked if he knew the
plaintiff, Arturio Trinidad, he said he does not know him.

Next witness for the
defendants was the defendant herself, LOURDES TRINIDAD. She stated that she is 75 years old, single
and jobless. She testified that
Inocentes Trinidad was her brother and he is already dead and he died in 1941
in Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan. That before
the death of her brother, Inocentes Trinidad, he had gone to Manila where he
stayed for a long time and returned to Tigayon in 1941. According to her, upon arrival from Manila
in 1941 his brother, Inocentes Trinidad, lived only for 15 days before he
died. While his brother was in Manila,
witness testified she was not aware that he had married anybody. Likewise, when he arrived in Tigayon in
1941, he also did [not] get married. When asked if she knew one by the name of Felicidad Molato, witness
answered she knew her because Felicidad Molato was staying in Tigayon. However, according to her[,] she does not
kn[o]w if her brother, Inocentes Trinidad, had lived with Felicidad Molato as
husband and wife. When asked if she
knew the plaintiff, Arturio Trinidad, she said, ‘Yes,’ but she denied that
Arturio Trinidad had lived with them. According to the witness, Arturio Trinidad did not live with the
defendants but he stayed with his grandmother by the name of Maria Concepcion,
his mother, Felicidad Molato, having died already. When asked by the court if there had been an instance when the
plaintiff had lived with her even for days, witness answered, he did not. When further asked if Arturio Trinidad went
to visit her in her house, witness also said, ‘He did not.’

Upon cross examination by
counsel for the plaintiff, Lourdes Trinidad testified that her parents,
Anastacia Briones and Patricio Trinidad, had 3 children, namely: Inocentes
Trinidad, Felix Trinidad and herself. But inasmuch as Felix and Inocentes are already dead, she is the only
remaining daughter of the spouses Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones. Defendant, Lourdes Trinidad, testified that
her brother, Felix Trinidad, died without a wife and children, in the same
manner that her brother, Inocentes Trinidad, died without a wife and
children. She herself testified that
she does not have any family of her own for she has [no] husband or
children. According to her[,] when
Inocentes Trinidad [died] in 1941, they buried him in their private lot in
Tigayon because nobody will carry his coffin as it was wartime and the
municipality of Kalibo was occupied by the Japanese forces. When further cross-examined that I[t] could
not be true that Inocentes Trinidad died in March 1941 because the war broke
out in December 1941 and March 1941 was still peace time, the witness could not
answer the question. When she was
presented with Exhibit A which is the alleged family picture wherein she was
holding was [sic] the child of Arturio Trinidad, she answered; ‘Yes.’ and the
child that she is holding is Clarita Trinidad, child of Arturio Trinidad. According to her, she was only requested to
hold this child to be brought to the church because she will be baptized and
that the baptism took place in the parish church of Kalibo. When asked if there was a party, she
answered; ‘Maybe there was.’ When
confronted with Exhibit A-1 which is herself in the picture carrying the child,
witness identified herself and explained that she was requested to bring the
child to the church and that the picture taken together with her brother and
Arturio Trinidad and the latter’s child was taken during the time when she and Arturio Trinidad did not have a
case in court yet. She likewise
identified the man with a hat holding a child marked as Exhibit A-2 as her
brother, Felix. When asked if the child
being carried by her brother, Felix Trinidad, is another child of the
plaintiff, witness answered she does not know because her eyes are already
blurred. Furthermore, when asked to
identify the woman in the picture who was at the right of the child held by her
brother, Felix, and who was previously identified by plaintiff, Arturio
Trinidad, as his wife, witness answered that she cannot identify because she
had a poor eyesight neither can she identify plaintiff, Arturio Trinidad,
holding another child in the picture for the same reason. When asked by counsel for the plaintiff if
she knows that the one who took this picture was the son of Ambrosio Trinidad
by the name of Julito Trinidad who was also their cousin, witness testified
that she does not know.

