ELIAS S. MENDOZA AND EUSTIQUIA S. MENDOZA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, BUENAVENTURA GABUYA AND SEVERA FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners-spouses Elias and Eustiquia Mendoza seek a review of
the decision dated Sep­tember 8, 1982 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos.
58815-58816-17-R entitled “Elias Mendoza, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus Buenaventura Gabuya, et al., Defendants-Appellees” as well as the
re­solution of January 3, 1983, denying their motion for reconsideration.

The antecedents are as follows:

Sometime in November and December of 1969, three [3] complaints
were filed before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu; viz:  1] Civil Case No. R-11485 instituted by
herein peti­tioners-spouses Mendoza against private respondents-spouses
Buenaventura Gabuya and Severa Fernandez for partition of Lot No. 3597 of the
Cadastral Survey of Cebu, located at Pardo, Cebu City, with an area of 2,992
square meters, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
43910 issued in the names of “Buenaventura Gabuya, mar­ried to Severa
Fernandez x x x and Elias S. Men­doza, married to Eustiquia S. Mendoza x x x
with one-half [1/2] share each”^[1]
and damages; 2] Civil Case No. R-11486 commenced by spouses Modesta Gabuya and
Dominador Delima, likewise against private respondents-spouses Buenaventura
Gabuya and Severa Fernandez for partition of Lot No. 3506 of the Cadastral Survey
of Cebu, located at Pardo, Cebu, with an area of 2,799 square me­ters, more or
less, and covered by Transfer Certi­ficate of Title No. 43909 issued in the
names of Buenaventura Gabuya, married to Severa Fernandez and Modesta Gabuya,
married to Dominador Delima, and damages; and, 3] Civil Case No. R-1152 filed
by private respondents-spouses Buenaven­tura Gabuya and Severa Fernandez
against the spouses Modesta Gabuya and Dominador Delima and petitioners-spouses
Mendoza for the annul­ment of:  a) the extra-judicial
settlement of the estate of the late Evaristo Gabuya, dated March 12, 1969
covering Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597, Cebu Cadastre; b) the sale of one-half [1/2]
portion of Lot No. 3597 dated December 31, 1968 in favor of spouses Mendoza;
and, c) Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 43909 and 43910, covering Lot Nos.
3506 and 3597, respectively; and damages.

Because they involved the same parties and properties, the cases
were heard and tried jointly.

Thereafter, on September 12, 1972, the trial court rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, based on all the foregoing considerations,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Buenaventura Gabuya in
the third case and against defendant?spouses Modesta Gabuya and Dominador
Delima and Atty. Elias S.
Mendoza and Eustiquia S. Mendoza:

“1]
Declaring null and void and without force and effect:

a)  The Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the
estate of Evaristo Gabuya insofar as the shares of defendant Modesta Gabuya in
Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597 are concerned;

b) The Deed of
Absolute Sale Modesta Gabuya executed on December 31, 1968 in favor of her
co-defendants-spouses Atty. Elias S. Mendoza and Eustiquia S. Mendoza, covering
Lot No. 3597 without prejudice to the rights of the latter spouses-vendors to
demand from Modesta Gabuya reimbursement of any amounts they have paid on account of the sale;

c)  Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 43909 and
43910 insofar as the respective recorded one-half [1/2] undivided shares of the
spouses Modesta Gabuya married to Dominador Delima and Atty. Elias S. Mendoza
married to Eustiquia S. Mendoza in each of Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597 with
plaintiff Buenaventura Gabuya married to Severa Fernandez are concerned;

“2. Condemning
the two defendants-spouses to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the
amount of P500.00 as moral damages, P750.00 as attorney’s fees; and,

“3.  To pay the costs.

“The  Register of
Deeds of Cebu is hereby
directed to cancel the recorded one?half [1/2] share each of the defendants-spouses Modesta
Gabuya married to Dominador Delima and Atty. Elias S. Mendoza married to
Eustiquia S. Mendoza in Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597 covered by Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. 43909 and 43910, respectively.”^[2]

Dissatisfied with said decision, the spouses Mendoza and the
spouses Delima appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.  Their motion for reconsideration likewise
proved un­availing.

Thus, on February 14, 1983, within the extended period granted,
the spouses Mendoza filed the petition at bar. 
After private res­pondents had filed their comment thereon, and
petitioners, their Reply to said comment, the Court, on September 19, 1983,
gave due course to the petition.^[3] In due time, the parties sub­mitted
their respective memoranda.

