338

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R.Nos.10631415.October8,1999.

HEIRS OF PEDRO CABAIS, NAMELY: MAGDALENA

BONTO CABAIS, ANTONIO CABAIS, PABLO CABAIS,
ANDREACABAIS,EFRENCABAIS,AGAPITACABAIS,
and ANDRES CABAIS, represented by AVELINA
CABAIS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, CONSTANCIA PAGLINAWAN, PAULINO
LORIA, AUREA NICOLAS, ANTONIO LO, SANTOS
WANTON, ZENAIDA BATALLER, ISABEL LORIA,
ADELAIDADAUSANDEMMACARALI,respondents.

HEIRS OF PEDRO CABAIS, NAMELY: MAGDALENA

BONTO CABAIS, CHILDREN: ANTONIO, ANDREA,
PABLO, AVELINA, EFREN, AGAPITA and ANDRES all
surnamed CABAIS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF VICTORIA CAETA,
NAMELY: CELSO represented by his HEIRS, ISABEL,
ARMANDO, ROGER, SURNAMED LORIA, HEIRS OF
MELECIO LORIA, NAMELY: NIMFA and JOEL,
PAULINA LORIA VDA. DE PAGLINAWAN, EMERITA
LORIAandSPS.RUFINONICOLASandAUREAGOYAL,
respondents.
Civil Procedure; Evidence; Paternity and Filiation; A birth
certificate, being a public document, offers prima facie evidence of
filiation and a high degree of proof is needed to overthrow the
presumption of truth contained in such public document.A birth
certificate, being a public document, offers prima facie evidence of
filiation and a high degree of proof is needed to overthrow the
presumptionof
_______________
* THIRDDIVISION.

339

VOL.316,OCTOBER8,1999

339

Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

truth contained in such public document. This is pursuant to the
rule that entries in official records made in the performance of his

dutybyapublicofficerareprimafacieevidenceofthefactstherein
stated.Theevidentiarynatureofsuchdocumentmust,therefore,be
sustainedintheabsenceofstrong,completeandconclusiveproofof
itsfalsityornullity.
Same; Same; Same; A baptismal certificate, a private document,
which, being hearsay, is not a conclusive proof of filiation.Onthe
contrary, a baptismal certificate, a private document, which, being
hearsay, is not a conclusive proof of filiation. It does not have the
same probative value as a record of birth, an official or public
document. In US vs. Evangelista, this Court held that church
registers of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the
promulgationofGeneralOrdersNo.68andthepassageofActNo.
190, are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly
authorizedpublicofficials.Thus,inthisjurisdiction,acertificateof
baptism such as the one herein under controversy is no longer
regardedwiththesameevidentiaryvalueasofficialrecordsofbirth.
Moreover, on this score, jurisprudence is consistent and uniform in
ruling that the canonical certificate of baptism is not sufficient to
proverecognition.
Same; Same; Same; A baptismal certificate is evidence only to
prove the administration of the sacrament on the dates therein
specified, but not the veracity of the declarations therein stated with
respect to his kinsfolk.InMacadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.,thisCourtdeclaredthatabaptismalcertificateisevidenceonly
to prove the administration of the sacrament on the dates therein
specified,butnottheveracityofthedeclarationsthereinstatedwith
respect to his kinsfolk. The same is conclusive only of the baptism
administered, according to the rites of the Catholic Church, by the
priestwhobaptizedsubjectchild,butitdoesnotprovetheveracity
of the declarations and statements contained in the certificate
concerning the relationship of the person baptized. It is
indispensable that such declarations and statements are shown by
proofrecognizedbylaw.

PETITIONSforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionanda
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
340

340

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

Public Attorneys Officeforpetitioners.

