BATCH 8_WILLS respondent Pastora Piedad contending that the proceedings were tainted with

procedural infirmities, including an incomplete publication of the notice of hearing, lack

LEGAL or INTESTATE SUCCESSION of personal notice to the heirs and creditors, and irregularity in the disbursements of
RELATIONSHIP & RIGHT of REPRESENTATION allowances and withdrawals by the administrator of the estate. The trial court denied the
motion, prompting petitioner to raise her case to the Court of Appeals. Respondent
1) BAGUNU v. PIEDAD sought the dismissal of the appeal on the thesis that the issues brought up on appeal only
involved pure questions of law. Finding merit in that argument, the appellate court
Ofelia Hernando Bagunu v. Pastora Piedad
dismissed the appeal, citing Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil
G.R. No. 140975. December 8, 2000 Procedure which would require all appeals involving nothing else but questions of law to
be raised before the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance
with Rule 45 thereof and consistently with Circular 2-90 of the Court. In a well-written
resolution, the Court of Appeals belabored the distinctions between questions of law and
FACTS: questions of fact, thus: chanrobles virtual law library

Augusto H. Piedad died without any direct descendants or ascendants. Respondent is "There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what
the maternal aunt of the decedent, a third-degree relative of the decedent, while the law is on a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or
petitioner is the daughter of a first cousin of the deceased, or a fifth-degree relative of difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. There is question of fact
the decedent. Ofelia Hernando Bagunu moved to intervene in the settlement of the when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly
estate of Piedad. the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of specific surrounding
circumstances, and their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of
ISSUE:
the situation."1 chanrobles virtual law library
Whether intervenor-appellant as a collateral relative within the fifth civil degree, has legal
Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, speaking for the appellate court, ratiocinated that whether
interest in the intestate proceeding which would justify her intervention.
or not the RTC erred in denying the intervention considering (1) that the intervenor-
RULING: appellant had a prima facie interest over the case, (2) that the jurisdiction over the person
of the proper parties was not acquired in view of the deficient publication or notice of
No. By right of representation, a more distant blood relative of a decedent is, by operation hearing, and (3) that the proceedings had yet to be closed and terminated, were issues
of law, “raised to the same place and degree” of relationship as that of a closer blood which did not qualify as "questions of fact" as to place the appeal within the jurisdiction
relative of the same decedent. The representative thereby steps into the shoes of the of the appellate court; thus: chanrobles virtual law library
person he represents and succeeds, not from the latter, but from the person to whose
estate the person represented would have succeeded. In the direct line, right of "The issues are evidently pure questions of law because their resolution are based on facts
representation is proper only in the descending, never in the ascending, line. In the not in dispute. Admitted are the facts that intervenor-appellant is a collateral relative
collateral line, the right of representation may only take place in favor of the children of within the fifth degree of Augusto H. Piedad; that she is the daughter of the first cousin of
brothers or sisters of the decedent when such children survive with their uncles or aunts. Augusto H. Piedad; that as such, intervenor-appellant seek to inherit from the estate of
The right of representation does not apply to “other collateral relatives within the fifth civil Augusto H. Piedad; that the notice of hearing was published for three consecutive weeks
degree” (to which group both petitioner and respondent belong) who are sixth in the in a newspaper of general circulation; that there was no order of closure of proceedings
order of preference following, firstly, the legitimate children and descendants, secondly, that has been issued by the intestate court; and that the intestate court has already issued
the legitimate parents and ascendants, thirdly, the illegitimate children and descendants, an order for the transfer of the remaining estate of Augusto H. Piedad to petitioner-
fourthly, the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers and sisters/nephews and nieces, of appellee. chanrobles virtual law library
the decedent. Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of nephews and nieces
"These facts are undisputed. chanrobles virtual law library
of the decedent concurring with their uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed in
Article 962, aforequoted, of the Code, is an absolute rule. "In this case, there is no doubt nor difference that arise as to the truth or falsehood on
alleged facts. The question as to whether intervenor-appellant as a collateral relative
within the fifth civil degree, has legal interest in the intestate proceeding which would
FULL TEXT: justify her intervention; the question as to whether the publication of notice of hearing
made in this case is defective which would amount to lack of jurisdiction over the persons
On 28 August 1995, herein petitioner Ofelia Hernando Bagunu moved to intervene in of the parties and the question as to whether the proceedings has already been
Special Proceedings No. 3652, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Proceedings of the terminated when the intestate court issued the order of transfer of the estate of Augusto
