Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

104875 November 13, 1992 FLOR NTE F. M N COP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF PPE LS !"# F.F. CRU$ % CO., &NC., respondents. MELO, J.: ollo!in" the dis#issal of his petition for certiorari in $.%.&'.R. SP No. ()*+, b- the Thirteenth Division of respondent $ourt ./ustice 0uena .P1, 'on2a"a&Re-es and %bad Santos, /r., JJ.3 Pa"e *4, Rollo1, petitioner airs his concern over the propriet- thereof bclai#in" in the petition at hand that the disposition, in practical effect, allo!s a !rit of preli#inar- attach#ent issued b- the court of ori"in a"ainst his corporation to be i#ple#ented on his fa#il- ho#e !hich is ordinaril- e5e#pt fro# the #esne process. O!in" to the failure to pa- the sub&contract cost pursuant to a deed of assi"n#ent si"ned bet!een petitioner6s corporation and private respondent herein, the latter filed on /ul- ), ,787, a co#plaint for a su# of #one-, !ith a pra-er for preli#inar- attach#ent, a"ainst the for#er. %s a conse9uence of the order on /ul- (8, ,787, the correspondin" !rit for the provisional re#ed- !as issued on %u"ust ,,, ,787 !hich tri""ered the attach#ent of a parcel of land in :ue2on $ito!ned b- Manacop $onstruction President lorante . Manacop, herein petitioner. In lieu of the ori"inal co#plaint, private respondent sub#itted an a#ended co#plaint on %u"ust ,8, ,787 intended to substitute Manacop $onstruction !ith lorante . Manacop as defendant !ho is ;doin" business under the na#e and st-le of . . Manacop $onstruction $o., Inc.;. %fter the #otion for issuance of su##ons to the substituted defendant belo! !as "ranted, petitioner filed his ans!er to the a#ended co#plaint on Nove#ber (4, ,787. Petitioner6s O#nibus Motion filed on Septe#ber +, ,774 "rounded on .,1 irre"ularit- that attended the issuance of the disputed !rit inspite the absence of an affidavit therefor3 .(1 the feasibilit- of utili2in" the !rit prior to his sub#ission as part-&defendant, and .)1 e5e#ption fro# attach#ent of his fa#il- ho#e .pa"e ), Petition3 pa"e 8,Rollo1, did not #erit the

serious consideration of the court of ori"in. This nonchalant response constrained petitioner to elevate the #atter to respondent court !hich, as aforesaid, a"reed !ith the trial court on the stren"th of the ensuin" observations< %nent the petitioner6s clai# that the !rit of attach#ent !as issued !ithout =urisdiction because of the lac> of supportin" affidavit, ?e subscribe to the recent rulin" of the Hi"hest Tribunal that a verified state#ent incorporated in the co#plaint !ithout a separate affidavit is sufficient and valid to obtain the attach#ent .Nasser vs. $ourt of %ppeals, ,7, S$R% @8)1. In the case at bar, the ori"inal as !ell as the a#ended co#plaint filed bherein private respondent !ere verified, in substantial co#pliance !ith the re9uire#ents of the la!. inall-, the petitioner insists that the attached propert- is a fa#il- ho#e, havin" been occupied b- hi# and his fa#il- since ,7@(, and is therefore e5e#pt fro# attach#ent. The contention is not !ell&ta>en. ?hile %rticle ,+) of the a#il- $ode provides that the fa#il- ho#e is dee#ed constituted on a house and lot fro# the ti#e it is occupied as a fa#il- residence, it does not #ean that said article has a retroactive effect such that all e5istin" fa#ilresidences, petitioner6s included, are dee#ed to have been constituted as fa#il- ho#es at the ti#e of their occupation prior to the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode and henceforth, are e5e#pt fro# e5ecution for the pa-#ent of obli"ations incurred before the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode on %u"ust ), ,788 .Monde9uillo vs. 0reva, ,8+ S$R% @**1. Neither does %rticle ,*( of said $ode state that the provisions of $hapter (, Title V thereof have retroactive effect. It si#pl#eans that all e5istin" fa#ilresidences at the ti#e of the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode are considered fa#il- ho#es and are prospectivel- entitled to the benefits accorded to a fa#il- ho#e under the a#il$ode .Monde9uillo vs. 0reva, supra1. Since petitioner6s debt !as incurred as earl- as Nove#ber (+, ,78@, it preceded the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode. His propert- is therefore not e5e#pt fro# attach#ent .%nne5 ;O;, Plaintiff6s Position Paper and ,

Me#orandu# of %uthorities, p. @81. .pp. +&*, Decision3 pp. *A&*+, Rollo1. The atte#pt to reconsider respondent court6s stance !as to no avail .pa"e @+, Rollo13 hence, the petition at bar. Did respondent court err in dis#issin" the challen"e posed b- petitioner a"ainst the denial of his o#nibus #otionB ?e are not read- to accept the ne"ative aspersions put for!ard b- petitioner a"ainst respondent court in the petition before Cs. Petitioner harps on the supposition that the appellate court should not have pierced the veil of corporate fiction because he is distinct fro# the personalit- of his corporation and, therefore, the !rit of attach#ent issued a"ainst the corporation cannot be used to place his o!n fa#il- ho#e in custodia legis. This puerile ar"u#ent #ust suffer re=ection since the doctrine in co##ercial la! adverted to and e#plo-ed in e5culpation bpetitioner, durin" the pendenc- of his petition for certiorari in the appellate court and even at this sta"e, #a- not be per#itted to si#pl- sprout fro# no!here for such subtle e5peri#ent is prescribed b- the o#nibus #otion rule under Section 8, Rule ,+ of the Revised Rules of $ourt, thus< % #otion attac>in" a pleadin" or a proceedin" shall include all ob=ections then available, and all ob=ections not so included shall be dee#ed !aived. The spirit that surrounds the fore"oin" statutor- nor# is to re9uire the #ovant to raise all available e5ceptions for relief durin" a sin"le opportunit- so that #ultiple and piece&#eal ob=ections #a- be avoided .Rafanan, et al. vs. Rafanan , 78 Phil. ,*( D,7++E3 , Martin, Rules of $ourt !ith Notes and $o##ents, ,787 Rev. Fdition, p. A7(3 Savit vs. Rodas, @) Phil. ),4 D,7A,E1. %nother #ista>en notion entertained bpetitioner concerns the i#propriet- of issuin" the !rit of attach#ent on %u"ust ,,, ,787 !hen he ;!as not -et a defendant in this case.; This erroneous perception see#s to su""est that =urisdiction over the person of petitioner, as defendant belo!, #ust initiall- attach before the provisional re#edinvolved herein can be re9uested b- a plaintiff. % contrario, $hief /ustice Narvasa obliterated this unfounded assertion in Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals .(4A S$R% D,77,E1 !hose dissertation on the sub=ect as related and

applied to the present in9uir- is 9uite enli"htenin"< It is incorrect to theori2e that after an action or proceedin" has been co##enced and =urisdiction over the person of the plaintiff has been vested in the court, but before the ac9uisition of =urisdiction over the person of the defendant .either b- service of su##ons or his voluntar- sub#ission to the court6s authorit-1, nothin" can be validl- done b- the plaintiff or the court. It is !ron" to assu#e that the validit- of acts done durin" this period should be dependent on, or held in suspension until, the actual obtention of =urisdiction over the defendant6s person. The obtention b- the court of =urisdiction over the person of the defendant is one thin"3 9uite another is the ac9uisition of =urisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or over the sub=ect&#atter or nature of the action, or the res or ob=ect thereof. %n action or proceedin" is co##enced b- the filin" of the co#plaint or other initiator- pleadin". 0- that act, the =urisdiction of the court over the sub=ect #atter or nature of the action or proceedin" is invo>ed or called into activit-, and it thus that the court ac9uires over said sub=ect #atter or nature of the action. %nd it is b- that self&sa#e act of the plaintiff .or petitioner1 of filin" the co#plaint .or other appropriate pleadin"1 G b!hich he si"nifies his sub#ission to the court6s po!er and authorit- G that =urisdiction is ac9uired b- the court over his person. On the other hand, =urisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained, as above stated, b- the service of su##ons or other coercive process upon hi# or bhis voluntar- sub#ission to the authorit- of the court. The events that follo! the filin" of the co#plaint as a #atter of routine are !ell >no!n. %fter the co#plaint is filed, su##ons issues to the defendant, the su##ons is then trans#itted to the sheriff, and finall-, service of the su##ons is effected on the defendant in an- of the !a-s authori2ed b- the Rules of $ourt. There is thus ordinarilso#e appreciable interval of ti#e bet!een the da- of filin" of the co#plaint and the da- of service of su##ons of the defendant. Durin" this period, different acts #a- be done b- the (

