Conde vs.

Abaya Case Digest

Conde vs. Abaya

13 Phil 249
Facts: Casiano Abaya, unmarried, the son of Romualdo Abaya and Sabina Labadia died on the 1899. Paula Conde, as
the mother of the natural children Jose and Teopista Conde, whom she states she had by Casiano Abaya moved the
settlement of the intestate succession.
An administrator has been appointed for the said estate. However, Roman Abaya brother of Casiano, came forward and
opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as being the nearest relative of the deceased. The court declares
Roman Abaya to be the sole heir of Casiano Abaya and to be therefore entitled to take possession of all the property of
said estate.
Paula Conde filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged by Roman Abaya but that
she considered her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing on the matter. She prayed that she be declared to
have preferential rights to the property left by Casiano Abaya.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner may enforce an action in the acknowledgment of the natural child from Casiano
Abaya.
Ruling: The right of action for legitimacy devolving upon the child is of a personal character and generally pertains
exclusively to him. Only the child may exercise it at any time during his lifetime. As exception, and in three cases only, it
may be transmitted to the heirs of the child, to wit: if he or she died during his or her minority, or while insane, or after
action had already been instituted. Inasmuch as the right of action accruing to the child to claim his or her legitimacy lasts
during his or her whole lifetime, he or she may exercise it either against the presumed parents or his or her heirs. The
right of action which the law concedes to the natural child is not transmitted to his ascendants or descendants.
CAPITLE vs ELBAMBUENA Case Digest

SPOUSES ILUMINADA and CIRILO CAPITLE v. FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA et al.

509 SCRA 444 (2006), THIRD DIVISION, (Carpio Morales, J.)
Absent evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that public officers adhered to the provisions of Section 22
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
FACTS: A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was issued to Cristobal Olar covering a parcel of agricultural land
situated in Nueva Ecija. Consequently, a Transfer Certificate of Title in his name was issued. When Olar died,
respondents Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda Olar, spouse and daughter-in-law, respectively, claim that Olar
relinquished one-half of the lot in favour of Rosalinda; and that the remaining portion of the lot was surrendered to
Fortunata. Spouses Iluminada and Cirilo Capitle, on the other hand, claim that they have been in possession of the lot
since 1960 and presented a "Waiver of Rights" executed by Olar, wherein he acknowledged that he co-possessed the lot
with petitioners Capitle. A Pinagsamang Patunay certifying that they are the actual tillers and possessors of the lot was
likewise presened.
While Elbambuena and Olars petition was pending before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD),
petitioners Capitle filed before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), Nueva Ecija a petition for cancellation of
the CLOA issued to Olar, on the ground that they are the new farmer-beneficiaries as shown by, among other things, the
"Waiver of Rights" executed by Olar. PARAD ruled in favor of petitioners Capitle. Elbambuena and Olar appealed the
decision to the DARAB. The DARAB set aside PARADs decision. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals via
petition for review. The appellate court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision.
ISSUES: Whether or not the presumption that the CLOA was issued to Olar in the regular course of official function was
overcome by contrary evidence
HELD: Petitioners Capitle argument that "it would be absurd for Olar to bequeath his property to his estranged wife not to
a relative who had indeed helped him in tilling the property and took good care of his needs," is a virtual admission that
their possession was not in the concept of owners, they having merely "helped" in tilling the lot, thereby acknowledging
that Olar was the actual possessor and tiller.
Absent evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the public officers who issued the CLOA to Olar regularly performed
their duties, including adhering to the provisions of Section 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which
provides that lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same
barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the order of priority provided.