THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126707. February 25, 1999]
BLANQUITA E. DELA MERCED, LUISITO E. DELA MERCED, BLANQUITA
M. MACATANGAY, MA. OLIVIA M. PAREDES, TERESITA P. RUPISAN, RUBEN M. ADRIANO, HERMINIO
M. ADRIANO, JOSELITO M. ADRIANO, ROGELIO M. ADRIANO, WILFREDO M. ADRIANO,
VICTOR M. ADRIANO, CORAZON A. ONGOCO, JASMIN A. MENDOZA and CONSTANTINO M.
ADRIANO, petitioners, vs. JOSELITO P. DELA MERCED, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated October 17, 1996, in CA-G.R. CV
No. 41283, which reversed the decision, dated June 10, 1992, of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch
67, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 59705.
The facts of the case are, as follows:
On March 23, 1987, Evarista M.
dela Merced died intestate, without issue.
She left five (5) parcels of land situated in Orambo, Pasig City.
At the time of her death, Evarista
was survived by three sets of heirs, viz: (1)
Francisco M. dela Merced, her legitimate brother ; (2) Teresita P. Rupisan, her niece who is
the only daughter of Rosa de la Merced-Platon (a sister who died in 1943)
; and (3) the legitimate children of Eugenia dela Merced-Adriano (another sister
of Evarista who died in 1965), namely:
Herminio, Ruben, Joselito, Rogelio, Wilfredo, Victor and Constantino, all
surnamed Adriano, Corazon Adriano-Ongoco and Jasmin Adriano-Mendoza.
Almost a year later or on March
19, 1988, to be precise, Francisco (Evarista’s brother) died. He was survived by his wife Blanquita Errea
dela Merced and their three legitimate children, namely, Luisito E. dela
Merced, Blanquita M. Macatangay and Ma. Olivia M. Paredes.
On April 20, 1989, the three sets
of heirs of the decedent, Evarista M.
dela Merced, referring to (1) the
abovenamed heirs of Francisco; (2) Teresita P. Rupisan and (3) the nine [9]
legitimate children of Eugenia,
executed an extrajudicial settlement, entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement
of the Estate of the Deceased Evarista M. dela Merced” adjudicating the
properties of Evarista to them, each set with a share of one-third (1/3)
pro-indiviso.
On July 26 ,1990, private respondent Joselito P. Dela Merced
, illegitimate son of the late
Francisco de la Merced, filed a “Petition for Annulment of the Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Evarista M. Dela Merced with Prayer
for a Temporary Restraining Order”,
alleging that he was fraudulently omitted from the said settlement made by petitioners, who were
fully aware of his relation to the late Francisco. Claiming successional rights, private respondent Joselito prayed
that he be included as one of the beneficiaries, to share in the one-third
(1/3) pro-indiviso share in the estate of the deceased Evarista, corresponding
to the heirs of Francisco.
On August 3, 1990, the trial court
issued the temporary restraining order prayed for by private respondent
Joselito, enjoining the sale of any of the real properties of the deceased
Evarista.
After trial, however, or on June
10, 1992, to be definite, the trial
court dismissed the petition, lifted the temporary restraining order earlier
issued, and cancelled the notice of lis pendens on the certificates of title covering
the real properties of the deceased Evarista.
In dismissing the petition, the
trial court stated:
“The factual setting of the instant motion after considering the circumstances of the entire case and the other evidentiary facts and documents presented by the herein parties points only to one issue which goes into the very skeleton of the controversy, to wit: “Whether or not the plaintiff may participate in the intestate estate of the late Evarista M. Dela Merced in his capacity as representative of his alleged father, Francisdo Dela Merced, brother of the deceased, whose succession is under consideration.
x x x x x x x x x
It is to be noted that Francisco Dela Merced, alleged father of the herein plaintiff, is a legitimate child, not an illegitimate. Plaintiff, on the other hand, is admittedly an illegitimate child of the late Francisco Dela Merced. Hence, as such, he cannot represent his alleged father in the succession of the latter in the intestate estate of the late Evarista Dela Merced, because of the barrier in Art. 992 of the New Civil Code which states that:
‘An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother, nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.’