plaintiff or b- the $ourt, !hich are of un9uestionable validit- and propriet-. %#on" these, for e5a#ple, are the appoint#ent of a "uardian ad litem, the "rant of authorit- to the plaintiff to prosecute the suit as a pauper liti"ant, the a#end#ent of the co#plaint b- the plaintiff as a #atter of ri"ht !ithout leave of court, authori2ation b- the $ourt of service of su##ons b- publication, the dis#issal of the action b- the plaintiff on #ere notice. This, too, is true !ith re"ard to the provisional re#edies of preli#inarattach#ent, preli#inar- in=unction, receivership or replevin. The- #a- be validl- and properl- applied for and "ranted even before the defendant is su##oned or heard fro#. % preli#inar- attach#ent #a- be defined, paraphrasin" the Rules of $ourt, as the provisional re#ed- in virtue of !hich a plaintiff or other proper part#a-, at the co##ence#ent of the action or at anti#e thereafter, have the propert- of the adverse part- ta>en into the custod- of the court as securit- for the satisfaction of an- =ud"#ent that #abe recovered. It is a re#ed- !hich is purel- statutor- in respect of !hich the la! re9uires a strict construction of the provisions "rantin" it. ?ithal no principle, statutor- or =urisprudential, prohibits its issuance b- an- court before ac9uisition of =urisdiction over the person of the defendant. Rule in fact spea>s of the "rant of the re#ed- ;at the co##ence#ent of the action or at an- ti#e thereafter,; The phrase, ;at the co##ence#ent of the action,; obviousl- refers to the date of the filin" of the co#plaint G !hich, as above pointed out, is the date that #ar>s ;the co##ence#ent of the action3 and the reference plainl- is to a ti#e before su##ons is served on the defendant, or even before su##ons issues. ?hat the rule is sa-in" 9uite clearl- is that after an action is properl- co##enced G bthe filin" of the co#plaint and the pa-#ent of all re9uisite doc>et and other fees G the plaintiff #a- applfor and obtain a !rit of preli#inarattach#ent upon fulfill#ent of the pertinent re9uisites laid do!n b- la!, and that he #a- do so at an- ti#e, either before or after service of su##ons on the defendant. %nd this

indeed, has been the i##e#orial practice sanctioned b- the courts< for the plaintiff or other proper part- to incorporate the application for attach#ent in the co#plaint or other appropriate pleadin" .counterclai#, cross&clai#, third&part- clai#1 and for the Trial $ourt to issue the !rit e ! parte at the co##ence#ent application other!ise sufficient in for# and substance. .at pp. )A@&)+4.1 Petitioner see>s to capitali2e on the le"al repercussion that ipso facto too> place !hen the co#plaint a"ainst hi# !as a#ended. He proffers the idea that the e5tinction of a co#plaint via a supersedin" one carries !ith it the cessation of the ancilliar- !rit of preli#inar- attach#ent. ?e could have a"reed !ith petitioner alon" this line had he e5pounded the adverse after#ath of an a#ended co#plaint in his o#nibus #otion. 0ut the four corners of his #otion in this respect filed on Septe#ber +, ,774 are circu#scribed b- other salient points set forth b- Cs relative to the propriet- of the assailed !rit itself. This bein" so, petitioner6s eleventh hour effort in pressin" a crucial factor for e5culpation #ust be rendered ineffective and barred b- the o#nibus #otion rule. Hastl-, petitioner is one of the belief that his abode at :ue2on $it- since ,7@( is a fa#ilho#e !ithin the purvie! of the a#il- $ode and therefore should not have been sub=ected to the ve5atious !rit. Iet, petitioner #ust concede that respondent court properl- applied the discussion conve-ed b- /ustice 'anca-co in this re"ard !hen he spo>e for the irst Division of this $ourt in Mode"uillo vs. #reva .,8+ S$R% @** D,774E1 that< %rticle ,++ of the provides as follo!s< a#il- $ode also

%rt. ,++. The fa#il- ho#e shall be e5e#pt fro# e5ecution, forced sale or attach#ent e5cept< .,1 or non&pa-#ent of ta5es3 .(1 or debts incurred prior to the constitution of the fa#il- ho#e3 .)1 or debts secured b- #ort"a"es on the pre#ises before or after such constitution3 and .A1 or debts due to laborers, #echanics, architects, builders, #aterial#en and others !ho have )

rendered service for the construction of the buildin". The e5e#ption provided as aforestated is effective fro# the ti#e of the constitution of the fa#il- ho#e as such, and lasts so lon" as anof its beneficiaries actuall- resides therein. In the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner !as constituted as a fa#il- ho#e !hether =udiciallor e5tra=udiciall- under the $ivil $ode. It beca#e a fa#il- ho#e b- operation of la! under %rticle ,+) of the a#il- $ode. It is dee#ed constituted as a fa#il- ho#e upon the effectivitof the a#il- $ode on %u"ust ), ,788 not %u"ust A, one -ear after its publication in the Manila $hronicle on %u"ust A, ,78@ .,788 bein" a leap -ear1. The contention of petitioner that it should be considered a fa#ilho#e fro# the ti#e it !as occupied b- petitioner and his fa#il- in ,7*7 is not !ell&ta>en. Cnder %rticle ,*( of the a#il$ode, it is provided that ;the provisions of this $hapter shall also "overn e5istin" fa#ilresidences insofar as said provisions are applicable.; It does not #ean that %rticles ,+( and ,+) of said $ode have a retroactive effect such that all e5istin" fa#il- residences are dee#ed to have been constituted as fa#il- ho#es at the ti#e of their occupation prior to the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode and are e5e#pt fro# e5ecution for the pa-#ent of obli"ations incurred before the effectivit- of the a#il$ode. %rticle ,*( si#pl- #eans that all e5istin" fa#ilresidences at the ti#e of the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode, are considered fa#il- ho#es and are prospectivel- entitled to the benefits accorded to a fa#il- ho#e under the a#il$ode. %rticle ,*( does not state that the provisions of $hapter (, Title V have a retroactive effect. Is the fa#il- ho#e of petitioner e5e#pt fro# e5ecution of the

#one- =ud"#ent aforecitedB No. The debt or liabilit- !hich !as the basis of the =ud"#ent arose or !as incurred at the ti#e of the vehicular accident on March ,*, ,7@* and the #one=ud"#ent arisin" therefro# !as rendered b- the appellate court on /anuar- (7, ,788. 0oth preceded the effectivit- of the a#il- $ode on %u"ust ), ,788. This case does not fall under the e5e#ptions fro# e5ecution provided in the a#il- $ode. .at pp. @@,&@@(1. Veril-, accordin" to petitioner, his debt !as incurred in ,78@ or prior to the effectivit- on %u"ust ), ,788 of the a#il- $ode .pa"e ,@, petition3 pa"e ((, Rollo1. This fact alone !ill #ilitate heavil- a"ainst the so&called e5e#ption b- sheer force of e5clusion e#bodied under para"raph (, %rticle ,++ of the a#il- $ode cited inMode"uillo. ?HFRF ORF, the petition is herebDISMISSFD, !ith costs a"ainst petitioner. SO ORDFRFD. #idin, Davide and Romero, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SF$OND DIVISION G.R. No. 1083'' Febr(!r) 1', 1994 *O+N P UL E. FERN N,E$, ET L., petitioners, vs. T+E COURT OF PPE LS !"# C RL&TO S. FERN N,E$, respondents. $rlinda #. $spe%o for petitioners. C.#. Car&on respondent. PUNO, J.: The le"al dispute bet!een the parties be"an !hen the petitioners filed $ivil $ase No. :& A++*@ for support a"ainst the private respondent before the RT$ of :ue2on $it-. The co#plaint !as dis#issed on Dece#ber 7, ,78* b- /ud"e %ntonio P. Solano, 1 !ho found that ;.t1here is nothin" in the #aterial alle"ations in the co#plaint that see>s to A ' Associates for private