Third witness for the
defendants was BEATRIZ TRINIDAD SAYON who testified that she knew Arturio Trinidad
because he was her neighbor in Tigayon. In the same manner that she also knew the defendants, Felix and Lourdes,
and Inocentes all surnamed Trinidad
because they were her cousins. She testified that a few months after the
war broke out Inocentes Trinidad died in their lola’s house whose names was
Eugenia Rufo Trinidad. She further
testified that Inocentes Trinidad had lived almost in his lifetime in Manila
and he went home only when his father fetched him in Manila because he was
already sick. That according to her,
about 1 ½ months after his arrival from Manila, Inocentes Trinidad died. She also testified that she knew Felicidad
Molato and that Felicidad Molato had never been married to Inocentes
Trinidad. According to her, it was in
1941 when Inocentes Trinidad died. According to her she was born in 1928, therefore, she was 13 or 14 years
old when the war broke out. When asked
if she can remember that it was only in the early months of the year 1943 when
the Japanese occupied Kalibo, she said she [was] not sure. She further testified that Inocentes
Trinidad was buried in their private lot because Kalibo was then occupied by
the Japanese forces and nobody would carry his body to be buried in the Poblacion.

For rebuttal evidence,
[petitioner] presented ISABEL MEREN, who was 76 years old and a resident of
Tigayon. Rebuttal witness testified
that xxx she knew both the [petitioner] and the [private respondents] in this
case very well as her house is only around 200 meters from them. When asked if it is true that according to
Lourdes Trinidad, [Inocentes Trinidad] arrived from Manila in 1941 and he lived
only for 15 days and died, witness testified that he did not die in that year
because he died in the year 1944, and that Inocentes Trinidad lived with his
sister, Lourdes Trinidad, in a house which is only across the street from her
house. According to the said rebuttal
witness, it is not true that Inocentes Trinidad died single because he had a
wife by the name of Felicidad Molato whom he married on May 5, 1942 in New
Washington, Aklan. That she knew this
fact because she was personally present when couple was married by Lauriano
Lajaylajay, a protestant pastor.

On cross examination, rebuttal
witness testified that when Inocentes Trinidad arrived from Manila he was in
good physical condition. That she knew
both Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato to be Catholics but that according
to her, their marriage was solemnized by a Protestant minister and she was one
of the sponsors. That during the
marriage of Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, Lourdes Trinidad and Felix
Trinidad were also present.

When plaintiff, ARTURIO
TRINIDAD, was presented as rebuttal witness, he was not able to present a
marriage contract of his parents but instead a certification dated September 5,
1978 issued by one Remedios Eleserio of the Local Civil Registrar of the
Municipality of New Washington, Aklan, attesting to the fact that records of
births, deaths, and marriages in the municipality of New Washington were
destroyed during the Japanese time.”

Respondent Court’s Ruling

In finding that
petitioner was not a child, legitimate or otherwise, of the late Inocentes
Trinidad, Respondent Court ruled:^[14]

“We sustain the appeal on
the ground that plaintiff has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he
is the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. But the action to claim legitimacy has not prescribed.

Plaintiff has not
established that he was recognized, as a legitimate son of the late Inocentes
Trinidad, in the record of birth or a final judgment, in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument, or that he was in continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child.

Two witnesses, Pedro
Briones and Beatriz Trinidad Sayon, testified for the defendants that Inocentes
Trinidad never married. He died single
in 1941. One witness, Isabel Maren,
testified in rebuttal for the plaintiff, that Inocentes Trinidad married
Felicidad Molato in New Washington, Aklan, on May 5, 1942, solemnized by a
pastor of the protestant church and that she attended the wedding ceremony
(t.s.n. Sept. 6, 1988, p. 4). Hence,
there was no preponderant evidence of the marriage, nor of Inocentes’
acknowledgment of plaintiff as his son, who was born on July 21, 1943.

The right to demand
partition does not prescribe (de Castro vs. Echarri, 20 Phil. 23). Where one of the interested parties openly
and adversely occupies the property without recognizing the co-ownership
(Cordova vs. Cordova, L-9936, January 14, 1958) acquisitive prescription may
set in (Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, Fifth Revised
Edition, 1988, p. 497). Admittedly, the
defendants have been in possession of the parcels of land involved in the concept
of owners since their father died in 1940. Even if possession be counted from 1964, when plaintiff attained the age
of majority, still, defendants possessed the land for more than ten (10) years,
thus acquiring ownership of the same by acquisitive prescription (Article 1134,
Civil Code of the Philippines).”

The Issues

Petitioner
submits the following issues for resolution:^[15]

“1.      Whether or not petitioner (plaintiff-appellee) has proven by
preponderant evidence the marriage of his parents.

2.       Whether or not petitioner (plaintiff-appellee) has adduced
sufficient evidence to prove that he is the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad,
brother of private respondents (defendants-appellants) Felix and Lourdes
Trinidad.

3.       Whether or not the Family Code is applicable to the case at
bar[,] the decision of the Regional Trial Court having been promulgated on July
4, 1989, after the Family Code became effective on August 3, 1988.

