G.R. No. 31454. December 28, 1929
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED FRANCISCO ARQUIZA. ISIDRA GAAS ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. PILAU FORTICH, ADMINISTRATRIX AND APPELLANT.
JOHNS, J.:
a matter in its discretion and for the orderly administration of
justice, and there is no merit in the first assignment of error.
The storm center of this case is whether or not the signature of
Francisco Arquiza which appears on Exhibit C is true and genuine.
Exhibit B, which is a certified copy of the archives of the Catholic Church, is as follows:
“I, Father Gregorio Lofranco, Parish Priest of Calape, Province of Bohol, Diocese of Cebu, P. I.
“Certify: That the following entry appears on page 89 of Baptismal Book 8 of this parish:
“Upon
the sixth day of November, eighteen hundred and, eighty, in the Church
under my charge, I, the undersigned Parish Priest of Calape, solemnly
christened and anointed a boy named Federico Arquiza, born at seven
o’clock in the morning of the first day of this month, to Francisco
Arquiza, single, a normal teacher and a native of La Mercedes, Province
of Zamboanga, and Anatolia Asilo, single,- a weaver residing in this
town, belonging to clan (Caveseria) No. 35 of Pablo Bulala.
Grandparents on the father’s side: Francisco Arquiza and Eugenia
Sapanta, natives, now deceased. Grandparents on the mother’s side:
Gregorio Asilo, native, and Cornelia Enriquez, half Spaniard, belonging
to the clan (Caveseria) of Pablo Bulala. Godfather: Eusebio Gonzalez, a
native farmer who was advised of the spiritual relationship and
obligations he contracted. Witnesses of the baptism and of this entry:
Romualdo Cuario, a native of this parish, and Hilario Crusit, a native
and resident’of this town, and chief sexton of this cliurch. In witness
whereof, I sign.—FR. BERNARDO MENENDEZ DE LA DOLOROSA.“I
certify that this is a faithful copy of the original, and at the
request of the interested party, I sign and issue these presents, in
the presbytery of Calape, Bohol, on the ninth day of September, 1927.(Sgd.) “GREGORIO LOPRANCO
“Parish Priest“(One 20-cents documentary stamp affixed)
“Seal of the Church.”
As to the authenticity of Exhibit C, there was a sharp conflict in the evidence.
Professor Jose I. del Rosario, who qualified as an expert, testified
that in his opinion it was a forgery. A. IX Calhoun, the manager of the
Cebu branch of the International Banking Corporation, and a man, who
through his business, has had a large experience in the matter of
signatures, testified that the signature was true and genuine, and even
Professor Bel Rosario admitted that there was a similarity between the
writing in the body of Exhibit C and that of the unquestioned signature
of Francisco Arquiza of about forty years later.
Upon the question of the signature, the lower court says:
“Although Professor Del Rosario may have given
greater study to certain phases of the subject of handwriting than Mr.
Calhoun, the court regards the testimony of the latter as more
trustworthy in the present case, because Professor Del Rosario is an
expert witness by profession and was brought from Manila to Cebu to
uphold the theory of the opponent and is no more disinterested than the
opponent’s attorneys, while Mr. Calhoun is a banker living in Cebu and
has absolutely no interest in the present case of the parties thereto.
Professor Del Rosario did confine himself to a statement of the facts,
and his opinion thereon, with his reasons for his opinion, but his
testimony is really a brief for the opponent. In the light of these
facts, the court cannot but regard his opinion as strongly biased. It
only remains to be added that the court was no more favorably impressed
by the unjustifiable structures of the petitioners’ attorney upon
Professor Del Rosario than by the attempt of the attorney for the
opponent to be facetious at the expense of Mr. Calhoun. But quite
independently of the opinion of the experts, the court has compared the
original of Exhibit C with the many different authentic examples of
Francisco Arouiza’s writing offered in evidence, and making allowance
for variations due to the lapse of many years, the court is satisfied
that this document, Exhibit C, was written and signed by Francisco
Arquiza.”
This analysis of the lower court was confirmed by an ocular
inspection of the same Writing by all of the members of this court who
are clearly of the opinion that the signature on Exhibit C is the true
and genuine signature of Francisco Arquiza.
In that instrument, dated November 7, 1880, Francisco Arquiza
declared that he is engaged to marry Anatolia Asilo by whom “I have
already had a child by her, named Federico who was born on the first
instant.” This instrument was found pinned and attached to Exhibit B
which, among other things, recites that on the sixth day of November,
eighteen hundred and eighty, the ,Parish Priest christened and anointed
a boy named Federico Arquiza, who was born at 7 a. m. on November
first, to Francisco Arquiza, single, a normal teacher, and Anatolia
Asilo, single, a weaver, and that the witnesses of the baptism and of
this instrument were Romualdo Cuario, a native of the Parish, and
Hilario Crusit, also a native and chief sexton of the church.
Under the law then existing, these archives of the church, as to the
parentage, birth and baptism of Federico Arquiza are authentic, and, in
the absence of any other evidence, must be deemed and taken as
conclusive of the recitals therein made, all of which are materially
strengthened and corroborated by Exhibit C.
