G.R. NO.

102372 NOVEMBER 15, 1994

#138

FLAVIANO GASPAY JR. VS COURT OF APPEALS AND GUADALUPE GASPAY ALFARO

PONENTE: PUNO, J.

Facts:
1.) Flaviano Gaspay, married to Agueda Denoso, died intestate on October 14, 1983 in Tacloban City.
2.) On July 6, 1988, Guadalupe Gaspay Alfaro filed a petition in the trial court. She said that she is an
ACKNOWLEGED illegitimate daughter of Flaviano. Her mother is Claudia Pason, a paramour of the deceased.
3.) Among her evidences were 2 letters from Flaviano Gaspay a.) Addressed to Lupe b.) Addressed to Toming and
Lupe.
NOTE: 1st letter, he said that he can only give P200 to Lupe, her daughter for the hospitalization of his apo,
Marilyn.
2nd letter , he said that since his body was weakening, he urged Lupe to verify his land in Culaba and in
Caibiran so that the share of Lupe will be assured.
The problem lies in the verification of the Signatures.
4.) Flaviano Gaspay Jr. and Eriberta Salvatiera Gaspay filed a motion to dismiss saying that Guadalupe is a stranger
and there is no proof of her recognition or acknowledgement.
5.) RTC DENIED the Motion to Dismiss. It said that it was not based on indubitable grounds.
6.) RTC DISMISSED the petition of Guadalupe because
a.) she failed to prove her status
b.) failed to show that she consented her recognition as illegitimate child
c.) it would not prosper because it should have been filed during the lifetime of Flaviano.
7.) CA REVERSED the decision of the RTC.
a.) evidence was enough to prove the filiation and recognition of Guadalupe as an illegitimate child.
b.) evidence was enough to show that Guadalupe consented to her recognition
c.) actions based on voluntary recognition can be made even after the death of the father.
8.) Hence the Petition for Certiorari. Contentions are the following:
a.) CA disturbed the findings of fact of the RTC regarding the CREDIBILITY of Martin Garin which was not even made
as assigned error in appellants behalf.
b.) CA erred in finding that Guadalupes status can still be brought after the death of Flaviano
c.) CA erred in finding that Guadalupe is entitled to Letters of Administration
ISSUE: WON Guadalupes status can still be brought after the death of the Flaviano.
RULE: Yes. SC affirmed CA.
ANALYSIS:
1.) On the CREDIBILITY OF GARIN: RTC said that he did not even bother to examine the letters, and that the last
time he saw Flaviano write was in 1959. Hence, he has no competence to testify about the authenticity. RTC
assumed that Flavianos penmanship had undergone metamorphosis.
SC: There are people with steady penmanship over the years, who even have better vision in their twilight years.
2.) On Guadalupes consent, she has been sorting Guadalupe Gaspay since childhood up to the time she got married.
3.) The death of Flaviano Gaspay Sr. does not constitute a time bar to private respondents claim. actions based on
voluntary acknowledgement may be brought even after the fathers death.
Please see Rules of Court Section 6 Rule 78

G.R. No. 77867 FEBRUARY 6, 1990

#140

ISABEL DELA PUERTA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CARMELITA DELA PUERTA
PONENTE: CRUZ, J.
Facts: The basic issue involved in the case is the filiation of Carmelita who claims successional rights to the estate of her
alleged grandmother.
1.) DOMINGA REVUELTA died at the age of 92 with a will leaving her properties to her 3 surviving childred:
ALFREDO, VICENTE, and ISABEL. Isabel was given a free portion in addition to her inheritance and was
appointed executrix of the will.
2.) The Petition for the Probate of the Will filed by Isabel was opposed by her brothers. They said that their mother
was already senile at the time of the execution of the will so she did not understand its meaning. Also, that some
of the properties listed in her inventory belonged to them.
3.) The court appointed Isabel as special administratrix by the probate court. Alfredo died, leaving Vicente the lone
oppositor.
4.) On August 1, 1974, Vicente dela Puerta filed with the CFI of Quezon a Petition to Adopt Carmelita dela
Puerta. Petition was granted.
5.) The petition was appealed by Isabel to the CA. During this time, Vicente died. So she moved for the dismissal of
the case.
6.) On November 20, 1981, having been allowed to intervene in the proceedings, Carmelita filed a Motion for the
Payment of her monthly allowance as the acknowledged natural child of Vicente dela Puerta. RTC Granted this
motion saying that the evidence of Isabel was too weak to discredit Carmelita.
7.) CA AFFIRMED RTC. Hence the petition.
8.) Isabels contentions:
a.) Carmelita was not the natural child of Vicente and Genoveva who was his wife from 1938 to 1978. Her real
parents are Juanita and Gloria Austrial.
b.) Carmelita could not have been a natural child of Vicente because he was already married at the time of her
birth in 1962.
c.) Amado Magpantay testified that Juanito and Gloria were living together as husband and wife and had 3
children including Carmelita.
d.) Genoveva (Vicentes wife) also testified that they separated 2 years after their marriage and never reconciled.
IN 1962, Gloria started living with Vicente in his house which was 5-6 houses away from where she was
staying. The relationship was well known in the community.
CA: Carmelita was born on Dec 18, 1962. Her father was Vicente and her mother was Gloria who were living as common
law husband and wife until his death. Upon his death without leaving a last will and testament, Carmelita was the only
surviving child together with Genoveva. He treated her as his own, proven by family pictures, school records which he
signed the report cards as a parent, and spent for her support and education.
These factual findings cannot be disturbed without the following circumstances (PLS SEE PAGE 2)
9.) Isabel contended that Carmelita was not a natural child of Vicente because according to Article 255 of the Civil
Code: Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of marriage and before 300 days
following its dissolution of separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. (PAGE 2)
But this contention is based on the presumption that Juanita and Gloria were MARRIED at the time of Carmelitas birth.
There was a testimony from Vicentes Oown wife that her husband and Gloria lived together at the same time. Note that
Genoveva was not interested in her husbands estate. So, the presumption of the marriage of Juanito and Gloria was
destroyed. In turn, additional evidence from Isabel had to be submitted.
10.)On the filiation of Carmelita, Isabel said that she is not a natural child but a spurious child. And that Art 278 was
not available to Carmelita. This is erroneous. Article 278 says that even spurious children are entitled to support
and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proven. In this case, there was not a doubt on the birth
certificate as proof of filiation of Carmelita. In fact, Vicente testified during her petition for adoption that she was
his child.
ISSUE: WON Carmelita claim support and successional rights to the estate of Dominga Revuelta? RULE: NO. Toinks!
ANALYSIS:
1.) 1st reason: Vicente did not predeceased his mother as per Article 970 of the Civil Code (PAGE 3.) The law is clear
that there is representation only when relatives of a deceased person try to succeed him in his rights which he
would have had if sill living. So only Vicente had the right to directly inherit from her.
2.) 2nd reason is that Carmelita is a spurious child. Why? Because as a spurious child of Vicente, she is barred from
inheriting from Dominga per Article 992 of the Civil Code which lays down the barred of legit and illegitimate
families. (PAGE 4) Even as an adopted child, there would be no natural kindred ties between Dominga and
Carmelita.

Carmelita has successional rights to her fathers estate but not to the estate of Dominga Revuelta.