co#pel .private respondent1 to reco"ni2e or ac>no!led"e .petitioners1 as his ille"iti#ate children,; and that there !as no sufficient and co#petent evidence to prove the petitioners filiation. 2 Petitioners plodded on. On ebruar- ,7, ,78@, the- file the case at bench, another action for reco"nition and support a"ainst the private respondent before another branch of the RT$ of :ue2on $it-, 0ranch 8@. The case !as doc>eted as $ivil $ase No. :& +4,,,. The evidence sho!s that VIOHFT% P. FS'CFRR%, sin"le, is the #other and "uardian ad litem of the t!o petitioners, $H%RO %NTONIO FRN%NDFJ and /OHN P%CH FRN%NDFJ, #et so#eti#e in ,78), at the Meralco $o#pound tennis courts. % Meralco e#plo-ee and a tennis enthusiast, $arlito used to spend his !ee>&ends re"ularl- at said courts, !here Violeta6s father served as tennis instructor. Violeta pointed to $arlito as the father of her t!o sons. She clai#ed that the- started their illicit se5ual relationship si5 .*1 #onths after their first #eetin". The tr-st resulted in the birth of petitioner $laro %ntonio on March ,, ,78A, and of petitioner /ohn Paul on not >no! that $arlito !as #arried until the birth of her t!o children. She averred the- !ere #arried in civil rites in October, ,78). In March, ,78+, ho!ever, she discovered that the #arria"e license !hich the- used !as spurious. To bolster their case, petitioners presented the follo!in" docu#entar- evidence< their certificates of live birth, identif-in" respondent $arlito as their father3 the baptis#al certificate of petitioner $laro !hich also states that his father is respondent $arlito3 photo"raphs of $arlito ta>en durin" the baptis# of petitioner $laro3 and pictures of respondent $arlito and $laro ta>en at the ho#e of Violeta Fs"uerra. Petitioners li>e!ise presented as !itnesses, Rosario $antoria, 3 Dr. Mila"ros Villanueva, 4 Rub- $hua $u, 5 and r. Hiberato ernande2. ' The first three !itnesses told the trial court that Violeta Fs"uerra had, at different ti#es,7 introduced the private respondent to the# as her ;husband;. r. ernande2, on the other hand, testified that $arlito !as the one !ho presented hi#self as the father of petitioner $laro durin" the latter6s baptis#. In defense, respondent $arlito denied Violeta6s alle"ations that he sired the t!o petitioners. He averred he onl- served as

one of the sponsors in the baptis# of petitioner $laro. This clai# !as corroborated b- the testi#on- of Rodante Pa"ta>han, an office#ate of respondent $arlito !ho also stood as a sponsor of petitioner $laro durin" his baptis#. The Private respondent also presented as !itness, idel %rca"ua, a !aiter of the Hi"hthouse Restaurant. He disputed Violeta6s alle"ation that she and respondent $arlito fre9uented the said restaurant durin" their affair. %rca"ua stated he never sa! Violeta Fs"uerra and respondent $arlito to"ether at the said restaurant. Private respondent also declared he onl- learned he !as na#ed in the birth certificates of both petitioners as their father after he !as sued for support in $ivil $ase No. :&A++*@. 0ased on the evidence adduced b- the parties, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners, vi(.< In vie! of the above, the $ourt concludes and so holds that the plaintiffs #inors .petitioners herein1 are entitled to the relief6s pra-ed for in the co#plaint. The defendant .herein private respondent1 is hereb- ordered to reco"ni2e $laro %ntonio $arlito ernande2, no! a"ed *, and /ohn Paul ernande2, no! a"ed A,K( as his sons. %s the defendant has ad#itted that he has a supervisor- =ob at the Meralco, he shall "ive the plaintiffs support in the a#ount of P(,444 each a #onth, pa-#ent to be delivered to Violeta Fs"uerra, the children6s #other and natural "uardian, !ith arrears rec>oned as of the filin" of the co#plaint on ebruar- ,7, ,78@. SO ORDFRFD. On appeal, the decision !as set aside and petitioners co#plaint dis#issed b- the respondent $ourt of %ppeals 8in its i#pu"ned decision, dated October (4, ,77(. It found that the ;proof relied upon b- the .trial1 court .is1 inade9uate to prove the .private respondent6s1 paternit- and filiation of .petitioners1.; It further held that the doctrine of res %udicata applied because of the dis#issal of the petitioners co#plaint in $ivil $ase No. :&A++*@. Petitioners6 #otion for reconsideration !as denied on Dece#ber ((, ,77(. Petitioners no! contend that the respondent appellate court erred in< .,1 not "ivin" full faith and credit to the testi#on- in of Violeta Fs"uerra3 .(1 not "ivin" !ei"ht and value to the testi#on- of ather Hiberato ernande23 .)1 not "ivin" probative value to the +

nu#erous pictures of respondent $arlito ernande2 ta>en durin" the baptis#al cere#on- and inside the bedroo# of Violeta Fs"uerra3 .A1 not "ivin" probative value to the birth certificates of petitioners3 .+1 "ivin" so #uch credence to the self&servin" and incredible testi#on- of respondent $arlito ernande23 and .*1 holdin" that the principle of res %udicata is applicable in the case at bar. ?e find no #erit in the petition. The rule is !ell&settled that findin"s of facts of the $ourt of %ppeals #a- be revie!ed bthis court onlunder e5ceptional circu#stances. One such situation is !hen the findin"s of the appellate court clash !ith those of the trial court as in the case at bench. It behooves us therefore to e5ercise our e5traordinar- po!er, and settle the issue of !hether the rulin" of the appellate court that private respondent is not the father of the petitioners is substantiated b- the evidence on record. ?e shall first e5a#ine the docu#entarevidence offered b- the petitioners !hich the respondent court re=ected as insufficient to prove their filiation. irstl-, !e hold that petitioners cannot rel- on the photo"raphs sho!in" the presence of the private respondent in the baptis# of petitioner $laro .F5h. ;0&8;, F5h. ;0&,(;, F5h. ;H; and F5h. ;I;1. These photo"raphs are far fro# proofs that private respondent is the father of petitioner $laro. %s e5plained b- the private respondent, he !as in the baptis# as one of the sponsors of petitioner $laro. His testi#on- !as corroborated b- Rodante Pa"ta>han. Secondl-, the pictures ta>en in the house of Violeta sho!in" private respondent sho!erin" affection to $laro fall short of the evidence re9uired to prove paternit.F5hibits ;0;, ;0&,;, ;0&(;, ;0&@;, ;0&,A; and ;0&,+;1. %s !e held in )an vs. )rocio, ,7( S$R% @*A, vi(< . . . The testi#onies of co#plainant and !itness Marilou Pan"anda#an, another #aid, to sho! unusual closeness bet!een Respondent and /e!el, li>e pla-in" !ith hi# and "ivin" hi# paternit-. The sa#e #ust be said of . . . .the1 pictures of /e!els and Respondent sho!in" alle"edl- their ph-sical li>eness to each other. Said evidence is inconclusive to prove paternit- and #uch less !ould prove violation of co#plaint6s person and honor. .F#phasis supplied1

