TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON VICENTE NOBLE. JUAN NOBLE, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. MARIA S. NOBLE, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by Maria S. Noble from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Batangas (in Sp. Proc. No. 343), dismissing her opposition to the
probate of the purported last will of the late Don Vicente Noble, who died on
April 25, 1959.

The proceedings for the probate of the last will of the deceased was
instituted by Juan Noble who was named executor therein and who had expressed
willingness to assume the trust. This was opposed by Maria S. Noble, who claimed
to be an illegitimate (spurious) child of the deceased, born on July 22, 1923
out of an illicit relation between the latter and Lucia Sinag. It was alleged
that the will sought to be probated, dated August 25, 1957, was not the last
will and testament of the late Don Vicente Noble; that from all indications as
shown by a perusal of the alleged last will of the deceased, the same was not
executed in accordance with the law, and that the said will was executed through
undue influence, mistake and improper pressure on the part of one or some of the
beneficiaries, and that petitioner Juan Noble, as then incumbent Assistant
General Manager of the NAMARCO, a government corporation, could not properly
execute the trust of his office in the estate of the deceased, which consists of
real and personal properties located in several provinces. Furthermore,
oppositor contended that petitioner has an adverse interest against those
immediately interested in the estate, like her. Thus, she prayed that the
purported last Will and Testament presented to the court be disallowed; that she
be declared the only surviving illegitimate daughter of the deceased; and in
case the will sought to be probated be allowed, the institution of heirs made
therein be declared null and void; the devises and legacies be declared
ineffective for being inofficious; and oppositor be declared entitled to
one-half of the entire hereditary estate of the deceased; that instead of
petitioner, letters of administration be issued in favor of Mrs. Corazon
Apacible de Caña of Taal, Batangas. Simultaneously, she filed a motion asking
for permission to present evidence of her alleged filiation with the deceased.
This motion was opposed by petitioner Juan Noble, on the ground that the claim
was in effect an action for compulsory recognition, and since it was brought
after the death of the putative father and when claimant was already of majority
age, the right to bring the same has already prescribed pursuant to Article 285
of the new Civil Code.^[1] This motion was
not immediately resolved. Instead, the court proceeded with the reception of the
evidence for the petitioner, during which proceeding, the oppositor was allowed
to cross-examine the petitioner’s witnesses.

Finding, on the basis of the evidence presented by the petitioner, that the
document, Exhibit “D”, and its copies, Exhibits “D-l” to “D-12”, constitute the
last will and testament of the deceased Vicente Noble, and it was executed with
all the formal requirements of the law, the aforesaid will was admitted to
probate, and Juan Noble was appointed administrator of the estate upon a bond of
P30,000.00. It was also ruled that the petition of Maria S. Noble to present
proof for the purpose of establishing her filiation, filed after the death of
the presumed father, had been barred by prescription. Consequently, the motion
to dismiss the petition of Maria S. Noble was granted. Oppositor appealed.

The main issue presented in this case requiring resolution by this Court is:
what is necessary to be established by an illegitimate not natural child in
order that he may be entitled to successional rights under Article 887 of the G.
R. No. L-17742 new Civil Code, the fact of hisAfiliation, or a filiation
acknowledged by the putative parent?

While the Civil Code merely provides that “in all cases of illegitimate
children, their filiation must be duly proved” (Art. 887), there are cogent
reasons, both legal and moral, which require that such filiation must be
acknowledged by the presumed parent. For, if the mere fact of the paternity of
the supposed father is all that need be proved, that construction of the law
would pave the way to unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the death of
the presumed parent who would no longer be in a position to deny the
allegations, to present even fictitious claims and expose the life of the
deceased to inquiries affecting his character.

But more important than this, the law could not have demanded anything less
than proof of an acknowledged filiation. Precisely, under Article 289
of the new Civil Code, the investigation of the paternity or maternity of
children mentioned in the two preceding articles (referring to illegitimate not
natural children) is specifically permitted only in the circumstances enumerated
in Articles 283 and 284 of the same Code. It must be noted that these two
articles refer to compulsory recognition or acknowledgment. Hence, since the
proof of filiation required in Article 887, necessarily involves the
investigation mentioned in Article 289, and this investigation in turn refers to
recognition by the putative parent, it follows that the filiation to be proven
must be one that is recognized.

In the present case, what is intended to be proved by appellant is simply the
supposed naked paternity of the deceased. This is evident from the pertinent
allegations of her opposition to the probate of the will, which state:

“2. That the oppositor is in continuous possession of status of a child of
the late Don Vicente Noble by the direct acts of the latter and/or his family;
and, that the oppositor has in her favor evidence and/or proof that the late Don
Vicente Noble is her father.”

It may be pointed out that the first sentence does not state that the
supposed father had recognized or acknowledged the oppositor as his child. It is
merely claimed that she was in continuous possession of the status of a child,
an allegation which is a ground for compelling recognition under Article 283 of
the new Civil Code and, therefore, presupposes no previous recognition. The last
sentence alleges that oppositor has in her favor evidence and/or proof that the
late Don Vicente Noble is her father. Again, there is no assertion that she has
evidence that the deceased had recognized or acknowledged her as such a
child.

In a unanimous decision in the case of Paulino v. Paulino (G.R. No.
L-15091, Dec. 28, 1961), this Court held:

“it is true that by their motion to dismiss the appellees are deemed to have
admitted that the appellant is the illegitimate spurious, not natural, child of
the deceased Marcos Paulino. Such an admission, however, does not entitle her to
inherit from her alleged putative father. It is necessary to allege that her
putative father had acknowledged and recognized her as such. Such acknowledgment
is essential and is the basis of her right to inherit. There being no allegation
of such acknowledgment the action becomes one to compel recognition which can
not be brought after the death of the putative father.” (Italics
supplied.)

This is authority to the declaration that acknowledgment is the basis of the
right of a spurious child to enjoy the successional rights mentioned in Articles
287 and 887 of the new Civil Code. There being no allegation of her recognition
or acknowledgement by the alleged father in the petition to establish her
filiation, the same, therefore, states no cause of action and the dismissal
thereof by the lower court was proper.

Incidentally, the last sentence of the abovequoted portion of the decision in
the Paulino case constitutes a reversal of the ruling contained in the majority
opinion in the case of Zuzuarregui v. Zuzuaregui (G.R. No. L-10010, Oct. 31,
1957) relied upon by the appellant.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1] “ART. 285. The action for the
recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the
presumed parents, except in the following cases:

(1) If the father or
mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file
the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his
majority;

(2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a
document should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which either or
both parents recognize the child. In this case, the action must be commenced
within four years from the finding of the document.”