FIRST DIVISION
|
MAY D.
AÑONUEVO,
ALEXANDER BLEE DESANTIS and JOHN DESANTIS NERI, Petitioners, -versus- INTESTATE
ESTATE OF RODOLFO G. JALANDONI, represented by BERNARDINO G. JALANDONI as Special Administrator, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 178221 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* PERALTA,** ABAD,*** and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: December 1, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
D E C I S I O
N
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal[1] is
the Decision[2] dated 31
May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00576. In the said decision, the Court of Appeals
nullified, on certiorari, the Orders[3] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, of Negros Occidental (intestate court)
allowing herein petitioners and their siblings[4] to
intervene in the estate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G. Jalandoni.[5] The decretal portion of the decision of the
appellate court reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED, the assailed Orders dated July 2, 2004 and January 26, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court in Spec. Proc. No. 338 are hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED, and a permanent injunction is hereby issued enjoining respondents [petitioners], their agents and anyone acting for and in their behalves, from enforcing the assailed Orders. No costs.[6]
The
antecedents are:
Rodolfo
G. Jalandoni (Rodolfo) died intestate on 20 December 1966.[7] He died without issue.[8]
On 28 April 1967, Bernardino G.
Jalandoni (Bernardino), the brother of Rodolfo, filed a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration[9]
with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, to commence the judicial
settlement of the latter’s estate. The
petition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 338 and is currently pending before
the intestate court.[10]
On 17 January 2003, the petitioners
and their siblings filed a Manifestation[11]
before the intestate court. In the
Manifestation, they introduced themselves as the children of Sylvia Blee
Desantis (Sylvia)—who, in turn, was revealed to be the daughter of Isabel Blee
(Isabel) with one John Desantis.[12]
The petitioners and their siblings
contend that their grandmother—Isabel—was, at the time of Rodolfo’s death, the
legal spouse of the latter.[13] For which reason, Isabel is entitled to a
share in the estate of Rodolfo.
Seeking to enforce the right of
Isabel, the petitioners and their siblings pray that they be allowed to
intervene on her behalf in the intestate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G.
Jalandoni.[14] As it was, by the time the Manifestation was
filed, both Sylvia and Isabel have already passed away with the former
predeceasing the latter.[15]
To
support their cause, the petitioners and their siblings appended in their
Manifestation, the following documents:
a.) Two (2) marriage certificates between
Isabel and Rodolfo;[16]
b.) The birth certificate of their
mother, Sylvia;[17] and
c.) Their respective proof of births.[18]
It is the assertion of the
petitioners and their siblings that the foregoing pieces of evidence
sufficiently establish that Isabel was the spouse of Rodolfo, and that they are
her lawful representatives.
The
respondent intestate estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, now represented by
Bernardino as its Special Administrator, however, begged to differ. It opposed the intervention on the ground
that the petitioners and their siblings have failed to establish the status of
Isabel as an heir of Rodolfo. The very
evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings showed that Isabel had
a previous and subsisting marriage with John Desantis at the time she was
purportedly married to Rodolfo.
In
its Comment to the Manifestation,[19]
the respondent called attention to the entries in the birth certificate of
Sylvia, who was born on 14 February 1946.[20] As it turned out, the record of birth of
Sylvia states that she was a “legitimate”
child of Isabel and John Desantis.[21] The document also certifies the status of
both Isabel and John Desantis as “married.”[22] The respondent posits that the foregoing
entries, having been made in an official registry, constitute prima facie proof of a prior marriage
between Isabel and John Desantis.[23]
According to the respondent, Isabel’s
previous marriage, in the absence of any proof that it was dissolved, made her
subsequent marriage with Rodolfo bigamous and void ab initio.[24]
On
2 July 2004, the intestate court issued an order allowing the petitioners and
their siblings to take part in the settlement proceedings.[25] The intestate court was convinced that the
evidence at hand adequately establish Isabel’s status as the legal spouse of
Rodolfo and, by that token, permitted the petitioners and their siblings to
intervene in the proceedings on her behalf.[26]
The
intestate court also held that the birth certificate of Sylvia was insufficient
to prove that there was a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.[27] It ventured on the possibility that the entries
in the birth record of Sylvia regarding her legitimacy and the status of her
parents, may have been made only in order to save Isabel and her family from
the social condemnation of having a child out of wedlock.[28]
The respondent sought for reconsideration,
but was denied by the intestate court in its order dated 26 January 2006.[29] Undeterred, the respondent hoisted a petition
for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals.
On 31 May 2007, the Court of Appeals
granted the petition and nullified the orders of the intestate court.[30]
In
coming to its conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that it was an error on
the part of the intestate court to have disregarded the probative value of
Sylvia’s birth certificate.[31] The appellate court, siding with the respondent,
held that Sylvia’s birth certificate serves as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated—which includes the
civil status of her parents.[32] Hence, the previous marriage of Isabel with
John Desantis should have been taken as established.