Thirdl-, the baptis#al certificates .F5h. ;D;1 of petitioner $laro na#in" private respondent as his father has scant evidentiar- value. There is no sho!in" that private respondent participated in its preparation. On this score, !e held in #erciles vs. *+stems, et al. ,(8 S$R% +) .,78A1< %s to the baptis#al certificates, F5h. ;@&%;, the rule is that althou"h the baptis#al record of a natural child describes her as a child of the record the decedent had no intervenin", the baptis#al record cannot be held to be a voluntar- reco"nition of parenta"e. . . . The reason for this rule that canonical records do not constitute the authentic docu#ent prescribed b%rts. ,,+ and ,,@ to prove the le"iti#ate filiation of a child is that such canonical record is si#pl- proof of the onl- act to !hich the priest #acertif- b- reason of his personal >no!led"e, an act done b- hi#self or in his presence, li>e the ad#inistration of the sacra#ent upon a da- stated3 it is no proof of the declarations in the record !ith respect to the parenta"e of the child bapti2ed, or of prior and distinct facts !hich re9uire separate and concrete evidence. In Macandang vs. Court of Appeals, ,44 S$R% @) .,7841, !e also ruled that !hile baptis#al certificates #a- be considered public docu#ents, the- can onl- serve as evidence of the ad#inistration of the sacra#ents on the dates so specified. Theare not necessaril- co#petent evidence of the veracit- of entries therein !ith respect to the child6s paternit-. ourth, the certificates of live birth .F5h. ;%;3 F5h. ;0;1 of the petitioners identif-in" private respondent as their father are not also co#petent evidence on the issue of their paternit-. %"ain, the records do no sho! that private respondent had a hand in the preparation of said certificates. In re=ectin" these certificates, the rulin" of the respondent court is in accord !ith our pronounce#ent in Roces vs. Local Civil Registrar, ,4( Phil. ,4+4 .,7+81,vi(< . . . Section + of %ct No. )@7) and %rticle (84 of the $ivil $ode of the Philippines e5plicit- prohibited, not onl- the na#in" of the father or the child born outside !edloc>, !hen the birth certificates, or the reco"nition, is not filed or #ade b- hi#, but, also, the state#ent of an- infor#ation or circu#stances b- !hich he could be *

identified. %ccordin"l-, the Hocal $ivil Re"istrar had no authorit- to #a>e or record the paternit- of an ille"iti#ate child upon the infor#ation of a third person and the certificate of birth of an ille"iti#ate child, !hen si"ned onlb- the #other of the latter, is inco#petent evidence of fathership of said child. .F#phasis supplied1 ?e reiterated this rule in 0erciles, op. cit., !hen !e held that ;a birth certificate no si"ned b- the alle"ed father therein indicated is not co#petent evidence of paternit-.; ?e have also revie!ed the relevant testi#onies of the !itnesses for the petitioners and !e are satisfied that the respondent appellate court properlcalibrated their !ei"ht. Petitioners capitali2e on the testi#on- of ather Hiberato ernande2 !ho sole#ni2ed the baptis#al cere#on- of petitioner $laro. He declared on the !itness stand< : Do -ou recall ather, !hether on that occasion !hen -ou called for the father and the #other of the child, that both father and #other !ere presentB % Ies. : ?ould -ou able to reco"ni2ed the father and the #other !ho !ere present at that ti#eB % Ies. : Please point to the courtB % There .!itness pointin" to defendant, $arlito ernande21. the

.TSN, Ma- (), ,78*, pp. ,A&,*1 Ho!ever, on cross e5a#ination, ather ernande2 ad#itted that he has to be sho!n a picture of the private respondent bVioleta Fs"uerra to reco"ni2e the private respondent, vi(, : ?hen !as the, appro5i#atel-, !hen -ou !ere first sho!n this picture bVioleta Fs"uerraB % I cannot recall. : %t least the #onth and the -earB % It #ust be in ,78*. : ?hat #onth in ,78*. % It is difficult. . . : ?hen !as the first ti#e -ou >no! -ou are "oin" to testif- hereB % Het us see, -ou ca#e there t!o ti#es and first one !as -ou !ant to "et a baptis#al certificate and then the second ti#e !as I as>ed -ou for !hat is thisB %nd -ou said it is for the court. : On the second ti#e that Ms. Violeta Fs"uerra !ent to -our place, -ou !ere alread- infor#ed that -ou !ill testifhere before this Honorable $ourtB % Ies. : %nd -ou !ere infor#ed b- this Ms. Violeta Fs"uerra that this #an !earin" the blue T&shirt is the fatherB % Ies, sir. : So, it !as Violeta Fs"uerra !ho. . . % Ies. .TSN, Ma- (), ,78*, pp. ,8 to ((1 Indeed, there is no proof that ather ernande2 is a close friend of Violeta Fs"uerra and the private respondent !hich should render un9uestionable his identification of the private respondent durin" petitioner $laro6s baptis#. In the absence of this proof, !e are not prepared to concede that ather ernande2 !ho officiates nu#erous baptis#al cere#onies @

: or instance, =ust "ive us #ore specificall- !hat 9uestion do -ou re#e#ber havin" as>ed hi#B % Ies, li>e for e5a#ple, do renounce Satan and his !or>sB -ou

: ?hat !as the ans!er of ernande2B % Ies, I do. : I =ust !ant to be sure, ather, !ill -ou please loo> at the defendant a"ain. I !ant to be sure if he is the person !ho appeared before -ou on that occasionB % I a# sure.

da- in and da- out can re#e#ber the parents of the children he has bapti2ed. ?e cannot also disturb the findin"s of the respondent court on the credibilit- of Violeta Fs"uerra. Her testi#on- is hi"hl- suspect as it is self&servin" and b- itself, is insufficient to prove the paternit- of the petitioners. ?e shall not pass upon the correctness of the rulin" of the respondent appellate court appl-in" the doctrine of res %udicata as additional reason in dis#issin" petitioners action for reco"nition and support. It is unnecessar- considerin" our findin"s that petitioners evidence failed to substantiate their cause of action. IN VIF? ?HFRFO , the petition is DISMISSFD and the Decision of the respondent court in $%&'.R. $V No. (7,8( is % IRMFD. $osts a"ainst petitioners. SO ORDFRFD. -arvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, and -ocon, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 14325' (-(./ 28, 2001

;The late Spouses Dr. /ose L. ernande2, and 'enerosa %. de Venecia !ere the re"istered o!ners of a parcel of land located at Da"upan $it- covered b- T$T No. T&7(*@ .+(+1 consistin" of ,7A s9. #eters, and the t!o&storebuildin" constructed thereon covered b- Ta5 Declaration ((&+7(&,. It is undisputed that 'enerosa "ave birth to a bab- bona#ed Ro"elio !ho died !hen he !as onl- t!elve .,(1 -ears old as paral-tic. In the testi#on- of Ro#eo ernande2 .TSN, %u". ),, ,77A, pp. 7&,A1 it !as revealed that the late Spouses bein" childless b- the death of their son, purchased fro# a certain Milian" for P(4.44 a one .,1 #onth bab- bo-. The bo- bein" referred to !as later on identified as Rodolfo ernande2, the herein appellant. %ppellant !as ta>en care of b- the couple and !as sent to school and beca#e a dental technician. He lived !ith the couple until the- beca#e old and disabled. On /ul- (4, ,78(, /ose L. ernande2 died thereb- leavin" his !ife 'enerosa %. de Venecia and Rodolfo ernande2 and an estate consistin" of the follo!in"< .a1 ;% parcel of land .Hot 7,)(, before Hot No. AAA&$, of the $adastral Surve- of Da"upan, $adastral $ase No. A,, '.H.R.O. $adastral Record No. 7(+1, situated in the 0arrio of Pantal, $it- of Da"upan. 0ounded on the NF. b- Hot No. AA@3 on the SF. b- Hot No. 7,)A3 on the S?. b- the %rellano Street3 and on the N?. b- Hot No. 7,),. $ontainin" an area of One Hundred Ninetour .,7A1 s9uare #eters, #ore or less. $overed b- Transfer $ertificate of Title No. +(+ .T&7(*@1 Pan"asinan Re"istr- of Deeds.; .b1 ;% t!o .(1 store- residential buildin" #ade of concrete and !ood, '. I. roofin" !ith a floor area of ,+A s9uare #eters and ,(* s9uare #eters of the first and second floor, respectivel-. Declared under Ta5 Decl. No. ((& +7(&, and assessed therein at P(*,444.44.; On %u"ust ),, ,787, appellant and 'enerosa de Venecia e5ecuted a Deed of F5tra&=udicial Partition dividin" and allocatin" to the#selves the follo!in"< 8