On July 10, 1985, Atty. Paterno S. Compra entered his appearance
as counsel for spouses Modesta
Gabuya and Dominador Delima, and on July 19, 1985, filed a Notice of Death, in­forming
this Court that respondent Buenaven­tura Gabuya died on October 21, 1981 and
that Severa Fernandez likewise died on October 14, 1983, allegedly leaving no
legal heirs except Modesta Gabuya.^[4]

Acting on said Notice of Death, the Court resolved on September
18, 1985, “to Direct [1] the legal representatives of the de­ceased
respondents Buenaventura Gabuya and Se­vera Fernandez to appear and to be
substituted for the latter, within a period of thirty [30] days from notice;
and [2] the petitioners to amend their petition within ten [10] days from
receipt of the notice of appearance and substitution by the legal
representatives of the aforesaid respondents, so as to conform with the latest
development in the case.”^[5]

It appears that sometime between Sep­tember 18, 1985 and November
27, 1985, Vene­rando Gabuya, a sixth degree collateral rela­tive of
Buenaventura Gabuya, filed a motion dated
October 31, 1985 to substitute the latter in the case at bar.  While the motion it­self does not appear in
the rollo, the same was granted by the Court in its resolution of November 27,
1985.

Meanwhile, on November
20, 1985, the petitioners filed an Amended Petition, naming the spouses Modesta
Gabuya and Dominador Delima as co-petitioners therein.  Said “peti­tioners” Modesta Gabuya
and Dominador Delima prayed in the Amended Petition that Modesta Gabuya be
declared the sole legal heir of Buena­ventura Gabuya.  Said spouses Delima likewise filed a motion
for reconsideration of the re­solution of November 27, 1985, which granted
Venerando Gabuya’s motion for substitution. 
However, since the resolution of the motion for reconsideration would
entail going into the merits of the case, its resolution was held in abeyance.

The sole issue presented
by the peti­tion is couched by petitioners, thus:

“Whether or not under the Civil Code of Spain, a natural
child without any judicial decree of deed of acknowledgment in his favor by his natural parent may succeed said natural parent under
certain circumstances.”^[6]

The factual backdrop of this
legal query, as found by the trial court and sus­tained by the appellate court,
is as follows:

“That Buenaventura, Nicolasa and Teresa, all surnamed Gabuya, are the
legitimate children of the spouses Evaristo Gabuya and Susana Sabandija, who
died intestate many years ago, the first in 1926 and the second in 1912; that both Nicolasa and
Teresa died single, the first in 1943 and the second in 1964; that Modesta
Gabuya is the illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa [Exhs. G & 7-B-Gabuya];
that Lot No. 3506 and 3597 of the Cebu Cadastre were some of the original
properties left by the late Evaristo Gabuya both located at Pardo, Cebu City,
formerly covered by Original Certificate [sic] of Title Nos. 6353 and 6597 in
the name of Evaristo Gabuya and containing 2,799 square meters and 2,992 square
meters, respectively; that sometime
in February, 1969, Modesta Gabuya accompanied by Atty. Elias S. Mendoza
went to the house of Buenaventura Gabuya who wanted to see the titles of these
two parcels of land and Buenaventura was instructed by Modesta to look for them
so that they be reconstituted; that some days later the two, Modesta Gabuya and Elias S. Mendoza
visited him again at his house and Modesta took the titles but this time
Buenaventura went with them to the Cebu Capitol Budding; that Buenaventura and
Modesta signed a document and acknowledged before Atty. Salvador B. Mendoza but the latter did not read
to the signatories the content’s of the document; that this document dated
March 12, 1969 turned out to be an Extra-­judicial settlement of the Estate of
Evaristo Gabuya [Exhs. A and 1-B-Gabuya] whereby Buenaven­tura and Modesta
appear to have divided and partitioned between themselves pro indiviso and share and share
alike [1/2 each] Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597; that this Extra-judicial settlement of
the Estate of Evaristo Gabuya was duly published [Exh. B] in the Morning Times
and registered with the Register of Deeds [Exhs. B-1 & B-2] and the
document itself was also similarly
registered [Exhs. A-1 and A-2]; that on December 31, 1968, prior to the
execution of the Extra-judicial Settlement document, a Deed of Absolute Sale [Exhs 2-B-Gabuya] was
executed by Modesta Gabuya in favor of the spouses Atty. and Mrs. Elias S.
Mendoza covering her alleged one-half [1/2] undivided share in Lot No. 3597 for a consideration of P10,000.00; that
pursuant to the Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement [Exhs. A & 1-B-Gabuya],
and the Deed of Absolute Sale [Exh. 2-B-Gabuya], Original Certificates of Title
Nos. 6353 and 6597 in the name of the late Evaristo Gabuya, father of
Buenaventura Gabuya, were cancelled and in lieu thereof were issued Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 43909 and 43910 [Exh. C].  The first in the names of spouses Buenaventura
Gabuya married to Severa Fernandez, and Modesta Gabuya married to Dominador
Delima; and the second, in the names of Buenaventura Gabuya married to Severa
Fernandez and Atty. Elias S. Mendoza married to Eustiquia S. Mendoza; that
Atty. Elias S. Mendoza and
Modesta Gabuya have respectively asked from Buenaventura Gabuya the partition
of the lots which they are co-owners of the undivided one-half [1/2] portions;
and that Buenaventura refused to do so claiming that Modesta Gabuya is not
entitled to inherit from the
estate of his late father
Evaristo Gabuya.”^[7]

