G.R. No. 62283. November 25, 1983
CARIDAD CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JOSE PEDRO REYNALDO SY-QUIA, RESPONDENTS.
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the necessity of taking the testimony of Doctor
Ernesto Medina Cue on the serological tests which he took in 1961 regarding
the blood types of Jose Sy-Quia, Pedro Sy-Quia and Remedios Borres and which
are covered by his deposition of January 25, 1975 taken in his clinic at
Pasay City over the objection of Jose Sy-Quia.
The Court of Appeals in its decision of March 31, 1982 ordered
that Doctor Cue should testify before the trial court in Pasig, Rizal. His testimony should be admitted in lieu of his deposition.
Pedro M. Sy-Quia died in
Mandaluyong, Rizal with an estate of over one and a half million pesos
(P1,500,000). He was survived by his
wife, Caridad, and his
five legitimate children named Noel, Pedro, Jr., Asuncion, Mauricio and
Francisco.
He left a holographic
will dated March 18, 1966, wherein he divided equally one-half of his net
estate among his widow and five children. The other half or free portion was divided equally among Pedro, Jr.,
Asuncion, Mauricio and Francisco after setting aside the amount necessary to allow Asuncion, Mauricio and Francisco to
complete their education on the same level as Pedro, Jr.’s. The widow was
designated executrix.
On October 20, 1967, his
widow Caridad Cruz filed Special Proceeding No. 5473 with the
Pasig Court of First Instance for the probate of his will. After the requisite publication and hearing,
the will was probated in Judge Herminio Mariano’s order of May 10, 1968.
More than three years
later, Jose Pedro Reynaldo Sy-Quia filed a motion in the probate proceeding
wherein he alleged that he was an acknowledged natural child of the testator,
Pedro M. Sy-Quia, begotten with Remedios Borres (who later married Pedro
Perolina in articulo mortis in 1949, Exh. X). He was born on October 31, 1937 as
shown in his birth certificate wherein he was represented to be
“legitimate”, his parents being Pedro Sy-Quia, 33, and Remedios
Borres, 24, both residing at 140 A. Mabini (Exh. V).
He prayed in his motion
that being the testator’s voluntarily
acknowledged natural child, his preterition nullified Pedro M.
Sy-Quia’s will and, therefore, his estate should be settled under the rules of
intestacy.
The widow opposed the
motion on the ground that Jose was asking for compulsory recognition
which could not be entertained under article 285 of the Civil
Code. This incident was duly heard by
the trial court.
Jose
Sy-Quia presented Leopoldo
Sy-Quia, Pedro’s brother, who testified that
Jose was Pedro’s acknowledged natural child. He also offered in evidence his school records at De la Salle
College containing the signatures of P.M. Sy-Quia, particularly Exhibit Y dated
July 1, 1954, which was an authorization addressed to Brother Jerome signed by
Pedro M. Sy-Quia. It reads:
“This is to certify that I authorize the school doctor to
administer the C.D.T. (Cholera Dysentery Typhoid) vaccine to my son Jose
P. Sy-Quia of advisory 2-D.”
On the other hand,
Caridad Cruz Vda. de Sy-Quia filed a motion for the taking of the deposition of
Doctor Cue, Clinical Laboratory, Pasay City. The motion was granted by the lower court. The deposition was taken on January 25, 1975 over the opposition
of Jose Sy-Quia’s counsel. He objected
to its presentation in court as evidence since Doctor Cue could have testified
in court.
Doctor Cue’s deposition
purportedly proved that taking into account the blood groups and types of Jose
Sy-Quia, Pedro M. Sy-Quia and Remedios Borres, which, as already noted, he
examined in 1961, Jose could not have been the son of Pedro and Remedios.
The lower court in its
order of May 14, 1975 found that there is no indubitable writing showing that
Jose was an acknowledged natural child of Pedro M. Sy-Quia, that his action for
compulsory recognition should have been brought during Pedro’s lifetime and
that the result of the blood tests explains why Pedro omitted Jose in his will.
Jose appealed to the
Court of Appeals which in its aforementioned 1982 decision held that Jose’s
theory was that he was already a voluntarily acknowledged natural child under
article 278 of the Civil Code.
However, the Appellate
Court ruled that the deposition of Doctor Cue was inadmissible evidence. It remanded the case to the trial court and
directed it to subpoena Doctor Cue to testify on the subject of his deposition
and to be cross-examined by Jose Sy-Quia’s counsel.
Mrs. Sy-Quia appealed to this Court. Lawyer Manuel B. Tomacruz, Jose’s counsel, did not submit his
comment although he was given three extensions expiring on March 25, 1983. He is censured for his unexplained failure
to submit his comment.
We hold that
whether Jose was a voluntarily recognized natural child should be decided under
article 278 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2260 of that Code provides that “the voluntary
recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this Code, even
if the child was born before the effectivity of this body of laws” or
before August 30, 1950. Hence, article
278 may be given retroactive effect (p. 169, Report of Code Commission; 7
Padilla, Civil Code, 1975, p. 709).
Voluntary recognition “in any authentic writing” under
article 278 means any genuine or indubitable writing sufficient for compulsory recognition under article 135 of the
Spanish Civil Code (De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866; 1 Tolentino, Civil Code,
1974, p. 585, 586).
The status of a person as
a voluntarily acknowledged natural child “could be established by the
ordinary means of evidence without any limitations as to time” (Larena vs.
Rubio, 43 Phil. 1017, 1019). “An
action based on voluntary acknowledgment may be brought after the death of the
father” (Javelona vs. Monteclaro, 74 Phil. 393, 400; Guariña vs. Guariña-Casas, 109 Phil. 1111). Hence, Jose’s motion in the testate proceeding to claim his
alleged hereditary share is proper.
We agree with the
Court of Appeals that Doctor Cue’s deposition is inadmissible under section 4,
Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. But he
should testify before the Appellate Court which is now authorized to
receive evidence by section 9 of the Judiciary Reogganization Law, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.
WHEREFORE, the Appellate Court’s’ decision is set aside. It is directed to receive the testimony of Doctor Cue within thirty days from notice of
the finality of this resolution and thereafter to render a new decision as may
be warranted under the facts and the law of the case. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., (Chairman), in
the result.