Estate of Augusto H. Piedad," pending before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 117, H. Piedad to petitioner-appellee, in spite the absence of an order of closure of the
of Pasay City. Asserting entitlement to a share of the estate of the late Augusto H. Piedad, intestate court, all call for the application and interpretation of the proper law. There is
petitioner assailed the finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to
doubt as to what law is applicable on a certain undisputed state of facts. chanrobles "ART. 971. The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the person
virtual law library represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented but the one
whom the person represented would have succeeded." chanrobles virtual law library
"The resolution of the issues raised does not require the review of the evidence, nor the
credibility of witnesses presented, nor the existence and relevance of specific surrounding In the direct line, right of representation is proper only in the descending, never in the
circumstances. Resolution on the issues may be had even without going to examination ascending, line. In the collateral line, the right of representation may only take place in
of facts on record."[2 favor of the children of brothers or sisters of the decedent when such children survive with
their uncles or aunts. chanrobles virtual law library
Still unsatisfied, petitioner contested the resolution of the appellate court in the instant
petition for review on certiorari. "ART. 972. The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never
in the ascending. chanrobles virtual law library
The Court finds no reversible error in the ruling of the appellate court. But let us set aside
the alleged procedural decrepitude and take on the basic substantive issue. Specifically, "In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters,
can petitioner, a collateral relative of the fifth civil degree, inherit alongside respondent, whether they be of the full or half blood." chanrobles virtual law library
a collateral relative of the third civil degree? Elsewise stated, does the rule of proximity in
intestate succession find application among collateral relatives? "ART. 974. Whenever there is succession by representation, the division of the estate shall
be made per stirpes, in such manner that the representative or representatives shall not
Augusto H. Piedad died without any direct descendants or ascendants. Respondent is inherit more than what the person they represent would inherit, if he were living or could
the maternal aunt of the decedent, a third-degree relative of the decedent, while inherit." chanrobles virtual law library
petitioner is the daughter of a first cousin of the deceased, or a fifth-degree relative of
the decedent. "ART. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they
shall inherit from the latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But
The various provisions of the Civil Code on succession embody an almost complete set of if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions." chanrobles virtual law library
law to govern, either by will or by operation of law, the transmission of property, rights and
obligations of a person upon his death. Each article is construed in congruity with, rather The right of representation does not apply to "other collateral relatives within the fifth civil
than in isolation of, the system set out by the Code. chanrobles virtual law library degree" (to which group both petitioner and respondent belong) who are sixth in the
order of preference following, firstly, the legitimate children and descendants, secondly,
The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in degree to the the legitimate parents and ascendants, thirdly, the illegitimate children and descendants,
decedent and excludes the more distant ones except when and to the extent that the fourthly, the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers and sisters/nephews and nieces, of
right of representation can apply. Thus, Article 962 of the Civil Code provides: chanrobles the decedent. Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of nephews and nieces
virtual law library of the decedent concurring with their uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed in
Article 962, aforequoted, of the Code, is an absolute rule. In determining the degree of
"ART. 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant relationship of the collateral relatives to the decedent, Article 966 of the Civil Code gives
ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. chanrobles virtual direction. chanrobles virtual law library
law library
"Article 966. x x x chanrobles virtual law library
"Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares, subject to the provisions of
article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half blood, and of article 987, "In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made
paragraph 2, concerning division between the paternal and maternal lines." chanrobles to the person with whom the computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two degrees
virtual law library removed from his brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from
his first cousin and so forth." chanrobles virtual law library
By right of representation, a more distant blood relative of a decedent is, by operation of
law, "raised to the same place and degree" of relationship as that of a closer blood Accordingly chanrobles virtual law library
relative of the same decedent. The representative thereby steps into the shoes of the
person he represents and succeeds, not from the latter, but from the person to whose Respondent, being a relative within the third civil degree, of the late Augusto H. Piedad
estate the person represented would have succeeded. chanrobles virtual law library excludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth degree, from succeeding ab intestato to the
estate of the decedent.