In the third assignment of error, it is vigorously contended that
the boy, Federico Arquiza, was not a natural son of the deceased,
Francisco Arquiza. Here, again, it will be noted that Exhibit C, which
was signed by Francisco Arquiza on November 7, 1880, specifically
recites “that I have already had a child by her, named Federico who was
born on the first instant,” and Exhibit B specifically recites that
Federico Arquiza was born at 7 a. m. on November first, to Francisco
Arquiza, single, a normal teacher, and Anatolia Asilo, single, a
Weaver. That is to say, that both the father and the mother were then
single, and the fact that the father was a normal teacher, and the
mother a weaver, would clearly indicate that there was no valid reason
why they could not marry each other. It also appears that the only
reason why they were not then married was on account of parental
objections.
Law 11 of the Laws of Toro, which were then in force, provides:
“And for the purpose of avoiding doubt as to who are
natural children, we order and decree that natural children are those,
who, at the time of their birth or conception were of fathers who could
have married their mothers properly and justly and without
dispensation; provided that the father acknowledged such issue as his
child, although he would not have had the woman with whom he had such
relations in his house, or any other one. We decree that the child
having the qualifications above mentioned is a natural child.”
And the appellant concedes that under this law:
“A child is deemed natural when at the time of its birth or conception, its, parents could have married without dispensation.”
In the instant case, the record is conclusive that
the father acknowledged Federico Arquiza as his child, and it is also
conclusive that at the time of his birth or conception, his parents
were single. Even so, the appellant contends that there is no evidence
that they could have been then married “without dispensation.” Neither
is there any evidence that they could not have been married “without
dispensation.” Conceding that to be true, there is no evidence tending
to show that they could not have been married “without dispensation,”
and in the ordinary course of business, a single man and woman of legal
age have the legal right to marry “without dispensation,” and the
denial of a marriage “without dispensation” is an exception to the
general rule.
The finding of the lower court that Federico Arquiza was a natural son of Francisco Arquiza is well sustained by the evidence.
As to the fourth assignment of error, the lower court says:
“The fact that Federico Arquiza was the natural
child of Francisco Arquiza and Anatolia Asilo and that he was
recognized as such by his father is fully established by the testimony
of Melchora Ponce, a pupil of Francisco Arquiza arid a schoolmate of
Anatolia Asilo, and that of Fernando Bismonte, who taught in the same
school with Francisco Arquiza and was messenger of Francisco Arquiza
and Anatolia Asilo, and by the testimony of Juana Asilo, a sister of
Anatolia Asilo, and that of Potenciana Rianbanansa, a pupil of
Francisco Arquiza and a schoolmate of Anatolia Asilo. The authenticity
of the baptismal certificate cannot be doubted. The evidence clearly
shows that Francisco Arquiza was present when the child was baptized.
Furthermore, no one else could have furnished the facts as to his
parents, as he was not a native of Calape, but of Zamboanga.“At
the age of thirteen Federico Arquiza was removed by his father from
Calape, Bohol, to Oroquieta, Misamis, and there brought up in the house
of Francisco Arquiza and educated by him, and acknowledged and treated
by Francisco Arquiza as his son. The treatment accorded by Francisco
Arquiza to Federico Arquiza in Oroquieta serves to confirm the tacit
recognition which he had given his son in Bohol.”
That finding is also well sustained by the evidence, and is in all things and respects approved.
As to the fifth assignment of error, the lower court cites and
relies upon the case of Larena and Larena vs. Ruma (43 Phil., 1017),
and says:
“This is not an action to compel the recognition of
Federico Arquiza under the provisions of the Civil Code. Such an action
is barred. This is a proceeding to obtain a declaration of the rights
of the petitioners as the legitimate children of Federico Arquiza to
inherit in representation of their father from their grandfather. It
was not necessary for Federico Arquiza to bring an action for
recognition because he had acquired the status of a recognized natural
child under Law 11 of Toro by the tacit recognition of his father. His,
vested rights were transmitted to his legitimate children, and they had
no need to bring an action against Francisco Arquiza or his heirs to
compel the recognition of their father, Federico Arquiza, as the
natural son of Francisco Arquiza.“If Federico Arquiza were
still living, he could intervene in these proceedings for the
distribution of the estate of his natural father, without the necessity
of a proceeding to compel his recognition, as is required by the Civil
Code; and Francisco Arquiza having left no legitimate descendants, or
ascendants, Federico Arquiza, if he had survived his father, would have
been entitled to one-third of the latter’s estate.”
Article 842 of the Civil Code provides:
“If the testator leaves no legitimate ascendants or
descendants, the acknowledged natural children shall be entitled to a
third of the estate.”
And article 843 provides:
“The rights granted natural children by the preceding articles are transmitted on their death to their legitimate descendants.”
The facts found by the trial court and sustained by the evidence bring the appellees within those provisions.
The well written opinion of the lower court in all things and respects is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.