REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AD LITEM, GORGONIA DE LA PEÑA, PETITIONER and APPELLEE, VS. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental.

The factual background of this case is set forth in our decision in case G.
R. No. L-14636, entitled “Gorgonia de la Petia, in behalf of her daughter Remela
Zaldarriaga vs. Consuelo Vda. de Zaldarriaga at al.”, decided on June30, 1960,
involving an appeal from an order of dismissal of said court in Civil Case No.
4895 thereof. We quote, from said decision:-

“On July 2, 1958, plaintiff in behalf of her minor daughter Remela
Zaldarriaga, filed with the above-mentioned court, a complaint against
defendants

Consuelo Vda. de Zaldarriaga, as judicial administratrix of the Intestate
Estate of Pedro Zaldarriaga;

Ernesto Zaldarriaga, Guadalupe Zaldarriaga and Jesus Zaldarriaga, Jr. as
heirs, and the first as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Jesus
Zaldarriaga, son of Pedro Zaldarriaga; and

Basilia Vda. de Zaldarriaga, as Judicial Administratrix of the Intestate
Estate of Jose Zaldarriaga, another son of Pedro Zaidarriaga

alleging, inter alia, as to the first cause of action, that from 1938 to
1944, plaintiff Gorgonia de la Peña and the late Julio Zaldarriaga (a third son
of Pedro Zaldarriaga) lived together as common-law husband and wife of Barrio
Mabini, Cadiz, Negros Occidental; that out of said relationship, 3 children were
born, namely, Julio, Jr., who died when he was 14 days old;Toto, who died at the
age of 2 years; and Remela, who was born on November 16, 1940; that said Julio
Zaldarriaga died in 1944 when Remela was only 4 years old; and that from
November 16,1940 until the latter part of 1944, Remela was in continuous
possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child of Julio Zaldarriaga
by virtue of the latter’s overt acts and those of his family represented by the
defendants. In respect to the second cause of action, she alleged, among other
things, that the late Pedro Zaldarriaga had 4 sons, namely, Jesus, Jose, Manuel,
and Julio Zaldarriaga that PedroZaldarriaga and his said sons were the
registered co-owners of Lots Nos. 936, 937, 940, and 94l of the Cadastral Survey
of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, in the following proportions: Pedro, 4/8 share;
Jesus, l/8 share; Jose, 1/8 share; Manuel, l/8 share; and Julio, l/8 share; that
said Julio Zaldarriaga died intestate; that plaintiff Remela Zaldarriaga
inherited the l/8 share of her natural father Julio Zaldarriaga, including the
l/8 sugar quota pertaining to said lots; and that she made repeated demands on
defendants to deliver the l/8 part of said lots to her, but the latter refused
to do so. Plaintiff prayed in the first cause of action, that Remela Zaldarriaga
be declared as the acknowledged natural daughter of the late Julio Zaidarriaga.
In the second cause of action, she prayed, inter alia, for an order partitioning
said lots Nos. 936, 937, 940,and 941, in order that the l/8 portion of the same
be registered in the name of Remela Zaldarriaga .

“On July 25, 1958, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, inasmuch as
there was then pending before this Court a case (G.R. No. L-13424) involving the
partition of the same lots (Lots Nos. 936, 937, 940, and 941) subject matter of
the complaint. On July 29, 1958, plaintiff filed an answer to said motion to
dismiss.

“On August 16, 1958, defendants filed a supplementary motion to dismiss, on
the ground that there was then pending another action (Special Proceeding ho.
4476) in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, between the same
parties, for the same cause. On August 22, 1958, plaintiff filed an answer to
said supplementary motion to dismiss, to which, defendants filed a reply on
August 25, 1938.On August 27, 1958, plaintiff filed an answer to said reply.

“On August 28, 1958, defendant Basilia Vda. de Zaldarriaga, filed her answer
toplaintiff’s complaint. On the same date, the court dismissed plaintiff’s
complaint, * *.”

A reconsideration of this order of dismissal having denied, Gorgonia de la
Peña appealed to the SupremeCourt – and docketed therein as G. R. No. L-14636 –
which reversed said order the same being erroneously predicated upon the theory
that the issues in said case No. 4895 -or G. R. No. L-14636 of the Supreme Court
– were already in litigation in Civil Case No. 2705 of the aforementioned
inferior court, which is not true, because said case No. 2705 referred to the
estate of Jose Zaldarriaga, whereas case No. 4895 involved the estate of
Julio Zaldarriaga.