The
Court of Appeals added that since the petitioners and their siblings failed to
offer any other evidence proving that the marriage of Isabel with John Desantis
had been dissolved by the time she was married to Rodolfo, it then follows that
the latter marriage—the Isabel-Rodolfo union—is a nullity for being bigamous.[33]
From that premise, Isabel cannot be considered as the legal spouse of
Rodolfo. The petitioners and their
siblings, therefore, failed to show that Isabel has any interest in the estate
of Rodolfo.
Hence,
the instant appeal.[34]
The
sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it
nullified the orders of the intestate court allowing the petitioners and their
siblings to intervene in the settlement proceedings.
The
petitioners answer in the affirmative.
They proffer the following arguments:
One.
The Court of Appeals exceeded the limits of review under a writ of certiorari.[35] In nullifying the intestate court’s order,
the appellate court did not confine itself to the issue of whether the same was
issued with grave abuse of discretion.[36] Rather, it chose to re-assess the evidence
and touch upon the issue pertaining to Isabel’s right to inherit from Rodolfo.[37]
Had the appellate court limited
itself to the issue of whether grave abuse of discretion exists, it would have
found that the intestate court did not act whimsically or capriciously in
issuing its assailed orders.[38] Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
intestate court is belied by the fact that the said orders may be supported by
the two (2) marriage certificates between Isabel and Rodolfo.[39]
Second.
Assuming ex-gratia argumenti
that the Court of Appeals was correct in addressing the issue of whether there
was sufficient evidence to prove that Isabel has a right to inherit from
Rodolfo, it nevertheless erred in finding that there was none.[40] A proper evaluation of the evidence at hand
does not support the conclusion that Isabel had a previous marriage with John
Desantis.[41]
To begin with, the respondent was not
able to produce any marriage certificate executed between Isabel and John
Desantis.[42] The conspicuous absence of such certificate
can, in turn, only lend credibility to the position that no such marriage ever
took place.
Moreover, the entries in the birth
certificate of Sylvia do not carry the necessary weight to be able to prove a
marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.[43] In assessing the probative value of such
entries, the Court of Appeals should have taken note of a “typical” practice among unwed Filipino couples who, in order to “save face” and “not to embarrass their families,” concoct the illusion of marriage
and make it appear that a child begot by them is legitimate.[44]
Since the alleged previous marriage
of Isabel with John Desantis was not satisfactorily proven, the Court of
Appeals clearly erred in finding that her marriage with Rodolfo is bigamous.
We
are not impressed.
First Argument
The
first argument raised by the petitioners is specious at best. The question of
whether the intestate court gravely abused its discretion is intricately linked
with the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Isabel’s
status as the legal spouse of Rodolfo.
A court’s power to allow or deny
intervention, albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the basic
demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene.[45] Otherwise stated, a court has no authority to
allow a person, who has no interest in an action or proceeding, to intervene
therein.[46]
Consequently, when a court commits a
mistake and allows an uninterested person to intervene in a case—the mistake is
not simply an error of judgment, but one of jurisdiction. In such event, the allowance is made in excess
of the court’s jurisdiction and can only be the product of an exercise of
discretion gravely abused. That kind of error
may be reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari.
Verily, the Court of Appeals was
acting well within the limits of review under a writ of certiorari, when it examined the evidence proving Isabel’s right to
inherit from Rodolfo. The sufficiency or
insufficiency of such evidence determines whether the petitioners and their
siblings have successfully established Isabel’s interest in Rodolfo’s estate—which,
as already mentioned, is an indispensable requisite to justify any intervention. Ultimately, the re-assessment of the evidence
presented by the petitioners and their siblings will tell if the assailed
orders of the intestate court were issued in excess of the latter’s
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
We now proceed to the second argument
of the petitioners.
Second Argument
The
second argument of the petitioners is also without merit. We agree with the finding of the Court of
Appeals that the petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient
evidence to establish that Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The very evidence of the petitioners and
their siblings negates their claim that Isabel has interest in Rodolfo’s
estate.
Contrary to the position taken by the
petitioners, the existence of a previous marriage between Isabel and John
Desantis was adequately established.
This holds true notwithstanding the fact that no marriage certificate
between Isabel and John Desantis exists on record.
While a marriage certificate is
considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the
sole and exclusive evidence of marriage.[47] Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of
marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.[48] Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may
be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.[49]
In the present case, the birth
certificate of Sylvia precisely serves as the competent evidence of marriage
between Isabel and John Desantis. As
mentioned earlier, it contains the following notable entries: (a) that Isabel
and John Desantis were “married” and
(b) that Sylvia is their “legitimate”
child.[50] In clear and categorical language, Sylvia’s
birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage between Isabel and John
Desantis.