Renato C. Kallosforprivaterespondents.
PURISIMA,J.:
AtbararePetitionsforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45
of the Revised
Rules of Court, seeking a review of the
1
Decision oftheCourtofAppeals,datedNovember13,1991,
2
anditsResolution ofJuly9,1992,denyingthemotionfor
reconsiderationinCAG.R.SPNos.28109and28110.
ThetwocasesweretriedjointlyanddecidedbyBranch
17oftheRegionalTrialCourtinTabaco,Albay.
PetitionersarelegalheirsofPedroCabais,whodiedon
3
April16,1982,leavingaparceloflandsituated inBasud,

Tabaco, Albay, with an area of 1,638 square meters, and

coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T55640inthe
nameofPedroCabais.Thesaidpropertywasinheritedby
Pedro Cabais from his grandmother Eustaquia Caeta by
right of representation. His mother, Felipa Caeta Buesa,4
who was the only daughter of Eustaquia Caeta,
predeceasedthelatter,leavinghimastheonlylegalheirof
Eustaquia. Thus,
Pedro Cabais executed a Deed of Self
5
Adjudication, adjudicatinginhisfavorsubjectproperty.By
virtue thereof, Original Certificate of Title No. RO3433
(23899) was cancelled and in lieu thereof, the
aforementioned transfer certificate of title issued in his
name.
_______________
1PennedbyJusticeRodolfoA.NoconandconcurredinbyAssociate

JusticesAntonioM.MartinezandAsaaliS.Isnani;Rollopp.3738.
2PennedbyAssociateJusticeAntonioM.Martinezandconcurredin

byAssociateJusticesAsaaliS.IsnaniandSegundinoG.Chua;Rollo,p.
43.
3LotNo.2119oftheTabacoCadastralSurvey.
4ByherhusbandAntonioBuesa;Rollo,p.2.
5PublishedintheBicolChronicleonJuly29,August5and12,1979;

Rollo,p.10.
341

VOL.316,OCTOBER8,1999

341

Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

On October 15, 1979, shortly after Pedro Cabais had
adjudicatedtohimselfthepropertyinquestion,acomplaint
for partition and accounting was brought by Simon
Bonaobra,HeirsofVictoriaCaetaandHeirsofAnastacio
CaetaagainstPedroCabais,docketedasCivilCaseNo.T
567beforetheRegionalTrialCourtbuttheplaintiffswere
declarednonsuited,resultingtothedismissalofthecase.
During the pendency of Civil Case No. T567, Pedro
Cabais died. Whereupon, the respondents herein entered
the property in dispute and constructed houses thereon,
deprivingpetitionersofpossessionthereof.
6
OnApril15,1987,petitionersfiledwiththelowercourt,
Civil Case No. T1283, for quieting of title, recovery of
possession and ownership with a prayer for preliminary
injunction, against the herein respondents, alleging that
the acts of the latter with regard to the disputed property
cast a cloud on their title thereto. In their Answer,
respondentstheorizedthatthepetitionershavenocauseof
action and were in estoppel, and that the issuance of
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.55640wasinderogationof
respondentssuccessionalrights.
On April 21, 1987, the respondents, Heirs of Victoria
Caeta,PaulinoLoria,JoseLoria,ConstanciaLoriaVda.de
Paglinawan, Emeterio Loria, and spouses Rufino Nicolas
and Aurea Goyal, instituted before the same lower court
CivilCaseNo.T1284,forannulmentoftitleanddamages,
claimingtobecoownersofsubjectproperty.Therespondent

spouses,RufinoNicolasandAureaGoyal,assertedthatthey
bought806.5squaremetersofLotNo.2119fromSimplicia
Casaul. The latter was said to have acquired the said
portion of the lot from Benigno Bonaobra, who, in turn,
acquiredthesamefromVictoriaCaetaandCiriacaVda.de
Gawan.
The respondent heirs of Victoria Caeta averred that
theypurchasedtheremainingportionofLotNo.2119from
their deceased grandmother, Ciriaca Vda. de Gawan, the
firstwife
_______________
6Branch17oftheRegionalTrialCourtinBaguio.