"ART. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and The provisions of Article 1009 and Article 1010 of the Civil Code chanrobles virtual law
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have library
inherited." chanrobles virtual law library
"Article 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters, two, the estate must be settled in different proceedings. Therefore, dela Rosa cannot be
the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. chanrobles virtual law library appointed as the sole administrator of the estate of the deceased.

"The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason
of relationship by the whole blood." chanrobles virtual law library
FULL TEXT:
"Article 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of
relationship in the collateral line." - chanrobles virtual law library In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to reinstate the May 11, 1990
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55,4 in SP Case No. 97668,
invoked by petitioner do not at all support her cause. The law means only that among which was reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals in its decision5 dated October
the other collateral relatives (the sixth in the line of succession), no preference or 24, 2002.
distinction shall be observed "by reason of relationshipby the whole blood." In fine, a
maternal aunt can inherit alongside a paternal uncle, and a first cousin of the full blood FACTS OF THE CASE
can inherit equally with a first cousin of the half blood, but an uncle or an aunt, being a
This case concerns the settlement of the intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
third-degree relative, excludes the cousins of the decedent, being in the fourth-degree
Delgado.6 The main issue in this case is relatively simple: who, between petitioners and
of relationship; the latter, in turn, would have priority in succession to a fifth-degree
respondents, are the lawful heirs of the decedents. However, it is attended by several
relative. chanrobles virtual law library
collateral issues that complicate its resolution.
WHEREFORE , the instant Petition is DENIED. No costs. chanrobles virtual law library
The claimants to the estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado may be divided into
SO ORDERED. two groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, consisting of her half- and full-blood
siblings, nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces, and (2) the alleged
heirs of Guillermo Rustia, particularly, his sisters,7 his nephews and nieces,8 his illegitimate
child,9 and the de facto adopted child10 (ampun-ampunan) of the decedents.
2) DELGADO vda. DELA ROSA v. HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA
The alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO AND
GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA and other HEIRS OF LUIS The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa11 Delgado by one Lucio
DELGADO, petitioners, v. Campo. Aside from Josefa, five other children were born to the couple, namely, Nazario,
Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa Delgado was never
HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, respondents. married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa and her full-blood siblings were all natural
children of Felisa Delgado.
G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006.
However, Lucio Campo was not the first and only man in Felisa Delgado’s life. Before him
Facts: On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado, the sister of Josefa, filed a Petition on Letters of
was Ramon Osorio12 with whom Felisa had a son, Luis Delgado. But, unlike her relationship
Administration of the estate of deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia
with Lucio Campo which was admittedly one without the benefit of marriage, the legal
(died 1972 and 1974 respectively). Such letter was opposed by Marciana Rustia, a sister
status of Ramon Osorio’s and Felisa Delgado’s union is in dispute.
of Guillermo, claiming that they should be the beneficiaries of the estate. The trial court
then allowed Guillerma Rustia, a legitimate child of Guillermo, to intervene in the case as The question of whether Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio ever got married is crucial to
she claimed that she possessed the status of an acknowledged legitimate natural child, the claimants because the answer will determine whether their successional rights fall
hence, she should be the sole heir of the estate. Later, Luisa Delgado said that the spouses within the ambit of the rule against reciprocal intestate succession between legitimate
were living together without marriage. Luisa Delgado died and was substituted dela Rosa and illegitimate relatives.13 If Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado had been validly married,
(herein petitioner) in this case. The RTC appointed dela Rosa as the administrator of the then their only child Luis Delgado was a legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa Delgado
estates of the deceased. and therefore excluded from the latter’s intestate estate. He and his heirs would be
barred by the principle of absolute separation between the legitimate and illegitimate
Issue: Whether or not dela Rosa should be the sole administrator of the estate noting that
families. Conversely, if the couple were never married, Luis Delgado and his heirs would
Josefa and Guillermo did not contract marriage.
be entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado’s intestate estate, as they would all be within
Ruling: the illegitimate line.