4.       Whether or not petitioner’s status as a legitimate child can
be attacked collaterally by the private respondents.

5.       Whether or not private respondent (defendants-appellants) have
acquired ownership of the properties in question by acquisitive prescription.”

Simply stated,
the main issues raised in this petition are:

1.       Did petitioner present sufficient evidence of his parents’
marriage and of his filiation?

2.       Was petitioner’s status as a legitimate child subject to
collateral attack in the action for partition?

3.       Was his claim time-barred under the rules on acquisitive
prescription?

The Court’s Ruling

The merits of
this petition are patent. The partition
of the late Patricio’s real properties requires preponderant proof that
petitioner is a co-owner or co-heir of the decedent’s estate.^[16] His right as a co-owner would, in
turn, depend on whether he was born during the existence of a valid and
subsisting marriage between his mother (Felicidad) and his putative father
(Inocentes). This Court holds that such
burden was successfully discharged by petitioner and, thus, the reversal of the
assailed Decision and Resolution is inevitable.

First and Second
Issues: Evidence of and Collateral

Attack on Filiation

At the outset,
we stress that an appellate court’s assessment of the evidence presented by the
parties will not, as a rule, be disturbed because the Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts. But in the face of the
contradictory conclusions of the appellate and the trial courts, such rule does
not apply here. So, we had to
meticulously pore over the records and the evidence adduced in this case.^[17]

Petitioner’s
first burden is to prove that Inocentes and his mother (Felicidad) were validly
married, and that he was born during the subsistence of their marriage. This, according to Respondent Court, he
failed to accomplish.

This Court
disagrees. Pugeda vs. Trias^[18] ruled that when the question of whether a marriage
has been contracted arises in litigation, said marriage may be proven by relevant evidence. To prove the fact of marriage, the following
would constitute competent evidence: the testimony of a witness to the
matrimony, the couple’s public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after
the alleged wedlock, the birth and the baptismal certificates of children born
during such union, and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents.^[19]

In the case at
bar, petitioner secured a certification^[20] from the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Aklan that all records of births, deaths and marriages were either
lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of said
municipality. This fact, however, is
not fatal to petitioner’s case. Although the marriage contract is considered the primary evidence of the
marital union, petitioner’s failure to present it is not proof that no marriage
took place, as other forms of relevant evidence may take its place.^[21]

In place of a
marriage contract, two witnesses were presented by petitioner: Isabel Meren,
who testified that she was present during the nuptial of Felicidad and Inocentes on May 5, 1942
in New Washington, Aklan; and Jovita Gerardo, who testified that the couple
deported themselves as husband and wife after the marriage. Gerardo, the 77-year old barangay captain of
Tigayon and former board member of the local parent-teachers’ association, used
to visit Inocentes and Felicidad’s house twice or thrice a week, as she lived
only thirty meters away.^[22] On July 21, 1943, Gerardo dropped
by Inocentes’ house when Felicidad gave birth to petitioner. She also attended petitioner’s baptismal
party held at the same house.^[23] Her testimony constitutes evidence
of common reputation respecting marriage.^[24] It further gives rise to the
disputable presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.^[25] Petitioner also presented his
baptismal certificate (Exhibit C) in which Inocentes and Felicidad were named
as the child’s father and mother.^[26]

On the other
hand, filiation may be proven by the following:

“ART. 265.     The filiation of legitimate children is
proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or by an
authentic document or a final judgment.

ART. 266.      In the absence of the titles indicated in
the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved by the continuous
possession of status of a legitimate child.

ART. 267.      In the absence of a record of birth,
authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate
filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.”^[27]

Petitioner submitted
in evidence a certification^[28] that records relative to his birth
were either destroyed during the last world war or burned when the old town
hall was razed to the ground on June 17, 1956. To prove his filiation, he presented in evidence two family pictures,
his baptismal certificate and Gerardo’s testimony.

The first family
picture (Exhibit A) shows petitioner (Exhibit A-5) carrying his second daughter
and his wife (Exhibit A-4) together with the late Felix Trinidad (Exhibit A-2)
carrying petitioner’s first daughter, and Lourdes Trinidad (Exhibit A-1). Exhibit B is another picture showing Lourdes Trinidad (Exhibit B-1)
carrying petitioner’s first child (Exhibit B-2). These pictures were taken before the case was instituted. Although they do not directly prove
petitioner’s filiation to Inocentes, they show that petitioner was accepted by
the private respondents as Inocentes’ legitimate son ante litem motam.

