HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN, NAMELY: LOLITA GABATAN, POMPEYO GABATAN, PEREGRINO GABATAN, REYNALDO GABATAN, NILA GABATAN AND JESUS JABINIS, RIORITA GABATAN TUMALA AND FREIRA GABATAN…

Heirs of Gabatan versus Pacana

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan against Lourdes Evero Pacana. The respondent, Lourdes Evero Pacana, sued the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City for recovery of property, ownership, and possession of a parcel of land identified as Lot 3095 C-5, situated at Calinugan, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. She claimed to be the sole owner of the land by inheritance from her mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero, whom she alleged was the only child of Juan Gabatan. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that Juan Gabatan died single and without issue, and that the land passed to his siblings and their heirs, including their predecessor Teofilo Gabatan. The case matters because it squarely addresses two questions every Bar candidate must know: whether a declaration of heirship may be made in an ordinary civil action for recovery of property, and how legitimate filiation is proved under the Civil Code.

Procedural History

The respondent commenced the action for recovery of property, ownership, and possession before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19. On October 20, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent, declaring her the owner of the lot, ordering the petitioners to reconvey Original Certificate of Title No. P-3316 in her favor free of any encumbrance, and awarding moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 28, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in its entirety, with costs against the appellants. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion in a Resolution dated September 12, 2001. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court through the present petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land, Lot 3095 C-5, with an area of 1.1062 hectares, situated at Calinugan, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. The lot was declared for taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. The respondent alleged that she is the sole owner of the lot, having inherited it from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero, who, she claimed, was the only child of Juan Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito. According to the respondent, upon the death of Juan Gabatan, the lot was entrusted to his brother, Teofilo Gabatan, and Teofilo's wife, Rita Gabatan, for administration. Before her death, Hermogena demanded the return of the land but to no avail. After Hermogena's death, the respondent also demanded the return of the property, but the petitioners refused. When Teofilo and his wife died, the petitioners Jesus Jabinis and Catalino Acantilado took possession of the land despite the respondent's demands that they vacate.

In their answer, the petitioners denied that Hermogena was the daughter of Juan Gabatan and Laureana Clarito, and denied that Hermogena or the respondent is the rightful heir of Juan Gabatan. They maintained that Juan Gabatan died single in 1934, without any issue, and was survived by one brother and two sisters, namely Teofilo, Macaria, and Justa. These siblings and their heirs, the petitioners claimed, inherited the land and had been in actual, physical, open, public, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owners for more than fifty years. The petitioners also alleged that a similar case had previously been filed by the respondent against Rita Vda. de Gabatan, but that case was dismissed for lack of interest. They further contended that the complaint states no cause of action and that any cause of action had prescribed or was barred by laches.

During the trial, two conflicting birth certificates of the respondent were presented. The respondent presented a typewritten certified true copy indicating her mother's maiden name as Hermogena Clarito Gabatan. The petitioners presented a handwritten birth certificate indicating the mother's maiden name as Hermogena Calarito. The trial court found the typewritten certificate more genuine, but the Supreme Court later found the trial court's basis for this conclusion contradicted by the evidence on record.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court may make a declaration of heirship in an ordinary civil action for recovery of ownership and possession of property.
• Whether or not the respondent sufficiently proved her filiation to her mother and her mother's filiation to Juan Gabatan.
• Whether or not the respondent's cause of action is barred by laches or prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 265 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 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.

This provision establishes the primary evidence required to prove legitimate filiation, which the respondent failed to satisfy.

Article 266 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 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.

This provision provides the secondary mode of proof, which the respondent also failed to establish.

Article 267 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 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.

This provision allows other evidence only when the earlier modes are absent, and the respondent's hearsay testimony does not qualify.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the determination of who are the legal heirs of a deceased must be made in a proper special proceeding, not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding. However, the Court relaxed this rule, following its earlier decision in Portugal versus Portugal-Beltran, because there was only one parcel of land being claimed, the parties had voluntarily submitted the issue of heirship to the trial court, and they had already presented their evidence on that issue. It would be impractical and burdensome to still subject the estate to a separate special proceeding.

On the second issue, the Court found the basis for conferring upon the respondent the status of sole heir insufficient and questionable. The respondent pinned her claim entirely on her alleged status as sole heir of Juan Gabatan, and it was incumbent upon her to present preponderant evidence. Under the Civil Code, 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. In the absence of these, filiation shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child. Only in the absence of these two classes of evidence may other proof be presented. The respondent's mother's birth certificate, which would have been the best evidence of her relationship to Juan Gabatan, was never offered. The respondent presented no authentic document or final judgment categorically evidencing that relationship. The testimonies of her witnesses were hearsay, as none had personal knowledge of the marriage of Juan to Laureana or the birth of Hermogena. The Court also found the witnesses not entirely credible and impartial. The conflicting birth certificates, even if reliable, would only prove the respondent's filiation to Hermogena, not Hermogena's filiation to Juan Gabatan.

On the third issue, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the question of prescription and laches, as the respondent failed to establish her claim of heirship.

Doctrine

The declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action for recovery of ownership and possession, because such a declaration involves the establishment of a status or right. However, the Court may relax this rule when there is only one parcel of land in dispute, the parties voluntarily submitted the issue of heirship to the trial court, and they already presented their evidence on that issue, making a separate special proceeding impractical and burdensome. Legitimate filiation is proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or by an authentic document or a final judgment. In the absence of these, it is proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child. Only in the absence of these two classes of evidence may other proof be presented. Hearsay testimony is insufficient to prove filiation.

Disposition

The petition was granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside, with the respondent's complaint dismissed for failure to prove her claim of heirship.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action, and that legitimate filiation is proved by the record of birth, an authentic document, or a final judgment, or by continuous possession of status. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between a civil action and a special proceeding, and the hierarchy of evidence for proving legitimate filiation under the Civil Code.