Under the Civil Code of
Spain, the law in force at the time of the death in 1943 of Nicolasa Gabuya,
the mother of Modesta, full successional rights were granted only to legi­timate
and legitimated children [Arts. 114 and 122, respectively].  Acknowledged natural children were given
limited successional rights in that they were entitled to inherit only from the
acknowledging parent [Art. 134], while ille­gitimate children who did not
possess the status of natural children had no successional rights whatsoever
[Art. 139].  The latter were only
entitled to support.  Adopted children
become heirs of the adopting parents only if the adopt­ing parents had agreed
to confer the adopted children such rights in the deed of adoption, or had
instituted them as heirs in a will.^[8]

Recognition or
acknowledgment of a natural child under said Code must be made in a record of
birth, a will, a statement before a court of re­cord, or in some other public
document.^[9] In
the case at bar, the only document presented by Modesta Gabuya to prove that
she was recognized by her mo­ther was the certificate of birth and baptism
signed by Rev. Fr. Filomeno Singson, Assistant Parish Priest of Pardo, Cebu
City, stating therein that Modesta Gabuya is an illegitimate daughter of
Nicolasa Gabuya.^[10] However,
Philippine jurisprudence is consistent and uniform in ruling that the canonical
certificate of baptism is not sufficient to prove recognition.^[11] The
rationale for this ruling, enunciated in the case of Cid v. Burnaman, 24 SCRA 434, is that
while the baptismal certificate in the parish records was a public document
before the effectivity of General Order No. 68 and Act 190, this certificate
did not constitute a sufficient act of acknowledgment, since the latter must be
executed by the child’s father or mother, and the parish priest can not
acknowledge in their stead.

Neither could the alleged continuous pos­session by Modesta
Gabuya of the status of a natural child improve her condition.  In Alabat v.
vda. de Alabat, 21 SCRA 1479, 1481, it was stressed that:

“It is to an elementary and basic principle in our law of
succession that the right’s of a natural child spring not from the filiation itself but from the child’s’
acknowledgment by the natural parent, made voluntarily or by court decree.  Equally basic and elementary x x x is the
fact that possession or enjoyment of the status of natural child is per se not a
sufficient operative acknowledgment but only a ground to compel the
patent to acknowledge the child.”

The case of Ramos, et al. v. Ramos,
et al., 61 SCRA 284, heavily relied upon by petitioners, does not
apply to the case at bar.  Unlike in said
case, Modesta Gabuya failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she
was in continuous possession of the status of a natural child.

That this petition must fail is a fore­gone conclusion.  Modesta Gabuya, not having been acknowledged
in the manner provided by law by her mother, Nicolasa, was not entitled to
succeed the latter.  The extrajudicial
settlement of the es­tate of Evaristo Gabuya is, therefore, null and void
insofar as Modesta Gabuya is concerned per Article 1105 of the New Civil Code
which states:

“A partition which includes a person believed to be an
heir, but who is not,
shall be void only with respect to such person.”

Since the ownership of the one-half [1/2] pro indiviso
portion of Lot No. 3597 never passed on to Modesta Gabuya, it follows that the
sale thereof to petitioners-spouses Elias and Eustiquia Mendoza is likewise
null and void.^[12]

One last point.  During the
pendency of this case, the spouses Modesta Gabuya and Dominador Delima joined
the spouses Mendoza as petitioners in this case by submitting an amended
petition, ostensibly in compliance with Our resolution of September 18,
1985.  In said Amended Petition,
aforementioned spouses Delima prayed that Modesta Gabuya Delima be declared the
sole heir of the deceased private respondent Buenaventura Gabuya, to the exclusion
of substitute Venerando Gabuya.  It must
be remembered, however, that the Delima spouses not having joined
petitioners-spouses Mendoza in the instant petition for review, the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 58815-58816-17-R has become final and
executory as to said spouses Delima. 
With the pronounce­ment of the appellate court that Modesta Gabuya?Delima
was not entitled to inherit from her mother,
in conjunction with our affirmance thereof, it is clear that her prayer
in the amended petition cannot be
granted.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby denied.  The decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. Nos. 58815-58816-17-R, is
affirmed in toto.  Costs
against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
p. 19, Rollo

^[2]
pp. 50-51, Rollo

^[3]
p. 99, Rollo

^[4]
p. 125, Rollo

^[5]
p. 127, Rollo

^[6]
p. 15, Rollo

^[7]
pp. 46-48; 54-55, Rollo

^[8]
Art. 177

^[9]
Art. 131

^[10]
Exh. G

^[11]
Capistrano v. Gavino, 8 Phil. 136; Adriano v. de Jesus, 23 Phil.
351; Pareja v. Pareja, 95 Phil. 167; Canales v. Arrogante, 91
Phil. 6

^[12]
Arts. 1409 (3) and 1459, New Civil Code