RO,OLFO FERN N,E$ !"# MERCE,ES C R NTO FERN N,E$, +US0 N, !"# 1&FE, E,,&E C. FERN N,E$ !"# LU$ FERN N,E$, SPOUSES, petitioners, vs. ROMEO FERN N,E$, POTENC& NO FERN N,E$, FR NC&SCO FERN N,E$, *UL&T FERN N,E$, 1&LL& M FERN N,E$, M R2 FERN N,E$, LE* N,RO FERN N,E$, GER R,O FERN N,E$, RO,OLFO FERN N,E$ !"# GREGOR&O FERN N,E$, respondents. GON$ G 3RE2ES, J.4 0efore Cs is a petition for revie! on certiorari assailin" the decision, of the respondent $ourt of %ppeals dated Dece#ber ((, ,777 affir#in" the decision( of the Re"ional Trial $ourt 0ranch A4, Da"upan $it- in an action for nullit- of contracts, partition, recover- of possession and da#a"es in favor of plaintiffs&appellees, herein respondents. The facts as found b- the respondent $ourt of %ppeals, are as follo!s<)

To< 'enerosa de Venecia Vda. De ernande2 .a1 ,,7.+ s9. #. located on south!estern portion of the land3 the

.b1 ?hole residential house above& #entioned3 To< Rodolfo V. ernande2 @A.+ s9uare #eters to be ta>en on the northeastern portion of the land. On the sa#e da-, 'enerosa de Venecia e5ecuted a Deed of %bsolute Sale in favor of Fddie ernande2, appellant6s son over the follo!in"< ;% portion of One Hundred Nineteen and One&Half .,,7.+1 S9uare #eters includin" the buildin" andKor all e5istin" thereon to be ta>en fro# the south!estern portion of the parcel of land described as follo!s, to !it< 6% parcel of land .Hot No. 7,)(, before Hot No. AAA&$, of the $adastral Surve- of Da"upan, $adastral $ase No. A,, '.H.R.O. $adastral Record No. 7(+1, situated in the 0arrio of Pantal, $it- of Da"upan. 0ounded on the NF. b- Hot No. AA@3 on the SF b- Hot No. 7,)A3 on the S?. b- the %rellano Street3 and on the N?. b- Hot No. 7,),. $ontainin" an area of One Hundred and Ninet-& our .,7A1, S9uare Meters, #ore or less, covered bTR%NS FR $FRTI I$%TF O TITHF NO. +(+ .T&7(*@1 G Pan"asinan Re"istrof Deeds; .F5h. ;8;, $ hi&its for the Defendants1 %fter learnin" the transaction, Ro#eo, Potenciano, rancisco, /ulita, ?illia#, Mar-, %le=andro, 'erardo, Rodolfo and 're"orio, all surna#ed ernande2, bein" nephe!s and nieces of the deceased /ose L. ernande2, their father 'enaro bein" a brother of /ose, filed on Septe#ber (,, ,77A, an action to declare the F5tra&/udicial Partition of Fstate and Deed of Sale void ab initio .doc>eted as $ivil $ase No. 7A& 444,*&D1. The co#plaint alle"ed that defendants .herein appellants1, #otivated b-

un#iti"ated "reed, deliberate and #alicious acts of deprivin" the plaintiff and other heirs .herein appellees1 of the deceased spouses, !ithout basis of heirship or an- iota of ri"hts to succession or inheritance, ta>in" advanta"e of the total ph-sical and #ental incapacit- of the deceased 'enerosa de Venecia a""ravated bunla!ful sche#e confederated, colluded and conspired !ith each other in causin" the fa>e, si#ulated "rosslinauthentic contracts purportin" to be e5ecuted on %u"ust ),, ,787 and =ointl- on the sa#e date, caused the e5ecution of the deed of absolute sale purportedl- si"ned b'enerosa de Venecia coverin" the sa#e propert- described in the deed of e5tra&=udicial partition and b- virtue of the said acts, appellants !ere able to secure ne! land titles in their favor .Records, pp. )&A, $o#plaint1. %ppellees thus pra-ed that the Deed of F5tra&=udicial Partition, Deed of %bsolute Sale and Transfer $ertificate of Title No. +A*A, be declared void fro# the be"innin". Si"nificantl-, in defendants alle"ed< their ans!er,

;,*. That the deceased Sps. /ose L. ernande2 and 'enerosa !ere husband and !ife blessed !ith one child the herein defendant Rodolfo V. ernande2 whom the+ ac.nowledged during their lifetime. .italics supplied1 ,8. That the Deed of F5tra=udicial Partition and Deed of %bsolute Sale e5ecuted bthe late 'enerosa de Venecia and defendant Rodolfo V. ernande2 !hich are no! in 9uestion !ere all #ade !ith the full >no!led"e, consent and approval of the parties thereto and for value.; .Records, pp. (4& (,, %ns!er1.; On Ma- ,4, ,77*, the Re"ional Trial $ourt rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the dispositive portion reads<A ;?HFRF ORF, =ud"#ent is herebrendered in favor of plaintiffs and a"ainst the defendants3 ,. Declarin" the Deed of F5tra&/udicial Partition dated %u"ust ),, ,787 .F5h. ;) 1, the Deed of %bsolute Sale dated 7

%u"ust ),, ,787 .F5h. 8;1, the T$T No. +A*A,, and the T$T No. +A*7) null and void3 (. Orderin" the defendants to reconve- to, and to peacefullsurrender to the plaintiffs the possession of the house and lot in 9uestion3 ). Orderin" the defendants, =ointl- and severall- to pa- to plaintiffs the follo!in"< .a1 P+4,444.44 as co#pensatorda#a"es3 .b1 P,44,444.44 da#a"es3 .c1 P(4,444.44 fees3 and as as #oral

baptis#al certificate !hich !as issued in ,787 sho!ed that he !as bapti2ed on Nove#ber (A, ,7)A. The court found that the e5tra&=udicial partition and the deed of absolute sale !ere prepared and e5ecuted under abnor#al, unusual and irre"ular circu#stances !hich rendered the docu#ents null and void. Defendants Rodolfo ernande2 et. al appealed to the respondent $ourt of %ppeals !hich affir#ed the trial court6s =ud"#ent in its assailed decision dated Dece#ber ((, ,777. In resolvin" the appeal, the respondent court delved into the le"iti#ac- of defendant& appellant Rodolfo ernande26 filiation !ith the deceased spouses. It found that appellants6 evidence !hich consisted of a certificate of baptis# statin" that he !as a child of the spouses ernande2 and the application for reco"nition of ri"hts to bac> pa- under R% 87@ filed b- Dr. /ose ernande2, !herein the latter referred to Rodolfo as his son, did not ac9uire evidentiar- !ei"ht to prove his filiation. The appellate court concluded that !hile baptis#al certificates #a- be considered public docu#ents, the- !ere evidence onlto prove the ad#inistration of the sacra#ents on the dates therein specified, but not the veracit- of the state#ents or declarations #ade therein !ith respect to his >insfol>3 that !hile the application for bac> pa- !as a public docu#ent, it !as not e5ecuted to ad#it the filiation of /ose L. ernande2 !ith Rodolfo V. ernande2, the herein appellant3 that the public docu#ent conte#plated in %rticle ,@( of the a#il$ode referred to the !ritten ad#ission of filiation e#bodied in a public docu#ent purposel- e5ecuted as an ad#ission of filiation and not as obtainin" in this case !herein the public docu#ent !as e5ecuted as an application for the reco"nition of ri"hts to bac> pa- under Republic %ct No. 87@. %ppellants Rodolfo ernande2 et al filed their #otion for reconsideration !hich !as denied in a resolution dated Ma- ,@, (444.* Rodolfo ernande2 et al filed the instant petition for revie! !ith the follo!in" issues< I THF $OCRT O %PPF%HS FRRFD IN % IRMIN' THF /CD'MFNT O THF TRI%H $OCRT ORDFRIN' THF DF FND%NTS, PFTITIONFRS HFRFIN, TO RF$ONVFI TO, %ND PF%$F CHHI SCRRFNDFR TO THF PH%INTI S, RFSPONDFNTS HFRFIN, THF ,4

