You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

200169, January 28, 2015


RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT, Respondents.

Facts:
Spouses Alfredo and Cadelaria (Aguilar) died without will and without debts in 1983 and
1994, respectively, leaving two parcels of land. Rodolfo filed a petition alleging that he is the
only son of the spouses Alfredo and Candelaria; that he suspected the two titles of the land
was stolen by someone from the Siasat clan, which Edna opposed, claiming that the titles
were in her possession, were not stolen, and entrusted to her by her aunt Candelaria.
In her defense, Edna claimed that Rodolfo is not the son of the deceased spouses but a
stranger raised by them merely out of generosity and kind heart; that Alfredo predeceased
Candelaria, thus the latter inherited his conjugal share; upon her death, her brothers and
sisters inherited the estate of Candelaria, and the titles were entrusted to her by Candelaria,
her aunt.
At trial Rodolfo presented documentary exhibits such as his school records, where Alfredo
was indicated as his father; his ITR which listed Candelaria as her mother; deceased
Alfredos Social Security System (SSS) Form E-1, a public instrument subscribed and made
under oath by him during his employment, which bears his signature and thumb marks and
indicates that petitioner, who was his son and dependent; and other pertinent documents to
show his filiation to the spouses.
Edna also presented an Affidavit executed by Candelaria announcing that she and Alfredo
had no issue, and she is the sole heir to Alfredos estate.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Edna since Rodolfo failed to present any evidence
that he is the biological son of Alfredo and Edna, further complicated by the lack of a
certificate of live birth and the affidavit of Candelaria that she had no issue.
In his appeal to the CA, Rodolfo argued that his failure to present a Certificate of Live Birth
was by reason of the destruction of all records at the Local Civil Registry; that under Article
172 of the Family Code, an admission of filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten document signed by the parent constitute proof of filiation, which he sufficiently
proved by his documentary exhibits.
The CA ruled otherwise, averring that the documents presented by Rodolfo do not establish
pedigree.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the documents presented by petitioner Rodolfo constitute an admission of


filiation in a public document or a private handwritten document signed by the parent as
stated in Article 172 of the Family Code
HELD:
The Court grants the Petition.
Article 172 of the Family Code states that the filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate
children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation
shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child;
or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a
court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of
acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required.
Petitioner presented his fathers SSS Form E-1 to prove filiation. It is already evidence of
filiation under the first paragraph thereof, the same being an express recognition in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration in
resolving questions affecting him.

You might also like