Lourdes’ denials
of these pictures are hollow and evasive. While she admitted that Exhibit B shows her holding Clarita Trinidad,
the petitioner’s daughter, she demurred that she did so only because she was
requested to carry the child before she was baptized.^[29] When shown Exhibit A, she
recognized her late brother — but not petitioner, his wife and the couple’s
children — slyly explaining that she could not clearly see because of an
alleged eye defect.^[30]

Although a
baptismal certificate is indeed not a conclusive proof of filiation, it is one
of “the other means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws” to show
pedigree, as this Court ruled in Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals:^[31]

“What both the trial court
and the respondent court did not take into account is that an illegitimate
child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by ‘any other means allowed
by the Rules of Court and special laws,’ according to the Civil Code, or ‘by
evidence of proof in his favor that the defendant is her father,’ according to
the Family Code. Such evidence may
consist of his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in
which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree,
admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. [Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the
Phil. 1988 ed., p. 246]”

Concededly,
because Gerardo was not shown to be a member of the Trinidad family by either
consanguinity or affinity,^[32] her testimony does not constitute
family reputation regarding pedigree. Hence, it cannot, by itself, be used to establish petitioner’s
legitimacy.

Be that as it
may, the totality of petitioner’s positive evidence clearly
preponderates over private respondents’ self-serving negations. In sum, private respondents’ thesis is that
Inocentes died unwed and without issue in March 1941. Private respondents’
witness, Pedro Briones, testified that Inocentes died in 1940 and was buried in
the estate of the Trinidads, because nobody was willing to carry the coffin to
the cemetery in Kalibo, which was then occupied by the Japanese forces. His testimony, however, is far from credible
because he stayed with the Trinidads for only three months, and his answers on
direct examination were noncommittal and evasive:^[33]

“Q:   At the
time of his death, can you tell the Court if this Inocentes Trinidad was
married or not?

A:    Not married.

Q:    In 1940 at
the time of death of Inocentes Trinidad, where were you residing?

A:    I was staying with them.

Q:    When you
said ‘them’, to whom are you referring to [sic]?

A:    My aunt Nanay Taya, Anastacia.

        xxx                                       xxx                                       xxx

Q:    Will you
please tell the Court for how long did you stay with your aunt Anastacia
Trinidad and his children before 1940?

A:    For only three months.

Q:    Now, you
said at the time of his death, Inocentes Trinidad was single. Do you know if he had cohabited with anybody
before his death?

A:    [T]hat I do not know.

Q:    You know a
person by the name of Felicidad Molato?

A:    No, sir.

Q:    Can you
recall if during the lifetime of Inocentes Trinidad if you have known of anybody
with whom he has lived as husband and wife?

A:    I could not recall because I was then in
Manila working.

Q:    After the
war, do you remember having gone back to the house of your aunt Anastacia at
Tigayon, Kalibo, Aklan?

A:    Yes, sir,

Q:    How often did
you go to the house of your aunt?

A:    Every Sunday.

        xxx                                       xxx                                       xxx

Q:    You know
the plaintiff Arturio Trinidad?

A:    I do not know him.

Q:    After the
death of Inocentes Trinidad, do you know if there was anybody who has stayed
with the defendants who claimed to be a son of Inocentes Trinidad?

A:    I do not know about that.”

Beatriz Sayon,
the other witness of private respondent, testified that, when the Japanese
occupied Kalibo in 1941, her father brought Inocentes from Manila to Tigayon
because he was sick. Inocentes stayed
with their grandmother, Eugenia Roco Trinidad, and died single and without
issue in March 1941, one and a half months after his return to Tigayon. She knew Felicidad Molato, who was also a
resident of Tigayon, but denied that Felicidad was ever married to Inocentes.^[34]

Taking judicial
notice that World War II did not start until December 7, 1941 with the bombing
of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the trial court was not convinced that Inocentes
died in March 1941.^[35] The Japanese forces occupied Manila only on January 2, 1942;^[36] thus, it stands to reason that
Aklan was not occupied until then. It
was only then that local residents were unwilling to bury their dead in the
cemetery in Kalibo, because of the Japanese soldiers who were roaming around
the area.^[37]

Furthermore,
petitioner consistently used Inocentes’ surname (Trinidad) without objection
from private respondents — a presumptive proof of his status as Inocentes’
legitimate child.^[38]