The Court held, through the testimonies of the witnesses, that marriage between Josefa Petitioners allege that Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado were never married. In support
and Guillermo never occurred. Although it is presumed that a man and a woman thereof, they assert that no evidence was ever presented to establish it, not even so much
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of as an allegation of the date or place of the alleged marriage. What is clear, however, is
marriage, such testimonies shall prevail. Since, no marriage had occurred between the that Felisa retained the surname Delgado. So did Luis, her son with Ramon Osorio. Later
on, when Luis got married, his Partida de Casamiento14 stated that he was "hijo natural blood, and she enjoyed open and continuous possession of that status from her birth in
de Felisa Delgado" (the natural child of Felisa Delgado),15 significantly omitting any 1920 until her father’s demise. In fact, Josefa Delgado’s obituary which was prepared by
mention of the name and other circumstances of his father.16 Nevertheless, oppositors Guillermo Rustia, named the intervenor-respondent as one of their children. Also, her
(now respondents) insist that the absence of a record of the alleged marriage did not report card from the University of Santo Tomas identified Guillermo Rustia as her
necessarily mean that no marriage ever took place. parent/guardian.20

Josefa Delgado died on September 8, 1972 without a will. She was survived by Guillermo
Rustia and some collateral relatives, the petitioners herein. Several months later, on June
15, 1973, Guillermo Rustia executed an affidavit of self- adjudication of the remaining Oppositors (respondents here) nonetheless posit that Guillerma Rustia has no interest in
properties comprising her estate. the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia as she was never duly acknowledged as an
illegitimate child. They contend that her right to compulsory acknowledgement
The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado prescribed when Guillermo died in 1974 and that she cannot claim voluntary
acknowledgement since the documents she presented were not the authentic writings
Sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado17 but whether prescribed by the new Civil Code.21
a marriage in fact took place is disputed. According to petitioners, the two eventually
lived together as husband and wife but were never married. To prove their assertion, On January 7, 1974, more than a year after the death of Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia
petitioners point out that no record of the contested marriage existed in the civil registry. filed a petition for the adoption22 of their ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia. He stated
Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of the sponsors referred under oath "[t]hat he ha[d] no legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children or
to her as "Señorita" or unmarried woman natural children by legal fiction."23 The petition was overtaken by his death on February
28, 1974.
The oppositors (respondents here), on the other hand, insist that the absence of a
marriage certificate did not of necessity mean that no marriage transpired. They maintain Like Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia died without a will. He was survived by his sisters
that Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado were married on June 3, 1919 and from then Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz, and by the children of his
on lived together as husband and wife until the death of Josefa on September 8, 1972. predeceased brother Roman Rustia Sr., namely, Josefina Rustia Albano, Virginia Rustia
During this period spanning more than half a century, they were known among their Paraiso, Roman Rustia, Jr., Sergio Rustia, Francisco Rustia and Leticia Rustia Miranda.24
relatives and friends to have in fact been married. To support their proposition, oppositors
presented the following pieces of evidence: ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

1. Certificate of Identity No. 9592 dated [December 1, 1944] issued to Mrs. Guillermo J. On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, the daughter of Luis Delgado, filed the
Rustia by Carlos P. Romulo, then Resident Commissioner to the United States of the original petition for letters of administration of the intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa
Commonwealth of the Philippines; Delgado and Guillermo Rustia" with the RTC of Manila, Branch 55.25 This petition was
opposed by the following: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely, Marciana Rustia vda.
2. Philippine Passport No. 4767 issued to Josefa D. Rustia on June 25, 1947; de Damian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz;26 (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustia’s late brother,
Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The opposition
3. Veterans Application for Pension or Compensation for Disability Resulting from Service was grounded on the theory that Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants
in the Active Military or Naval Forces of the United States- Claim No. C-4, 004, 503 (VA were barred under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa
Form 526) filed with the Veterans Administration of the United States of America by Dr. Delgado.
Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia himself [swore] to his marriage to Josefa
Delgado in Manila on 3 June 1919;18 In November of 1975, Guillerma Rustia filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings,
claiming she was the only surviving descendant in the direct line of Guillermo Rustia.
4. Titles to real properties in the name of Guillermo Rustia indicated that he was married Despite the objections of the oppositors (respondents herein), the motion was granted
to Josefa Delgado.
On April 3, 1978, the original petition for letters of administration was amended to state
The alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia were never married but had merely lived
together as husband and wife.