attorne-6s

.d1 P(,444.44 as liti"ation costs. SO ORDFRFD.; In so rulin", the trial court found that defendant Rodolfo ernande2 !as not a le"iti#ate nor a le"all- adopted child of spouses Dr. /ose ernande2 and 'enerosa de Venecia ernande2, hence Rodolfo could not inherit fro# the spouses. Rodolfo6s clai# as a son of the deceased spouses ernande2 !as ne"ated b- the fact that .,1 he onl- reached hi"h school and !as told to stop stud-in" so that he could help in the clinic of Dr. ernande2, .(1 he failed to present an- birth certificate, .)1 the boo> entitled ercolla clan !hich !as co#piled and edited b- respected people such as %#bassador %r#ando ernande2, /ustice /or"e $o9uia and Teresita $o9uia&Sison, sho!ed the "eneolo"- of the fa#il- of Dr. /ose and 'enerosa ernande2 !ithout a child3 a pedi"ree #a- be ad#itted in evidence to prove the facts of "enealo"and that entries in a fa#il- bible or other fa#il- boo>s or charts, en"ravin"s or rin"s, fa#il- portraits and the li>e, #a- be received as evidence of pedi"ree, + .A1 the certification issued bthe Records Mana"e#ent and %rchives Office that there !as no available infor#ation about the birth of petitioner Rodolfo to the spouses ernande2, .+1 the application of Dr. /ose ernande2 for bac>pa- certificate na#in" petitioner Rodolfo as his son !as doubtful considerin" that there !ere ble#ishes or alteration in the ori"inal cop-3 .*1 that Rodolfo6s baptis#al certificate !as spurious and falsified since there !ere no available records of baptis# !ith the parish fro# /une @, ,7)4 to %u"ust 8, ,7)*, !hile Rodolfo6s

POSSFSSION O THF HOCSF %ND HOT IN :CFSTION 0F$%CSF THF S%ID ORDFR IS P%HP%0HI $ONTR%RI TO THF %DMITTFD %$TS THF H%? %ND /CRISPRCDFN$F, OR THF OHHO?IN' RF%SONS< .a1 THF HOCSF %ND HOT IN :CFSTION %RF %DMITTFD 0I THF P%RTIFS TO 0F $ON/C'%H PROPFRTIFS O THF SPOCSFS DR. /OSF L. FRN%NDFJ %ND 'FNFROS% DF VFNF$I%, %ND IV .b1 RFSPONDFNTS, ?HO %RF NOT RFH%TFD TO 'FNFROS% DF VFNF$I% 0I $ONS%N'CINITI, %RF NOT HFR INTFST%TF HFIRS %ND $%NNOT SC$$FFD %0 INTFST%TO TO HFR INTFST%TF FST%TF. II THF $OCRT O %PPF%HS FRRFD IN % IRMIN' THF /CD'MFNT O THF TRI%H $OCRT DF$H%RIN' .,1 THF DFFD O FMTR%&/CDI$I%H P%RTITION D%TFD %C'CST ),, ,787 .FMH. 6)61, THF DFFD O %0SOHCTF S%HF %HSO D%TFD %C'CST ),, ,787 .FMH. 6861, T$T NO. +A*A,, %ND T$T NO. +A*7) NCHH %ND VOID OR THF OHHO?IN' RF%SONS< .a1 IT H%S NO %$TC%H 0%SIS DCHI FST%0HISHFD 0I THF FVIDFN$F ON RF$ORD, %ND .b1 RFSPONDFNTS, NOT 0FIN' P%RTIFS TO THF :CFSTIONFD DFFDS, H%VF NO PFRSON%HITI TO $ONTFST THF V%HIDITI O S%ID DO$CMFNTS. III THF $OCRT O %PPF%HS FRRFD IN % IRMIN' THF TRI%H $OCRT6S INDIN' TH%T THF PFTITIONFR RODOH O FRN%NDFJ ?%S NOT THF $HIHD O SPOCSFS DR. /OSF L. FRN%NDFJ %ND 'FNFROS% DF VFNF$I% #$CA/*$ .a1 THF IHI%TION O PFTITIONFR RODOH O FRN%NDFJ $OCHD NOT 0F $OHH%TFR%HHI %TT%$LFD IN %N %$TION OR DF$H%R%TION O NCHHITI O DO$CMFNTS, P%RTITION, RF$OVFRI O

POSSFSSION %ND3

%ND

D%M%'FS,

.b1 THF DF$ISION %S % IRMFD 0I THF $OCRT O %PPF%HS DID NOT DF$H%RF IN THF DISPOSITIVF PORTION THFRFO TH%T PFTITIONFR RODOH O FRN%NDFJ IS NOT THF $HIHD O SPOCSFS DR. /OSF FRN%NDFJ %ND 'FNFROS% FRN%NDFJ.

THF $OCRT O %PPF%HS FRRFD IN % IRMIN' THF %?%RD O D%M%'FS %ND %TTORNFI6S FFS TO THF RFSPONDFNTS, THFRF 0FIN' NO %$TC%H 0%SIS IN THF % IRMFD DF$ISION TO /CSTI I SC$H %?%RD. The principal issue for resolution in this case concerns the ri"hts of the parties to the con=u"al propert- of the deceased spouses ernande2. Petitioners alle"e that the respondent court found the e5tra&=udicial partition e5ecuted bpetitioner Rodolfo ernande2 and 'enerosa ernande2, !ido! of Dr. /ose ernande2, null and void because the for#er alle"edl- failed to prove le"iti#ate filiation to his putative father, the late Dr. /ose ernande2. Petitioners, contend, ho!ever, that the burden of proof lies !ith the respondents because the- !ere the ones contestin" the filiation of Rodolfo ernande2. The- insist that both lo!er courts had no po!er to pass upon the #atter of filiation because it could not be collaterall- attac>ed in the present action but in a separate and independent action directl- i#pu"nin" such filiation. ?e are not persuaded. It #ust be noted that the respondents6 principal action !as for the declaration of absolute nullit- of t!o docu#ents, na#el-< deed of e5tra&=udicial partition and deed of absolute sale, and not an action to i#pu"n one6s le"iti#ac-. The respondent court ruled on the filiation of petitioner Rodolfo ernande2 in order to deter#ine Rodolfo6s ri"ht to the deed of e5tra&=udicial partition as the alle"ed le"iti#ate heir of the spouses ernande2. ?hile !e are a!are that one6s le"iti#ac- can be 9uestioned onl- in a direct action seasonabl- filed b- the proper part-, this doctrine has no application in the instant case considerin" that respondents6 clai# !as that petitioner Rodolfo !as not born to the deceased spouses /ose and 'enerosa ,,

ernande23 !e do not have a situation !herein the- .respondents1 den- that Rodolfo !as a child of their uncle6s !ife. The case of #enite(!#adua vs. Court of Appeals,@ !hich has a si#ilar factual bac>drop is instructive< ;% careful readin" of the above articles8 !ill sho! that the- do not conte#plate a situation, li>e in the instant case, !here a child is alle"ed not to be the child of nature or biolo"ical child of a certain couple. Rather, these articles "overn a situation !here a husband .or his heirs1 denies as his o!n a child of his !ife. Thus, under %rticle ,**, it is the husband !ho can i#pu"n the le"iti#ac- of said child b- provin"< .,1 it !as ph-sicall- i#possible for hi# to have se5ual intercourse, !ith his !ife !ithin the first ,(4 da-s of the )44 da-s !hich i##ediatel- preceded the birth of the child3 .(1 that for biolo"ical or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been his child3 .)1 that in case of children conceived throu"h artificial inse#ination, the !ritten authori2ation or ratification b- either parent !as obtained throu"h #ista>e, fraud, violence, inti#idation or undue influence. %rticles ,@4 and ,@, reinforce this readin" as the- spea> of the prescriptive period !ithin !hich the husband or an- of his heirs should file the action i#pu"nin" the le"iti#ac- of said child. Doubtless then, the appellate court did not err !hen it refused to appl- these articles to the case at bench. or the case at bench is not !here the heirs of the late Vicente are contendin" that petitioner is not his child b- Isabel. Rather, their clear sub#ission is that petitioner !as not born to Vicente and Isabel. Our rulin" in Ca&at&at!Lim vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, ,** S$R% A+,, A+@ cited in the i#pu"ned decision is apropos, vi(< ;Petitioners6 recourse to %rt. (*) of the Ne! $ivil $ode .no! %rt. ,@4 of the a#il- $ode1 is not !ell ta>en. This le"al provision refers to an action to i#pu"n le"iti#ac-. It is inapplicable to this case because this is not an action to i#pu"n the le"iti#ac- of a child, but an action of the private respondents to clai# their inheritance as le"al heirs of their childless deceased aunt. Thedo not clai# that