The application of Art. 992 cannot be ignored in the instant case, it is clearly worded in such a way that there can be no room for any doubts and ambiguities. This provision of the law imposes a barrier between the illegitimate and the legitimate family. x x x” (Rollo, p. 87-88)
Not satisfied with the dismissal
of his petition, the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In its Decision of October
17,1996, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the trial court of origin and ordered the petitioners to
execute an amendatory agreement which shall form part of the original settlement, so as to include private respondent Joselito as a
co-heir to the estate of Francisco, which estate includes one-third (1/3) pro
indiviso of the latter’s inheritance
from the deceased Evarista.
The relevant and dispositive part
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, reads:
“x x x x x x x x x
It is a basic principle embodied in Article 777, New Civil Code that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent, so that Francisco dela Merced inherited 1/3 of his sister’s estate at the moment of the latter’s death. Said 1/3 of Evarista’s estate formed part of Francisco’s estate which was subsequently transmitted upon his death on March 23, 1987 to his legal heirs, among whom is appellant as his illegitimate child. Appellant became entitled to his share in Francisco’s estate from the time of the latter’s death in 1987. The extrajudicial settlement therefore is void insofar as it deprives plaintiff-appellant of his share in the estate of Francisco M. dela Merced. As a consequence, the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens is not in order because the property is directly affected. Appellant has the right to demand a partition of his father’s estate which includes 1/3 of the property inherited from Evarista dela Merced.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to execute an amendatory agreement/settlement to include herein plaintiff-appellant Joselito dela Merced as co-heir to the estate of Francisco dela Merced which includes 1/3 of the estate subject of the questioned Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Evarista M. dela Merced dated April 20, 1989. The amendatory agreement/settlement shall form part of the original Extrajudicial Settlement. With costs against defendants-appellees.
SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 41)
In the Petition under
consideration, petitioners insist that being an illegitimate child, private
respondent Joselito is barred from inheriting from Evarista because of the
provision of Article 992 of the New Civil Code, which lays down an impassable
barrier between the legitimate and illegitimate families.
The Petition is devoid of merit.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code
is not applicable because involved here is not a situation where an
illegitimate child would inherit ab intestato from a legitimate sister
of his father, which is prohibited by
the aforesaid provision of law. Rather,
it is a scenario where an illegitimate child inherits from his father, the
latter’s share in or portion of, what the latter already inherited from the
deceased sister, Evarista.
As opined by the Court of
Appeals, the law in point in the
present case is Article 777 of the New Civil Code, which provides that the rights to
succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Since Evarista died ahead of her
brother Francisco, the latter inherited a portion of the estate of the former
as one of her heirs. Subsequently, when
Francisco died, his heirs, namely: his
spouse, legitimate children, and the private respondent, Joselito, an
illegitimate child, inherited his
(Francisco’s) share in the estate of Evarista.
It bears stressing that Joselito
does not claim to be an heir of Evarista by right of representation but participates in his own right, as an heir of
the late Francisco, in the latter’s share (or portion thereof) in the estate of
Evarista.
Petitioners argue that if Joselito
desires to assert successional rights to the intestate estate of his father,
the proper forum should be in the settlement of his own father’s intestate
estate, as this Court held in the case of Gutierrez vs. Macandog (150 SCRA 422
[1987])
Petitioners’ reliance on the case
of Gutierrez vs. Macandog (supra) is misplaced. The said case involved a claim for support filed by one Elpedia Gutierrez against the
estate of the decedent, Agustin Gutierrez, Sr., when she was not even an heir
to the estate in question, at the time,
and the decedent had no obligation whatsoever to give her support. Thus, this
Court ruled that Elpedia should have asked for support pendente lite before the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in which court her husband (one of the
legal heirs of the decedent) had instituted a case for legal separation against
her on the ground of an attempt against his life. When Mauricio (her husband)
died, she should have commenced an action for the settlement of the estate of
her husband, in which case she could receive whatever allowance the intestate court would grant her.
The present case, however, relates
to the rightful and undisputed right of an heir to the share of his late father
in the estate of the decedent Evarista, ownership of which had been transmitted
to his father upon the death of
Evarista. There is no legal obstacle
for private respondent Joselito, admittedly the son of the late Francisco, to
inherit in his own right as an heir to his father’s estate, which estate
includes a one-third (1/3) undivided
share in the estate of Evarista.
WHEREFORE, for lack of
merit, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the Appealed Decision of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Romero (Chairman), Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official business abroad.