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any children. With no children of their
own, they took into their home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. On January 24, 1980, oppositors (respondents herein) filed a motion to dismiss the petition
These children, never legally adopted by the couple, were what was known in the local in the RTC insofar as the estate of Guillermo Rustia was concerned. The motion was denied
dialect as ampun-ampunan. on the ground that the interests of the petitioners and the other claimants remained in
issue and should be properly threshed out upon submission of evidence.
During his life with Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate
child,19 the intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia, with one Amparo Sagarbarria.
According to Guillerma, Guillermo Rustia treated her as his daughter, his own flesh and
On March 14, 1988, Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa substituted for her sister, Luisa 10, 1997, this Court allowed the continuance of the appeal. The pertinent portion of our
Delgado vda. de Danao, who had died on May 18, 1987. decision33 read:

On May 11, 1990, the RTC appointed Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa as administratrix As a rule, periods prescribed to do certain acts must be followed. However, under
of both estates.27 The dispositive portion of the decision read: exceptional circumstances, a delay in the filing of an appeal may be excused on grounds
of substantial justice.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, petitioner and her co-claimants to the estate of
the late Josefa Delgado listed in the Petitions, and enumerated elsewhere in this Decision, xxx xxx xxx
are hereby declared as the only legal heirs of the said Josefa Delgado who died intestate
in the City of Manila on September 8, 1972, and entitled to partition the same among The respondent court likewise pointed out the trial court’s pronouncements as to certain
themselves in accordance with the proportions referred to in this Decision. matters of substance, relating to the determination of the heirs of the decedents and the
party entitled to the administration of their estate, which were to be raised in the appeal,
Similarly, the intervenor Guillerma S. Rustia is hereby declared as the sole and only but were barred absolutely by the denial of the record on appeal upon too technical
surviving heir of the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia, and thus, entitled to the entire estate of the ground of late filing.
said decedent, to the exclusion of the oppositors and the other parties hereto.
xxx xxx xxx
The Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of the estate of Josefa Delgado executed by the late
Guillermo J. Rustia on June 15, 1973 is hereby SET ASIDE and declared of no force and In this instance, private respondents’ intention to raise valid issues in the appeal is
effect. apparent and should not have been construed as an attempt to delay or prolong the
administration proceedings.
As the estates of both dece[d]ents have not as yet been settled, and their settlement [is]
considered consolidated in this proceeding in accordance with law, a single xxx xxx xxx
administrator therefor is both proper and necessary, and, as the petitioner Carlota
A review of the trial court’s decision is needed.
Delgado Vda. de dela Rosa has established her right to the appointment as administratrix
of the estates, the Court hereby APPOINTS her as the ADMINISTRATRIX of the intestate xxx xxx xxx
estate of the decedent JOSEFA DELGADO in relation to the estate of DR. GUILLERMO J.
RUSTIA. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the
Resolution dated November 27, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23415, for
Accordingly, let the corresponding LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION issue to the petitioner the APPROVAL of the private respondents’ Record on Appeal and the CONTINUANCE of
CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA upon her filing of the requisite bond in the sum the appeal from the Manila, Branch LV Regional Trial Court’s May 11, 1990 decision.
of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Finally, oppositor GUILLERMINA RUSTIA RUSTIA is hereby ordered to cease and desist from
her acts of administration of the subject estates, and is likewise ordered to turn over to the Acting on the appeal, the Court of Appeals34 partially set aside the trial court’s decision.
appointed administratix all her collections of the rentals and income due on the assets of Upon motion for reconsideration,35 the Court of Appeals amended its earlier decision.36
the estates in question, including all documents, papers, records and titles pertaining to The dispositive portion of the amended decision read:
such estates to the petitioner and appointed administratix CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE
DE LA ROSA, immediately upon receipt of this Decision. The same oppositor is hereby With the further modification, our assailed decision is RECONSIDERED and VACATED.
required to render an accounting of her actual administration of the estates in Consequently, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is
controversy within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt hereof. hereby RENDERED declaring: 1.) Dr. Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado Rustia to have
been legally married; 2.) the intestate estate of Dr. Guillermo Rustia, Jacoba Delgado-
SO ORDERED.28 Encinas and the children of Gorgonio Delgado (Campo) entitled to partition among
themselves the intestate estate of Josefa D. Rustia in accordance with the proportion
On May 20, 1990, oppositors filed an appeal which was denied on the ground that the referred to in this decision; 3.) the oppositors-appellants as the legal heirs of the late Dr.