petitioner Violeta $abatbat Hi# is an ille"iti#ate child of the deceased, but that she is not the decedent6s child at all. 0ein" neither le"all- adopted child, nor an ac>no!led"ed natural child, nor a child ble"al fiction of Fsperan2a $abatbat, Violeta is not a le"al heir of the deceased.;; Thus, it is necessar- to pass upon the relationship of petitioner Rodolfo ernande2 to the deceased spouses ernande2 for the purpose of deter#inin" !hat le"al ri"ht Rodolfo has in the propert- sub=ect of the e5tra&=udicial partition. In fact, the issue of !hether or not Rodolfo ernande2 !as the son of the deceased spouses /ose ernande2 and 'enerosa de Venecia !as s9uarelraised b- petitioners in their pre&trial brief7 filed before the trial court, hence theare no! estopped fro# assailin" the trial court6s rulin" on Rodolfo6s status. ?e a"ree !ith the respondent court !hen it found that petitioner Rodolfo failed to prove his filiation !ith the deceased spouses ernande2. Such is a factual issue !hich has been thorou"hl- passed upon and settled both b- the trial court and the appellate court. actual findin"s of the $ourt of %ppeals are conclusive on the parties and not revie!able b- this $ourt and the- carreven #ore !ei"ht,4 !hen the $ourt of %ppeals affir#s the factual findin"s of the trial court.,, ?e accordin"l- find no co"ent reason to disa"ree !ith the respondent court6s evaluation of the evidence presented, thus<,( ;The Records Mana"e#ent and %rchives Office is bereft of an- records of the birth of appellant Rodolfo ernande2. On October ,,, ,77+, it issued a certification !orded as follo!s< ;This is to certif- that the Re"ister of 0irths for the Municipalitof Da"upan, Pan"asinan in the -ear ,78A is not on file !ith the National %rchives, hence, there is no available infor#ation about the birth of Rodolfo V. ernande2 alle"ed to have been born on Nove#ber (A, ,7)A to the spouses /ose L. ernande2 and 'enerosa de Venecia in Da"upan, Pan"asinan; .Records, p. ,A*1

,(

%ppellant nonetheless, contends that the %pplication for Reco"nition of 0ac> Pa- Ri"hts Cnder %ct No. 87@ is a public docu#ent and a conclusive proof of the le"iti#ate filiation bet!een hi# and the deceased spouses .Rollo, p. A,, %ppellants6 0rief1. ?e do not a"ree. It #a- be conceded that the %pplication for Reco"nition of 0ac> Pa- Ri"hts Cnder %ct No. 87@ is a public docu#ent nevertheless, it !as not e5ecuted to ad#it the filiation of /ose L. ernande2 !ith Rodolfo V. ernande2, the herein appellant. The public docu#ent conte#plated in %rticle ,@( of the a#il- $ode refer to the !ritten ad#ission of filiation e#bodied in a public docu#ent purposel- e5ecuted as an ad#ission of filiation and not as obtainin" in this case !herein the public docu#ent !as e5ecuted as an application for the reco"nition of ri"hts to bac> pa- under Republic %ct No. 87@. Section (), Rule ,)( of the Revised Rules on Fvidence provides< ;SF$TION )(. Pu&lic documents as evidence G Docu#ents consistin" of entries in public records #ade in the perfor#ance of a dut- b- a public officer are pri#a facie evidence of the facts therein stated. %ll other public docu#ents are evidence, even a"ainst a third person, of the fact !hich "ave rise to their e5ecution and of the date of the latter.; The rule is not absolute in the sense that the contents of a public docu#ent are conclusive evidence a"ainst the contractin" parties as to the truthfulness of the state#ents #ade therein. The- constitute onl- pri#a facie evidence of the facts !hich "ive rise to their e5ecution and of the date of the latter. Thus, a baptis#al certificate issued b- a Spanish priest under the Spanish re"i#e constitutes pri#a facie evidence of the facts certified to b- the parish priest fro# his o!n >no!led"e such as the ad#inistration of the sacra#ent on the da- and in the place and #anner set forth in the certificate3 but it does not constitute proof of the state#ents #ade therein concernin" the parenta"e of the person bapti2ed . rancisco, Fvidence, ,77A ed., p. +,*,

citin" 0arcia vs. 0a%ul, +) Phil. *A(3 Adriano vs. de Jesus, () Phil. )+43 #uan vs. Ar"ui(a, + Phil. ,7)3 *iguion vs. *iguion, 8 Phil. @1. Public docu#ents are perfect evidence of the fact !hich "ive rise to their e5ecution and of the date of the latter if the act !hich the officer !itnessed and certified to or the date !ritten bhi# are not sho!n to be false3 but the- are not conclusive evidence !ith respect to the truthfulness of the state#ents #ade therein b- the interested parties .Martin, Rules of $ourt in the Philippines !ith Note and $o##ents, vol. A, p. +@@1. $orollaril-, the %pplication for Reco"nition of 0ac> Pa- Ri"hts Cnder %ct No. 87@ is onl- a proof that /ose L. ernande2 filed said application on /une +, ,7+A in Da"upan $it- but it does not prove the veracit- of the declaration and state#ent contained in the said application that concern the relationship of the applicant !ith herein appellant. In li>e #anner, it is not a conclusive proof of the filiation of appellant !ith his alle"ed father, /ose L. ernande2 the contents bein", onl- pri#a facie evidence of the facts stated therein. %dditionall-, appellant clai#s that he en=o-ed and possessed the status of bein" a le"iti#ate child of the spouses openl- and continuousl- until thedied .Rollo, p. A(3 %ppellants6 0rief1. Open and continuous possession of the status of a le"iti#ate child is #eant the en=o-#ent b- the child of the position and privile"es usuallattached to the status of a le"iti#ate child such as bearin" the paternal surna#e, treat#ent b- the parents and fa#il- of the child as le"iti#ate, constant attendance to the child6s support and education, and "ivin" the child the reputation of bein" a child of his parents .Se#pio&Di-, The a#il$ode of the Philippines, pp. (A+&(A*1. Ho!ever, it #ust be noted that, as !as held in 1uismundo vs. 2CC, ,)( S$R% +74, possession of status of a child does not in itself constitute an ac>no!led"#ent3 it is onl- a "round for a child to co#pel reco"nition b- his assu#ed parent. Hastl-, to substantiate his clai# of bein" a le"iti#ate child appellant presented a baptis#al certificate issued b- r. Rene Mendo2a of the St. /ohn Metropolitan $athedral of ,)

Da"upan $it- on %u"ust ,4, ,787 statin" therein that appellant is a child of the late spouses havin" been born on Nove#ber ,+, ,7)A and bapti2ed on Nove#ber (A, ,7)A .F5h. ;,; F5hibits for the Defendants1. %s stated, !hile baptis#al certificates #a- be considered public docu#ents, the- are evidence onl- to prove the ad#inistration of the sacra#ents on the dates therein specified, but not the veracit- of the state#ents or declarations #ade therein !ith respect to his >insfol> .Re+es vs. Court of Appeals, ,)+ S$R% A)71. It #a- be ar"ued that a baptis#al certificate is one of the other #eans allo!ed b- the Rules of $ourt and special la!s of provin" filiation but in this case, the authenticitof the baptis#al certificate !as doubtful !hen r. Ra-#undo :. de 'u2#an of St. /ohn the Fvan"elist Parish of Hin"a-en& Da"upan, Da"upan $it- issued a certification on October ,*, ,77+ attestin" that the records of baptis# on /une @, ,7)4 to %u"ust 8, ,7)* !ere all da#a"ed .Records, p. ,A8, F5h. ;';1. Neither the fa#il- portrait offered in evidence establishes a sufficient proof of filiation Pictures do not constitute proof of filiation .Re-es vs. $ourt of %ppeals1 .supra1. In fine, the evidence presented b- appellant did not ac9uire evidentiar- !ei"ht to prove his filiation. $onse9uentl- the F5tra&/udicial Partition dated %u"ust ),, ,787 e5ecuted b- appellant Rodolfo ernande2 and 'enerosa de Venecia is null and void.; $onsiderin" the fore"oin" findin"s, petitioner Rodolfo is not a child b- nature of the spouses ernande2 and not a le"al heir of Dr. /ose ernande2, thus the sub=ect deed of e5tra&=udicial settle#ent of the estate of Dr. /ose ernande2 bet!een 'enerosa vda. de ernande2 and Rodolfo is null and void insofar as Rodolfo is concerned ,)pursuant to %rt. ,,4+ of the Ne! $ivil $ode !hich states< ;% partition !hich includes a person believed to be an heir, but !ho is not, shall be void onl- !ith respect to such person.; Petitioners ne5t contend that respondents ad#itted that the propert- in 9uestion !as the con=u"al propert- of the late spouses Dr. /ose ernande2 and 'enerosa de Venecia, thus !hen Dr. /ose ernande2 died intestate in ,78(, his estate consisted solel- of N pro indiviso of the con=u"al propert- and the other half belon"ed to his !ife 'enerosa de