Preponderant
evidence means that, as a whole, the evidence adduced by one side outweighs
that of the adverse party.^[39] Compared to the detailed (even if
awkwardly written) ruling of the trial court, Respondent Court’s holding that
petitioner failed to prove his legitimate filiation to Inocentes is
unconvincing. In determining where the
preponderance of evidence lies, a trial court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, including the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they
are testifying, the nature of the facts, the probability or improbability of
their testimony, their interest or want thereof, and their personal
credibility.^[40] Applying this rule, the trial court
significantly and convincingly held that the weight of evidence was in
petitioner’s favor. It declared:

“xxx [O]ne thing sure is
the fact that plaintiff had lived with defendants enjoying the status of being
their nephew xxx before plaintiff [had] gotten married and had a family of his
own where later on he started demanding for the partition of the share of his
father, Inocentes. The fact that
plaintiff had so lived with the defendants xxx is shown by the alleged family
pictures, Exhibits A & B. These
family pictures were taken at a time when plaintiff had not broached the idea
of getting his father’s share. xxxx His
demand for the partition of the share of his father provoked the ire of the
defendants, thus, they disowned him as their nephew. xxxx In this case, the plaintiff enjoyed the continuous
possession of a status of the child of the alleged father by the direct acts of
the defendants themselves, which status was only broken when plaintiff demanded
for the partition xxx as he was already having a family of his own. xxxx.

However, the disowning by
the defendant [private respondent herein], Lourdes Trinidad, of the plaintiff
[petitioner herein] being her nephew is offset by the preponderance of
evidence, among them the testimony of witness, Jovita Gerardo, who is the
barrio captain. This witness was
already 77 years old at the time she testified. Said witness had no reason to favor the plaintiff. She had been a PTA officer and the court
sized her up as a civic minded person. She has nothing to gain in this case as compared to the witness for the
defendants who are either cousin or nephew of Lourdes Trinidad who stands to
gain in the case for defendant, Lourdes Trinidad, being already 75 years old,
has no husband nor children.”^[41]

Doctrinally, a
collateral attack on filiation is not permitted.^[42] Rather than rely on this axiom,
petitioner chose to present evidence of his filiation and of his parents’
marriage. Hence, there is no more need
to rule on the application of this doctrine to petitioner’s cause.

Third Issue: No
Acquisitive Prescription

Respondent Court
ruled that, because acquisitive prescription sets in when one of the interested
parties openly and adversely occupies the property without recognizing the
co-ownership, and because private respondents had been in possession — in the
concept of owners — of the parcels of land in issue since Patricio died in
1940, they acquired ownership of these parcels.

The Court
disagrees. Private respondents have not
acquired ownership of the property in question by acquisitive
prescription. In a co-ownership, the act of one benefits
all the other co-owners, unless the former repudiates the co-ownership.^[43] Thus, no prescription runs in favor
of a co-owner or co-heir against his or her co-owners or co-heirs, so long as
he or she expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

In this
particular case, it is undisputed that, prior to the action for partition,
petitioner, in the concept of a co-owner, was receiving from private
respondents his share of the produce of the land in dispute. Until such time, recognition of the
co-ownership by private respondents was beyond question. There is no evidence, either, of their
repudiation, if any, of the co-ownership of petitioner’s father Inocentes over
the land. Further, the titles of these
pieces of land were still in their father’s name. Although private respondents had possessed these parcels openly
since 1940 and had not shared with petitioner the produce of the land during
the pendency of this case, still, they manifested no repudiation of the co-ownership. In Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals, the
Court held:^[44]

“x x x Corollarily,
prescription does not run again private respondents with respect to the filing
of the action for partition so long as the heirs for whose benefit prescription
is invoked, have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership. In the other words, prescription of an
action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly
repudiated by the co-owner (Del Banco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 156 SCRA
55 [1987] citing Jardin vs. Hollasco, 117 SCRA 532 [1982]).

Otherwise stated, a
co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners absent
a clear repudiation of co-ownership duly communicated to the other co-owners
(Mariano vs. De Vega, 148 SCRA 342 [1987]). Furthermore, an action to demand partition is imprescriptible and cannot
be barred by laches (Del Banco vs. IAC, 156 SCRA 55 (1987). On the other hand, an action for partition
may be seen to be at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for
segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the property involved
(Roque vs. IAC, 165 SCRA 118 [1988]).”

Considering the
foregoing, Respondent Court committed reversible error in holding that
petitioner’s claim over the land in dispute was time-barred.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the
assailed Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The trial court’s decision dated July 4,
1989 is REINSTATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr.,
(Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

---