record on appeal was not filed on time.29 They then filed a petition for certiorari and Guillermo Rustia and thereby entitled to partition his estate in accordance with the
mandamus30 which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.31 However, on motion for proportion referred to herein; and 4.) the intervenor-appellee Guillerma S. Rustia as
reconsideration and after hearing the parties’ oral arguments, the Court of Appeals ineligible to inherit from the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia; thus revoking her appointment as
reversed itself and gave due course to oppositors’ appeal in the interest of substantial administratrix of his estate.
justice.32
The letters of administration of the intestate estate of Dr. Guillermo Rustia in relation to the
In a petition for review to this Court, petitioners assailed the resolution of the Court of intestate estate of Josefa Delgado shall issue to the nominee of the oppositors-appellants
Appeals, on the ground that oppositors’ failure to file the record on appeal within the upon his or her qualification and filing of the requisite bond in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED
reglementary period was a jurisdictional defect which nullified the appea l. On October THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
Oppositor-appellant Guillermina Rustia Rustia is hereby ordered to cease and desist from We are not persuaded.
her acts of administration of the subject estates and to turn over to the appointed
administrator all her collections of the rentals and incomes due on the assets of the estates First, although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its
in question, including all documents, papers, records and titles pertaining to such estates absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place.40 Once the presumption
to the appointed administrator, immediately upon notice of his qualification and posting of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof. The evidence
of the requisite bond, and to render an accounting of her (Guillermina Rustia Rustia) need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but must at least be enough to
actual administration of the estates in controversy within a period of sixty (60) days from strengthen the presumption of marriage. Here, the certificate of identity issued to Josefa
notice of the administrator’s qualification and posting of the bond. Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia,41 the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia,42 the
declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that he was married to Josefa
The issue of the validity of the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Dr. Guillermo Delgado43 and the titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia married to
Rustia on June 15, 1973 is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings to determine Josefa Delgado," more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are
the extent of the shares of Jacoba Delgado-Encinas and the children of Gorgonio public documents which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.44 No clear
Delgado (Campo) affected by the said adjudication. and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the
recitals therein was presented by petitioners.
Hence, this recourse.
Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners’ own witness whose testimony they primarily
The issues for our resolution are: relied upon to support their position, confirmed that Guillermo Rustia had proposed
marriage to Josefa Delgado and that eventually, the two had "lived together as husband
1. whether there was a valid marriage between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado;
and wife." This again could not but strengthen the presumption of marriage.
2. who the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado are;
Third, the baptismal certificate45 was conclusive proof only of the baptism administered
3. who should be issued letters of administration. by the priest who baptized the child. It was no proof of the veracity of the declarations
and statements contained therein,46 such as the alleged single or unmarried ("Señorita")
The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado civil status of Josefa Delgado who had no hand in its preparation.

A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
are permitted to draw from proof of other facts. Presumptions are classified into Delgado. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans toward legitimizing
presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. Presumptions of law are, in turn, either matrimony. Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in fact
conclusive or disputable.37 married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they hold
themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of
Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides: law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.47

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if The Lawful Heirs Of Josefa Delgado
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
To determine who the lawful heirs of Josefa Delgado are, the questioned status of the
xxx xxx xx cohabitation of her mother Felisa Delgado with Ramon Osorio must first be addressed.

(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered As mentioned earlier, presumptions of law are either conclusive or disputable. Conclusive
into a lawful contract of marriage; presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory that no contrary proof,
no matter how strong, may overturn them.48 On the other hand, disputable presumptions,
xxx xxx xxx
one of which is the presumption of marriage, can be relied on only in the absence of
In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage sufficient evidence to the contrary.
existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their cohabitation of more than
Little was said of the cohabitation or alleged marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon
50 years cannot be doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be married. Their
Osorio. The oppositors (now respondents) chose merely to rely on the disputable
reputed status as husband and wife was such that even the original petition for letters of
presumption of marriage even in the face of such countervailing evidence as (1) the
administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to themas "spouses."