Pursuant to existing laws,[51]
the foregoing entries are accorded prima
facie weight. They are presumed to
be true. Hence, unless rebutted by clear
and convincing evidence, they can, and will, stand as proof of the facts attested.[52] In the case at bench, the petitioners and
their siblings offered no such rebuttal.
The petitioners did no better than to
explain away the entries in Sylvia’s birth certificate as untruthful statements
made only in order to “save face.”[53] They urge this Court to take note of a “typical” practice among unwed Filipino
couples to concoct the illusion of marriage and make it appear that a child
begot by them is legitimate. That, the
Court cannot countenance.
The allegations of the petitioners, by
themselves and unsupported by any other evidence, do not diminish the probative
value of the entries. This Court cannot,
as the petitioners would like Us to do, simply take judicial notice of a
supposed folkway and conclude therefrom that the usage was in fact followed. It certainly is odd that the petitioners
would themselves argue that the document on which they based their interest in
intervention contains untruthful statements in its vital entries.
Ironically, it is the evidence
presented by the petitioners and their siblings themselves which, properly
appreciated, supports the finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously married
to John Desantis. Consequently, in the
absence of any proof that such marriage had been dissolved by the time Isabel
was married to Rodolfo, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage
is bigamous and, therefore, void ab
initio.
The inability of the petitioners and
their siblings to present evidence to prove that Isabel’s prior marriage was
dissolved results in a failure to establish that she has interest in the estate
of Rodolfo. Clearly, an intervention by
the petitioners and their siblings in the settlement proceedings cannot be
justified. We affirm the Court of
Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the
instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the decision dated 31 May 2007 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 00576 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per
Special Order No. 916 dated 24 November 2010, Associate Justice Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro as Acting Working Chairperson.
** Additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, per Special Order
No. 913 dated 2 November 2010.
*** Additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special
Order No. 917 dated 24 November 2010.
[1] Via
a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned
by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Arsenio J.
Magpale and Agustin S. Dizon, concurring.
Rollo, pp. 38-48.
[3] Orders
dated 2 July 2004 and 26 January 2005, issued by Judge
Reynaldo M. Alon. Id. at 49-55 and
65-66.
[4] The
other siblings of the petitioners are Isabel Blee Desantis, Pierre Jojo
Desantis Joven, Cynthia Desantis Handy, William Chester Handy, Carroll Leon
Handy and Nora Margaret Handy.
[5] Docketed
as Spec. Proc. No. 338.
[6] Rollo, p. 47.
[7] Certificate
of Death of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni. CA rollo, p. 187
[8] Petition
(for the Issuance of Letters of Administration). Id. at 183.
[9] Id.
at 183-186.
[10] Id.
[11] The
Manifestation was coupled by a Motion to Admit Manifestation. See id.
at 52-56; id. at 57-74.
[12] Id.
at 57-58.
[13] Id.
at 57.
[14] Id.
at 58.
[15] Isabel
Blee died on 21 November 1999 whereas Sylvia Blee Desantis died on 21 November
1994, see their respective
Certificates of Death, id. at 65 and 84.
[16] Annex
“1” and “2” of the Manifestation. The
certificates attest to two nuptials—the first one being in 1951 and the other
in 1953—as both having been celebrated between Isabel and Rodolfo. Id. at 61-62.
[17] Annex
“4” of the Manifestation, id. at 64.
[18] Annex
“6” to “14” of the Manifestation. The
petitioners and their siblings all attached their birth certificates, with the
exception of Nora Margaret Handy who presented her American passport. Id. at 66-74.
[19] Id.
at 75-80.
[20] Id.
at 76.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Rollo, pp. 120-121.
[24] Id.
at 121.
[25] Id.
at 49-55.
[26] Id.
at 54.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
at 65-66.
[30] Id.
at 47.
[31] Id.
at 45.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
at 43.
[34] Petition
for Review on Certiorari, id. at
10-81.
[35] Id.
at 17.
[36] Id.
at 21-22.
[37] Id.
at 17-22.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
at 23.
[41] Id.
at 27-28.
[42] Id.
at 26.
[43] Id.
at 27.
[44] Id.
[45] See Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of
Court, in relation to Paras v. Narciso,
35 Phil. 244, 246-247 (1916).
[46] In the Matter of the Will of Cabigting,
14 Phil 463, 467-468 (1909).
[47] Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil.
12, 30-31 (1988).
[48] Pugeda v. Trias, 114 Phil. 781, 787 (1962).
[49] In Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, supra note
47 at 30, this Court held:
To prove the fact of marriage, the following would
constitute competent evidence: the testimony of a witness to the matrimony, the
couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged
wedlock, the birth and the baptismal
certificates of children born during
such union, and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents. (Pugeda v. Trias, id.) (Emphasis
supplied)
[50] CA rollo, p. 64
[51] See Article 410 in relation to Article
408 of the Civil Code and Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
[52] Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 160718, 12
May 2010.
[53] Rollo, p. 27.