However, Gorgonia de la Peña had filed in said case G.R. No. L-14636 (or No.
4895 of the court of first instance) a motion to withdraw the appeal therein,
for the reason that she had meanwhile instituted in the lower court Special
Proceeding No. 5267, for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Julio
Zaldarriaga, in which the issues raised in case No. 4895 could be settled, and
said motion to withdraw the appeal was objected to upon the ground that the
lower court was disposed to dismiss said case No. 5267. Consequently, we did not
deem it advisable to dismiss the appeal in G.R. No. L-14636 (or case No. 4895)
and, instead our decision, promulgated on June 30, i960, remanded the case (No.
4895) “to the court of origin for further proceedings, without prejudice to
appellant’s choosing either to proceed with this case or the intestate
proceeding No. 5267 instituted by her.

Soon thereafter, or on July 14, 1960, Gorgonia de la Peña filed in said case
No. 5267 a “manifestation” inviting attention of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental to said decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-14636
(Case No. 4895), and stating that she preferred to continue said civil case
rather than case No. 5267, and praying, accordingly, that the latter be
dismissed.

On September 2, 1960, Enrique F. Marino, who had been appointed, in said
Special Proceeding No. 5267, judicial administrator of the estate of Julio
Zaldarriaga, objected to said manifestation and/or petition for dismissal; but,
this notwithstanding, the lower court granted the petition and issued an order,
dated October 4, 1960, dismissing said case No. 5267. Marino sought a
reconsideration of this order, to no avail.

Hence, its propriety is now assailed by him, upon the ground that, upon
institution of said case No. 5267,the probate court has acquired exclusive
jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of Julio Zaldarriaga to the
exclusion of all other courts, and, consequently, case No. 4895 was
automatically abandoned; that it is improper for a declaration of heirs to be
made in an ordinary civil action (Case No. 4895), in view of the pendency of
case No. 5267 for the settlement of the estate of said deceased; that the
question as to who are his heirs and what are their respective shares, should be
determined in said case No. 5267; that Marino should recover the property of the
deceased and the rentals and fruits thereof, as well as the sugar quota
pertaining thereto, from Ernesto, Guadalupe and Jesus, Jr., all surnamed
Zaldarriaga, who have illegally possessed said property and collected the
aforementioned rentals, fruits and sugar quota; that the estate and inheritance
taxes due to the Government should be determined and paid in said case No. 5267;
that the order of distribution of the residue of the estate of Julio Zaldarriaga
to the persons entitled thereto should, also, be issued in that case; and that
the estate of the deceased was not duly represented in said case No. 4895.

We find no merit in this appeal, far Ernesto, Guadalupe and Jesus, Jr., all
surnamed Zaldarriaga, and all other persons who claim an interest in the estate
of Julio Zaldarriaga, are parties in case No. 4895, and none of them has
objected to the dismissal of case No.5267. In fact, appellant has not named
anybody having an interest in both cases who is not a party in case No. 4895.
Upon the other hand, it is well settled that the matter of acknowledgement of an
alleged natural child and his claim as such to a share in the estate of the
alleged natural father may be determined either in an ordinary civil action or
in special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased father
(Escoval vs. Escoval, 48 Off. Ga. 616; Tiamson vs. Tiamson, 52 Phil.62; Briz vs.
Briz, 43 Phil. 763, 768; Suarez vs. Suarez, 43 Phil. 903, 905; Conde vs. Abaya,
13 Phil. 249; Capistrano vs. Fabella, 8 Phil. 249; Siguion vs. Siguion, 8
Phil,5). As a consequence, the remedies sought by Gorgonia dela Peña may be
entertained either in case No. 4895 or incase No. 5267. So too, the question
whether Ernesto, Guadalupe and Jesus, Jr., all surnamed Zaldarriaga, should
surrender the possession of the property of the deceased Julio Zaldarriaga and
refund the rentals, fruits and sugar quota thereof allegedly collected by them,
may, likewise, be determined in case No. 4895.

Should persons, other than those who are parties incase No. 4895, feel that
their interest in the estate of the deceased may be affected by the proceedings
therein, they may intervene in such case; and this includes the Government, as
regards estate and inheritance taxes, if any were due. Hence, we do not find
that, in issuing the order appealed from, the lower court has adversely affected
the right of any person who possesses a substantial interest in the
aforementioned estate.

WHEREFORE, said order is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against herein appellant Enrique F. Marino.

It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.