continued use by Felisa and Luis (her son with Ramon Osorio) of the surname Delgado
Yet, petitioners maintain that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia had simply lived and (2) Luis Delgado’s and Caridad Concepcion’s Partida de Casamiento49 identifying
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. They make much of the Luis as "hijo natural de Felisa Delgado" (the natural child of Felisa Delgado).50
absence of a record of the contested marriage, the testimony of a witness38 attesting
that they were not married, and a baptismal certificate which referred to Josefa Delgado
as "Señorita" or unmarried woman.39
All things considered, we rule that these factors sufficiently overcame the rebuttable Since Josefa Delgado had heirs other than Guillermo Rustia, Guillermo could not have
presumption of marriage. Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, validly adjudicated Josefa’s estate all to himself. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is
all the children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio clear. Adjudication by an heir of the decedent’s entire estate to himself by means of an
Campo, namely, Luis and his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, affidavit is allowed only if he is the sole heir to the estate:
Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed Delgado,51 were her natural
children.52 SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. – If the decedent left no
will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial
Pertinent to this matter is the following observation: or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing
letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of
Suppose, however, that A begets X with B, and Y with another woman, C; then X and Y a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree,
would be natural brothers and sisters, but of half-blood relationship. Can they succeed they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may
each other reciprocally? adjudicate to himself the estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register
of deeds. x x x (emphasis supplied)
The law prohibits reciprocal succession between illegitimate children and legitimate
children of the same parent, even though there is unquestionably a tie of blood between The Lawful Heirs Of Guillermo Rustia
them. It seems that to allow an illegitimate child to succeed ab intestato (from) another
illegitimate child begotten with a parent different from that of the former, would be Intervenor (now co-respondent) Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child58 of Guillermo
allowing the illegitimate child greater rights than a legitimate child. Notwithstanding this, Rustia. As such, she may be entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission
however, we submit that or recognition of paternity.59 She, however, claimed the status of an acknowledged
illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia only after the death of the latter on February 28, 1974
succession should be allowed, even when the illegitimate brothers and sisters are only of at which time it was already the new Civil Code that was in effect.
the half-blood. The reason impelling the prohibition on reciprocal successions between
legitimate and illegitimate families does not apply to the case under consideration. That Under the old Civil Code (which was in force till August 29, 1950), illegitimate children
prohibition has for its basis the difference in category between illegitimate and legitimate absolutely had no hereditary rights. This draconian edict was, however, later relaxed in
relatives. There is no such difference when all the children are illegitimate children of the the new Civil Code which granted certain successional rights to illegitimate children but
same parent, even if begotten with different persons. They all stand on the same footing only on condition that they were first recognized or acknowledged by the parent.
before the law, just like legitimate children of half-blood relation. We submit, therefore,
that the rules regarding succession of legitimate brothers and sisters should be applicable Under the new law, recognition may be compulsory or voluntary.60 Recognition is
to them. Full blood illegitimate brothers and sisters should receive double the portion of compulsory in any of the following cases:
half-blood brothers and sisters; and if all are either of the full blood or of the half-blood,
(1) in cases of rape, abduction or seduction, when the period of the offense coincides
they shall share equally.53
more or less with that of the conception;
Here, the above-named siblings of Josefa Delgado were related to her by full-blood,
(2) when the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father (or
except Luis Delgado, her half-brother. Nonetheless, since they were all illegitimate, they
mother)61 by the direct acts of the latter or of his family;
may inherit from each other. Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa
Delgado. (3) when the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the
supposed father;
We note, however, that the petitioners before us are already the nephews, nieces,
grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado. Under Article 972 of the new Civil (4) when the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father.
