Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995 BENIGNO MANUEL, LIBERATO MANUEL, LORENZO MANUEL, PLACI A MANUEL, MA RONA MANUEL, ESPERANZA MANUEL, AGAPITA MANUEL, BASILISA MANUEL, EMILIA MANUEL !"# NUMERIANA MANUEL,petitioners, vs. $ON. NICO EMO T. %ERRER, P&'s(#("g )u#g', R'g(o"!* T&(!* Cou&t, B&!"+, -7, L("g!.'", P!"g!s("!", MO ESTA BALTAZAR !"# ESTANISLAOA MANUEL, respondents.

/ITUG, J.: The propert involved in this petition for revie! on certiorari is the inheritance left b an ille"iti#ate child !ho died intestate !ithout an survivin" descendant or ascendant. Petitioners, the le"iti#ate children of spouses $ntonio Manuel and %eatri& 'uilin", initiated this suit. Durin" his #arria"e !ith %eatri&, $ntonio had an e(tra)#arital affair !ith one *rsula %autista. +ro# this relationship, ,uan Manuel !as born. Several ears passed before $ntonio Manuel, his !ife %eatri&, and his #istress *rsula finall crossed the bar on, respectivel , -. $u"ust /0.-, -1 +ebruar /02/ and -3 Nove#ber /04.. ,uan Manuel, the ille"iti#ate son of $ntonio, #arried 5speran&a 'a#ba. In consideration of the #arria"e, a donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land, !ith an area of 6,4-- s7uare #eters, covered b Ori"inal 8ertificate of Title 9:O8T:; No. P)6-103 !as e(ecuted in favor of ,uan Manuel b <aurenciana Manuel. T!o other parcels of land, covered b O8T P)/00-6 and Transfer 8ertificate of Title 9:T8T:; No. 3//=3, !ere later bou"ht b ,uan and re"istered in his na#e. The couple !ere not blessed !ith a child of their o!n. Their desire to have one i#pelled the spouses to ta>e private respondent Modesta Manuel)%alta&ar into their fold and so raised her as their o!n :dau"hter:. On -= ,une /02-, ,uan Manuel e(ecuted in favor of 5stanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro 9!ith a /-) ear period of rede#ption; over a one)half 9/?6; portion of his land covered b T8T No. 3//=3. ,uan Manuel died intestate on 6/ +ebruar /00-. T!o ears later, or on -3 +ebruar /006, 5speran&a 'a#ba also passed a!a . On -1 March /006, a #onth after the death of 5speran&a, Modesta e(ecuted an $ffidavit of Self)$d@udication clai#in" for herself the three parcels of land covered b O8T P)6-103, O8T P)/00-6 and T8T No. 3//=3 9all still in the na#e of ,uan Manuel;. +ollo!in" the re"istration of the docu#ent of ad@udication !ith the Office of the Re"ister of Deeds, the three titles 9O8T P)6-103, O8T P)/00-6 and T8T No. 3//=3; in the na#e of ,uan Manuel !ere canceled and ne! titles, T8T No. /2366=, T8T No. /23663 and T8T No. /23661, !ere issued in the na#e of Modesta Manuel)%alta&ar. On /0 October /006, Modesta e(ecuted in favor of her co)respondent 5stanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Auitclai# over the unredee#ed one)half 9/?6; portion of the land 9no! covered b T8T No. /23661; that !as sold to the latter b ,uan Manuel under the /02- Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro. These acts of Modesta apparentl did not sit !ell !ith petitioners. In a co#plaint filed before the Re"ional Trial 8ourt of <in"a en, Pan"asinan, the petitioners sou"ht the declaration of nullit of the aforesaid instru#ents. The case, there bein" no #aterial dispute on the facts, !as sub#itted to the court a quo for su##ar @ud"#ent. The trial court, in its no! assailed /1th $u"ust /003 decision, dis#issed the co#plaint holdin" that petitioners, not bein" heirs ab intestato of their ille"iti#ate brother ,uan Manuel, !ere not the real parties)in)interest to institute the