342

342

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

of Antonio Buesa. According to them, the cancellation of

Original Certificate of Title No. RO3433 (23899) and
issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 55640 were
taintedbyfraud.
PetitionersdeniedtheallegationsofrespondentsAnswer
inCivilCaseNo.T1284.Itwastheirsubmissionthatthe
truthofthematterwerethoseallegedintheirComplaintin
Civil Case No. T1283, and that Civil Case No. T1284 is
barred by Civil Case No. 567, which had been previously
dismissed.
In due time, the two cases were jointly tried and on
September28,1989,thelowercourtcameoutwithaJoint
Decision upholding the view of petitioners, quieting their
title over the contested lot; ordering the respondents to
vacate the same, to pay the rents thereon to petitioners
until they leave the place, apart from litigation expenses.
Thetrialcourtruledthatres judicatabarredtheinstitution
ofCivilCaseNo.T1284byreasonofthepriordismissalof
CivilCaseNo.T567.
Respondents seasonably presented a motion for
reconsiderationofthesaiddisposition,whichthetrialcourt
7
granted onNovember26,1989,uponthereasoningthatres
judicataasalludedtointhedecisiondidnotapplyandthat
the baptismal certificate of Felipa C. Buesa does not show
her to be the daughter of Eustaquia Caeta. From such
adverseactionagainstthem,petitionerswenttotheCourt
of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision on
November 13, 1991, affirming the decision of the lower
court.Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthe
samewasdeniedintheResolutiondatedJuly9,1992.
Undaunted,petitionershavecometothisCourtforrelief.
Themainissueforresolutionhereiswhetherornotthe
OrderofthelowercourtreconsideringitsJointDecisionwas
proper. Firstly, petitioners maintain that the
lower court
8
erredinrelyingontheBaptismalCertificate ofFelipaC.
_______________

7Rollo,pp.1921.
8ExhibitNo.6.

343

VOL.316,OCTOBER8,1999

343

Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

Buesa to establish the parentage and filiation of Pedro
Cabais. They contend that the grant of the motion for
reconsideration and reversal of its own decision were
without legal basis. It is also petitioners submission that
thedismissalofCivilCaseNo.567constitutedabartoCivil
CaseNo.T1284onthegroundofres judicata.
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
The Order under attack disregarded the limited
evidentiary value of a baptismal certificate in this
jurisdictionvisvisabirthcertificate.
Abirthcertificate,beingapublicdocument,offersprima
9
facie evidence of filiation and a high degree of proof is
neededtooverthrowthepresumptionoftruthcontainedin
10
such public document. This is pursuant to the rule that
entries in official records made in the performance of his
dutybyapublicofficerareprimafacieevidenceofthefacts
11
thereinstated. The evidentiary nature of such document
must, therefore, be sustained in the absence of12strong,
completeandconclusiveproofofitsfalsityornullity.
On the contrary, a baptismal certificate, a private
document,which,beinghearsay,isnotaconclusiveproofof
13
filiation. It does not have the same probative
value as a
14
record of birth, an official or public document. In US vs.
Evangelista,thisCourtheldthatchurchregistersofbirths,
marriages, and deaths made subsequent
to the
15
promulgationofGeneralOrdersNo.68
andthepassageof
16
Act No. 190, are no longer public writings, nor are they
keptbydulyauthorizedpublic
_______________
9Sayson,
10People

et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,205SCRA321,328.

vs. Fabro,277SCRA19,37.

11Section44,Rule130.
12Legaspi
13 Canales

vs. Court of Appeals,142SCRA82,89.

vs. Arrogante, 91 Phil. 5, citing Malonda vs. Malonda, 81

Phil.149.
14 In the Matter of the Petition for Change of Name Mario

Pabellar

vs. Republic,70SCRA16,19.
15PromulgatedonDecember18,1989.
16EnactedonAugust7,1901.

344

344

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals
17

officials. Thus,inthisjurisdiction,acertificateofbaptism
such as the one herein under controversy is no longer

regardedwiththesameevidentiaryvalueasofficialrecords
ofbirth.Moreover,onthisscore,jurisprudenceisconsistent
and uniform in ruling that the canonical
certificate of
18
baptismisnotsufficienttoproverecognition.
The unjustified failure to present the birth certificate
insteadofthebaptismalcertificatenowunderconsideration
or to otherwise prove filiation by any of the means
recognized by law weigh heavily against respondents.
In
19
Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., this Court
declared that a baptismal certificate is evidence only to
prove the administration of the sacrament on the dates
therein specified, but not the veracity of the declarations
therein stated with respect to his kinsfolk. The same is
conclusive only of the baptism administered, according to
theritesoftheCatholicChurch,bythepriestwhobaptized
subject child, but it does not prove the veracity of the
declarations and statements contained in the certificate
20
concerning the relationship of the person baptized. It is
indispensable that such declarations
and statements are
21
shownbyproofrecognizedbylaw.
There is thus no reason to further sustain respondents
stance in the face of the aforecited rulings explaining the
significanceofbaptismalcertificates.Thelowercourterred
ingivingtoomuchcredenceonthebaptismalcertificateof
FelipaCaetaBuesatoprovethatFelipawasthedaughter
of one Gregoria Caeta and not of Eustaquia Caeta, the
originalregisteredownerofthepropertyundercontroversy.
The grant by the lower court of the motion for
reconsideration from its own decision, quieting the title of
PedroCabais
_______________
1729Phil.215.
18Mendoza,

et al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court,G.R. No. L

63132,July30,1987,152SCRA445.
19100SCRA73,84;CitingPaa
20

vs. Chan,21SCRA753,758.