Venecia3 that "rantin" Dr. /ose ernande2 !as onl- survived b- his !ife, the respondents nephe!s and nieces of Dr. /ose are entitled to inherit the N share of the decedent6s estate !hile the O share of the con=u"al propert- !ill still belon" to 'enerosa as the !ido! of Dr. /ose ernande2, hence the trial court6s order reconve-in" the possession of the sub=ect lot and buildin" to respondents !as contrar- to the ad#itted facts and la! since respondents are not related b- consan"uinitto 'enerosa vda de ernande2. ?e a"ree. %rticle ,44, of the $ivil $ode provides< ;Should brothers and sisters or their children survive !ith the !ido! or !ido!er, the latter shall be entitled to one half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.; 'enerosa !as the !ido! of Dr. /ose ernande2 and as provided in the above& 9uoted %rticle ,44,, she is entitled to the N of the inheritance and the respondents to the other N. In effect, O pro indiviso is the share of 'enerosa as the survivin" spouse, i.e., N as her share of the con=u"al propert- estate and N of the re#ainin" N as share as heir fro# her husband6s estate. Thus, !e find !ell ta>en the petitioners6 assertion that the annul#ent of the e5tra&=udicial partition bet!een 'enerosa and petitioner Rodolfo does not necessaril- result in respondents6 havin" e5clusive ri"ht to the con=u"al propert-, as erroneousl- found b- the respondent court. 'enerosa, durin" her lifeti#e, had the ri"ht to en=o- and dispose of her propert- !ithout other li#itations than those established b- la!,,A !hich ri"ht she e5ercised b- e5ecutin" a deed of sale in favor of petitioner Fddie ernande2. Petitioners assails respondents6 ri"ht, not bein" heirs of 'enerosa, to 9uestion the validit- of the deed of sale since the action for the annul#ent of contracts #a- onl- be instituted b- all !ho are thereb- obli"ed principall- or subsidiaril-.,+ ?e disa"ree. %s a rule, a contract cannot be assailed bone !ho is not a part- obli"ed principall- or subsidiaril- under a contract. Ho!ever, !hen a contract pre=udices the ri"hts of a third person, he #a- e5ercise an action for nullitof the contract if he is pre=udiced in his ri"hts !ith respect to one of the contractin" ,A

parties, and can sho! detri#ent !hich !ould positivel- result to hi# fro# the contract in !hich he had no intervention. ,* %s !e have discussed above, respondents are entitled to the P of the entire con=u"al propert-, i.e., lot and buildin"3 ho!ever considerin" that !ido! 'enerosa, durin" her lifeti#e, sold the entire buildin" to petitioner Fddie ernande2, respondents had been deprived of their P share therein, thus the deed of sale !as pre=udicial to the interest of respondents as re"ards their P share in the buildin". Respondents therefore, have a cause of action to see> the annul#ent of said deed of sale. Petitioners further alle"e that the respondent court erred in declarin" null and void the deed of sale e5ecuted bet!een 'enerosa and petitioner Fddie ernande2 concludin" that the sa#e !as si#ulated or false and in affir#in" the trial court6s findin"s that the deed !as prepared and e5ecuted under abnor#al, unusual and irre"ular circu#stances !ithout ho!ever, particularlstatin" the circu#stances. ?e a"ree. Respondents alle"e that the deed of sale !as fictitious and si#ulated because there !as no consideration for the sale. Ho!ever, this assertion !as controverted b- vendee petitioner Fddie ernande26 declaration, that the #one- he paid for the sale ca#e fro# his savin"s as overseas contract !or>er in Saudi %rabia fro# ,78(&,787 !hich respondents failed to controvert bpresentin" evidence to the contrar-. The presu#ption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be overthro!n b- a #ere assertion that it has no consideration.,@ Cnder %rt. ,)+A of the $ivil $ode, consideration is presu#ed unless the contrar- is proven. Respondents also clai# that the si"nature appearin" in the deed of sale !as not that of 'enerosa because she !as alreadbedridden !ith both le"s a#putated before she died. or"er- cannot be presu#ed3 it #ust be proved b- clear, positive and convincin" evidence,8 and !hoever alle"es it has the burden of provin" the sa#e3,7 a burden respondents failed to dischar"e. The respondents had not presented anconvincin" proof to override the evidentiarvalue of the dul- notari2ed deed of sale. % notarial docu#ent is evidence of the facts in the clear une9uivocal #anner therein e5pressed. It has in its favor the presu#ption of re"ularit-. To contradict all these, there #ust be evidence that is clear, convincin" and #ore than #erel- preponderant. (4

?e note ho!ever, that 'enerosa sold the entire ( store- buildin" to petitioner Fddie ernande2, i.e. she did not onl- sell her O undivided share in the buildin" but also the P share of the respondents. ?e rule, that such a sale of the entire buildin" !ithout the consent of the respondents is not null and void as onl- the ri"hts of the co&o!ner seller are transferred, thereb- #a>in" the bu-er, petitioner Fddie, a co&o!ner of the O share of the buildin" to"ether !ith the respondents !ho o!ned the P share therein.(, inall-, anent the issue of actual and #oral da#a"es and attorne-6s fees a!arded b- the trial court, !e find the# to be bereft of factual basis. % part- is entitled to an ade9uate co#pensation for such pecuniarloss actuall- suffered b- hi# as he has dulproven.(( Such da#a"es, to be recoverable, #ust not onl- be capable of proof, but #ust actuall- be proved !ith a reasonable de"ree of certaint-.() $ourts cannot si#pl- rel- on speculation, con=ecture or "uess!or> in deter#inin" the fact and a#ount of da#a"es.(A The testi#on- of respondent Ro#eo ernande2 that he suffered around P,44,444 actual da#a"es !as not supported b- an- docu#entar- or other ad#issible evidence. ?e also a"ree !ith the petitioners that the respondent court should not have a!arded #oral da#a"es in the a#ount of P,44,444 since the- also failed to sho! proof of #oral sufferin", #ental an"uish, serious an5iet-, bes#irched reputation, !ounded feelin"s and social hu#iliation. %ttorne-6s fees should li>e!ise be deleted for lac> of factual basis and le"al =ustification. 0oth the lo!er courts did not cite specific factual basis to =ustif- the a!ard of attorne-6s fees, !hich is in violation of the proscription a"ainst the i#position of a penalt- on the ri"ht to liti"ate.(+ ?HFRF ORF, pre#ises considered, the assailed =ud"#ent is hereb- %ffir#ed !ith Modification, as follo!s< ,. Respondents as le"iti#ate heirs of Dr. /ose ernande2 are entitled to the P share of the con=u"al lot and buildin" of the deceased spouses /ose and 'enerosa ernande2 !ho died childless and intestate3 (. The deed of e5tra&=udicial partition is nullified insofar as the share of petitioner Rodolfo in the con=u"al lot is concerned and the title issued pursuant thereto in the na#e of Rodolfo ernande23 ). $onsiderin" that the deed of sale is valid insofar as the O share of 'enerosa sold to petitioner Fddie ernande2, T$T No. +A*7) is cancelled and a ne! title should be issued in ,+

the na#es of petitioner Fddie ernande2 and respondents as co&o!ners of the O and P shares respectivel- in the con=u"al buildin". A. The a!ards of actual and #oral da#a"es and attorne-6s fees are deleted. SO ORDFRFD. Melo, 3itug, Pangani&an 0utierre(, JJ ., concur. and *andoval!

,*