suit. Petitioners !ere also ordered to @ointl and severall 9solidaril ; pa 9a; respondent Modesta Manuel)%alta&ar the su# of P1,---.-- for #oral da#a"es, P1,---.-- for e(e#plar da#a"es, P1,---.-- for attorne Bs fees and P1--.-- for liti"ation e(penses and 9b; 5stanislaoa Manuel the su# of P1,---.-- for #oral da#a"es, P1,---.-- for e(e#plar da#a"es and P1--.-- for attorne Bs fees. PetitionersB #otion for reconsideration !as denied b the trial court. The petition before us raises the follo!in" contentionsC That D /. TH5 <OE5R 8O*RT 9H$S; +$I<5D TO 8ONSID5R TH5 <$ST P$R$'R$PH O+ $RTI8<5 003 O+ TH5 N5E 8IVI< 8OD5, $S TH5 8ONTRO<<IN' <$E $PP<I8$%<5 %F VIRT*5 O+ TH5 $DMITT5D +$8TS, $ND NOT $RTI8<5 006 O+ TH5 S$M5 8OD5. 6. TH5 <OE5R 8O*RT, IN NOT $NN*<<IN' $<< TH5 $8TS O+, $ND VOIDIN' $<< DO8*M5NTS 5G58*T5D %F, R5SPOND5NT MOD5ST$ %$<T$H$R, EHO $RRO'$T5D *NTO H5RS5<+ TH5 RI'HTS O+ $N H5IR TO TH5 5ST$T5 O+ D585D5NT ,*$N M$N*5<, 9H$S; VIRT*$<<F 'R$NT5D S$ID R5SPOND5NT TH5 ST$T*S O+ $N H5IR M$NI+5ST<F 8ONTR$RF TO <$E, MOR$<S $ND P*%<I8 PO<I8F.
=. TO 5N+OR85 ON5BS RI'HT EH5N TH5F $R5 VIO<$T5D IS N5V5R $ <5'$< ERON'. 1

Petitioners ar"ue that the are the le"al heirs over one)half of ,uanBs intestate estate 9!hile the other half !ould pertain to ,uanBs survivin" spouse; under the provision of the last para"raph of $rticle 003 of the 8ivil 8ode, providin" thusl C $rt. 003. In default of the father or #other, an ille"iti#ate child shall be succeeded b his or her survivin" spouse, !ho shall be entitled to the entire estate. If the !ido! or !ido!er should survive !ith brothers and sisters, nephe!s and nieces, she or he shall inherit one)half of the estate, and the latter the other half. 95#phasis supplied; Respondents, in turn, sub#it that $rticle 003 should be read in con@unction !ith $rticle 006 of the 8ivil 8ode, !hich readsC $rt. 006. $n ille"iti#ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro# the le"iti#ate children and relatives of his father or #otherI nor shall such children or relative inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child . 95#phasis supplied; $rticle 006, a basic postulate, enunciates !hat is so co##onl referred to in the rules on succession as the :principle of absolute separation bet!een the le"iti#ate fa#il and the ille"iti#ate fa#il .: The doctrine re@ects succession ab intestato in the collateral line bet!een le"iti#ate relatives, on the one hand, and ille"iti#ate relatives, on other hand, althou"h it does not totall disavo! such succession in the direct line. Since the rule is predicated on the presu#ed !ill of the decedent, it has no application, ho!ever, on testa#entar dispositions. This :barrier: bet!een the #e#bers of the le"iti#ate and ille"iti#ate fa#il in intestac is e(plained b a noted civilist. 2 His thesisC Ehat is #eant b the la! !hen it spea>s of brothers and sisters, nephe!s and nieces, as le"al or intestate heirs of an ille"iti#ate childJ It #ust be noted that under $rt. 006 of the 8ode, there is a barrier dividin" #e#bers of the ille"iti#ate fa#il fro# #e#bers of the le"iti#ate fa#il . It is clear that b virtue of this barrier, the le"iti#ate brothers and sisters as !ell as the children, !hether le"iti#ate or ille"iti#ate, of such brothers and sisters, cannot inherit fro# the ille"iti#ate child. Consequently, when the law speaks of:brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces : as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and sisters . 95#phasis supplied;

The 8ourt, too, has had occasions to e(plain this :iron curtain:, firstl , in the earl case of Grey v. Fabie - and, then, in the relativel recent cases of ia! v. "ntermediate #ppellate Court 4 and e la Puerta v. Court of #ppeals.5 In ia!, !e have saidC $rticle 006 of the Ne! 8ivil 8ode . . . prohibits absolutel a succession ab intestato bet!een the ille"iti#ate child and the le"iti#ate children and relatives of the father or #other of said le"iti#ate child. The #a have a natural tie of blood, but this is not reco"ni&ed b la! for the purposes of $rticle 006. %et!een the le"iti#ate fa#il and the ille"iti#ate fa#il there is presu#ed to be an intervenin" anta"onis# and inco#patibilit . The ille"iti#ate child is dis"racefull loo>ed do!n upon b the le"iti#ate fa#il I the le"iti#ate fa#il is, in turn, hated b the ille"iti#ate childI the latter considers the privile"ed condition of the for#er, and the resources of !hich it is thereb deprivedI the for#er, in turn, sees in the ille"iti#ate child nothin" but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a ble#ish bro>en in lifeI the la! does no #ore than reco"ni&e this truth, b avoidin" further "rounds of resent#ent. The rule in $rticle 006 has consistentl been applied b the 8ourt in several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that !here the ille"iti#ate child had half)brothers !ho !ere le"iti#ate, the latter had no ri"ht to the for#erBs inheritanceI 6 that the le"iti#ate collateral relatives of the #other cannot succeed fro# her ille"iti#ate childI 7 that a natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the le"iti#ate "randparentI 0 that the natural dau"hter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle !ho is a le"iti#ate brother of her natural fatherI 9 and that an ille"iti#ate child has no ri"ht to inherit ab intestato fro# the le"iti#ate children and relatives of his father. 11Indeed, the la! on succession is ani#ated b a unifor# "eneral intent, and thus no part should be rendered inoperative 11 b , but #ust al!a s be construed in relation to, an other part as to produce a har#onious !hole. 12 In passin", !e #i"ht, in eas "raphic presentation, collate the order of preference and concurrence in intestac e(pressed in $rticle 042 throu"h $rticle /-/3, inclusive, of the 8ivil 8odeI vi!.C
$rder of Preference 9a; <e"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants $rder of Concurrence 9a; <e"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants, Ille"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants, and Survivin" Spouse 9b; <e"iti#ate Parents and $scendants 9b; <e"iti#ate Parents and $scendants Ille"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants, and Survivin" Spouse 9c; Ille"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants 9in the absence of I8Ds and <P$s, the Ille"iti#ate Parents; 9d; Survivin" Spouse 9e; %rothers and Sisters? Nephe!s and Nieces 9f; Other 8ollateral Relatives 9!ithin the fifth civil de"ree; 9"; State 9d; Survivin" Spouse and Ille"iti#ate Parents 9e; %rothers and Sisters? Nephe!s and Nieces and Survivin" Spouse 9f; $lone 9"; $lone 9c; Ille"iti#ate 8hildren and Descendants and Survivin" Spouse