Fortus vs. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330, 1340; Citing Adriano vs. De

Jesus,23Phil.353.
21Ibid.

345

VOL.316,OCTOBER8,1999

345

Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

(and consequently of herein petitionerssuccessors in
interest) to the said property, on the basis mainly of such
proof was unwarranted. To repeat, a baptismal certificate,
likealldocumentsingeneral,atteststhefactleadingtoits
execution and the date thereof, the administration of the
sacrament on the day therein specified, but not to the
veracityofthestatementsthereincontainedregardingthe
22
kinsfolkofthepersonbaptized.
Furthermore, the above findings of the courts below
relyingonthebaptismalcertificateinquestiontoestablish
thefiliationofPedroCabaismothermustofnecessityyield
to the inherent inconsistency and unbelievable nature of

the baptismal certificate in question. It appears that said

baptismalcertificateofFelipaC.Buesastatesthatshewas
bornonSeptember13,1899,whilethebaptismalcertificate
of Gregoria Caeta, the supposed mother of Felipa,
indicatedthatGregoriawasbornonMay9,1898,oronlya
littlemorethanoneyearaheadofherallegeddaughter.
ThisCourtneednotoverstressthepointthatitissimply
improbable under the above circumstances for Gregoria to
havebeenthemotherofFelipa,andthus,tohavebeenthe
real grandmother of Pedro. The lower court should have
readilytakenjudicialnoticeofthisfact,beingoneofthose
matterswhichcometotheordinaryexperiencesoflifeand
whichisgenerallyacceptedastrueandiscapableofready
23
andunquestioneddemonstration.
However, as regards the contention that Civil Case No.
567 barred the filing of Civil Case No. T1284, the Court
holdsthattheCourtofAppealserrednot.Thus,inrulingon
theinapplicabilityofres judicata,itratiocinated:
Nor would the defense of res judicata prosper. For the doctrine of
res judicata to apply, (1) the judgment or order must be final; (2)
thecourtrenderingitmusthavejurisdictionoverthesub
_______________
22Adriano
23State

vs. De Jesus, et al.,supra,pp.353354.

Prosecutors vs. Judge Manuel T. Muro, 236 SCRA 505, 522; Citing

Roden vs. Connecticut Co., et al.,155A.721.

346

346

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals

ject matter and of the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the

merits;and(4)theremustbeidentityofparties,subjectmatterand
causeofaction.
While We agree with appellants that the dismissal of Civil Case
No. T567 for nonsuit is an adjudication on the merits, the fourth
element,particularlytheidentityofcausesofaction,isabsentinthe
case at bar. Civil Case No. T567 was an action for partition and
accounting,whiletheinstantcaseisanactionfortheannulmentof
T.C.T. No. 55640. The evidence needed to sustain both the former
24
andthepresentcausesofactionarenotthesame.

Bethatasitmay,thesaidpronouncementbytheCourtof
Appealsisrenderedmootandacademicbythefindinghere
thattherewasnobasisforthegrantbythetrialcourtofthe
motionforreconsiderationofitsJointDecisionofSeptember
20,1989.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R.CVNos.28109and28110isSETASIDE,andthe
JointDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtoforigininCivil
Case Nos. T1283 and T1284, dated September 20, 1989,
REINSTATED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Melo (Actg. C.J.)andGonzagaReyes, J.,concur.
VitugandPanganiban, JJ.,Intheresult.

Reviewed decision set aside; Joint decision of the Regional

Trial Court of origin in Civil Cases Nos. T1283 and T1284
reinstated.
Note.In order to destroy the presumption of
legitimacy,thepartyagainstwhomitoperatesmustadduce
substantialandcredibleevidencetothecontrary.(Tison vs.
Court of Appeals,276SCRA582[1997])
o0o
_______________
24CourtofAppealsDecision;Rollo,p.37.

347

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.