In her ans!er to the co#plaint, Modesta candidl ad#itted that she herself is not an intestate heir of ,uan Manuel. She is ri"ht. $ !ard 9ampon;, !ithout the benefit of for#al 9@udicial; adoption, is neither a co#pulsor nor a le"al heir. 1-

Ee #ust hold, nevertheless, that the co#plaint of petitioners see>in" the nullit of the $ffidavit of Self) $d@udication e(ecuted b Modesta, the three 9=; T8TBs issued to her favor, as !ell as the Deed of Renunciation and Auitclai# in favor of 5stanislaoa Manuel, !as properl dis#issed b the trial court. Petitioners, not bein" the real :parties)in)interest: 14 in the case, had neither the standin" nor the cause of action to initiate the co#plaint. The 8ourt, ho!ever, sees no sufficient reason to sustain the a!ard of a#ounts for #oral and e(e#plar da#a"es, attorne Bs fees and liti"ation e(penses. $n adverse result of a suit in la! does not #ean that its advocac is necessaril so !ron"ful as to @ustif an assess#ent of da#a"es a"ainst the actor. 15 EH5R5+OR5, the appealed decision of the Re"ional Trial 8ourt of Pan"asinan 9%ranch =4; is $++IRM5D, e(cept insofar as it has a!arded #oral and e(e#plar da#a"es, as !ell as attorne Bs fees and liti"ation e(penses, in favor of private respondents, !hich portion is hereb D5<5T5D. No special pronounce#ent on costs. SO ORD5R5D. Feliciano, Romero and %elo, &&., concur.

%oot"ot's / Rollo, pp. 4)2. 6 Desiderio ,urado, 8o##ents and ,urisprudence on Succession, 2th ed., /00/, pp. 36=)363. = 3- O.'. 9+irst S; No. =, p. /0. citing 4 Manresa //-. 3 /1- S8R$ .31. 1 /2/ S8R$ 2./. . 8orpus v. 8orpus, 21 S8R$ 1.4. 4 8ache v. *dan, /= S8R$ .0=. 2 <lorente v. Rodri"ue&, /- Phil. 121I $llarde v. $ba a, 14 Phil. 0-0. 0 $nuran v. $7uino and Orti&, =2 Phil. 60. /- <eonardo v. 8ourt of $ppeals, /6- S8R$ 20-. // ,avellana v. Ta o, . S8R$ /-36. /6 Sotto v. Sotto, 3= Phil. .22I $raneta v. 8oncepcion, 00 Phil. 4-0. /= <i# vs. Inter#ediate $ppellate 8ourt, '.R. No. .0.40, /2 October /022. /3 $ real)part )in)interest plaintiff is one !ho has a le"al ri"ht !hile a real)part )in)interest defendant is one !ho has a correlative obli"ations !hose acts or o#ission violates the le"al ri"ht of the for#er 9'an Hoc> v. 8ourt of $ppeals, /04 S8R$ 66= K/00/L;. Necessaril , a part )in)interest in a civil case is the part !ho stands to be benefited or in@ured b the @ud"#ent of the suit or the part entitled to avail of the suit. 9Salon"a v. Earner, %arnes M 8o., <td., 22 Phil /61I <an&ar v. 'uerrero, 60 S8R$ /-4;.

/1 Rubio v. 8ourt of $ppeals, /3/ S8R$ 322I Tiu v. 8ourt of $ppeals, 662 S8R$ 1/.