Code, the right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in favor of the 62
children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently, it cannot be
exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces.54 Therefore, the only collateral relatives On the other hand, voluntary recognition may be made in the record of birth, a will, a
of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing.63
and sisters, or their children who were still alive at the time of her death on September 8,
1972. They have a vested right to participate in the inheritance.55 The records not being Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on two grounds: first, compulsory recognition
clear on this matter, it is now for the trial court to determine who were the surviving through the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and
brothers and sisters (or their children) of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death. Together second, voluntary recognition through authentic writing.
with Guillermo Rustia,56 they are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado in accordance
There was apparently no doubt that she possessed the status of an illegitimate child from
with Article 1001 of the new Civil Code:57
her birth until the death of her putative father Guillermo Rustia. However, this did not
Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower,
constitute acknowledgment but a mere ground by which she could have compelled
the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or
acknowledgment through the courts.64 Furthermore, any (judicial) action for compulsory
their children to the other one-half.
acknowledgment has a dual limitation: the lifetime of the child and the lifetime of the
putative parent.65 On the death of either, the action for compulsory recognition can no Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no executor is named in
longer be filed.66 In this case, intervenor Guillerma’s right to claim compulsory the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give a
acknowledgment prescribed upon the death of Guillermo Rustia on February 28, 1974. bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

The claim of voluntary recognition (Guillerma’s second ground) must likewise fail. An (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the
authentic writing, for purposes of voluntary recognition, is understood as a genuine or discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
indubitable writing of the parent (in this case, Guillermo Rustia). This includes a public requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
instrument or a private writing admitted by the father to be his.67 Did intervenor’s report
card from the University of Santo Tomas and Josefa Delgado’s obituary prepared by (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person
Guillermo Rustia qualify as authentic writings under the new Civil Code? Unfortunately selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow or next of kin,
not. The report card of intervenor Guillerma did not bear the signature of Guillermo Rustia. neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to
The fact that his name appears there as intervenor’s parent/guardian holds no weight request that the administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to
since he had no participation in its preparation. Similarly, while witnesses testified that it one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
was Guillermo Rustia himself who drafted the notice of death of Josefa Delgado which
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such
was published in the Sunday Times on September 10, 1972, that published obituary was
other person as the court may select.
not the authentic writing contemplated by the law. What could have been admitted as
an authentic writing was the original manuscript of the notice, in the handwriting of In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the
Guillermo Rustia himself and signed by him, not the newspaper clipping of the obituary. estate of the one to be appointed.71 The order of preference does not rule out the
The failure to present the original signed manuscript was fatal to intervenor’s claim. appointment of co-administrators, specially in cases where justice and equity demand
that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates,72 a
The same misfortune befalls the ampun-ampunan, Guillermina Rustia Rustia, who was
situation which obtains here.
never adopted in accordance with law. Although a petition for her adoption was filed by
Guillermo Rustia, it never came to fruition and was dismissed upon the latter’s death. We It is in this light that we see fit to appoint joint administrators, in the persons of Carlota
affirm the ruling of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals holding her a legal Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and a nominee of the nephews and nieces of Guillermo
stranger to the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit from them ab Rustia. They are the next of kin of the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo
intestato. We quote: Rustia, respectively.
Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem, which [created] between two persons a WHEREFORE, the petition (which seeks to reinstate the May 11, 1990 decision of the RTC
relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation. Only an Manila, Branch 55) is hereby DENIED. The assailed October 24, 2002 decision of the Court
adoption made through the court, or in pursuance with the procedure laid down under of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this jurisdiction. It is not of natural law at all, but is
wholly and entirely artificial. To establish the relation, the statutory requirements must be 1. Guillermo Rustia’s June 15, 1973 affidavit of self-adjudication is hereby ANNULLED.
strictly carried out, otherwise, the adoption is an absolute nullity. The fact of adoption is
2. the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of Josefa Delgado.
never presumed, but must be affirmatively [proven] by the person claiming its
The remaining half shall pertain to (a) the full and half-siblings of Josefa Delgado who survived her and
existence.68 (b) the children of any of Josefa Delgado’s full- or half-siblings who may have predeceased her, also
surviving at the time of her death. Josefa Delgado’s grandnephews and grandnieces are excluded
Premises considered, we rule that two of the claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, from her estate. In this connection, the trial court is hereby ordered to determine the identities of the
namely, intervenor Guillerma Rustia and the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia, relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to share in her estate.
are not lawful heirs of the decedent. Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if there are
no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving spouse, the collateral 3. Guillermo Rustia’s estate (including its one-half share of Josefa Delgado’s estate) shall be inherited
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of by Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose respective shares shall be per
capita) and the children of the late Roman Rustia, Sr. (who survived Guillermo Rustia and whose
Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters,69 nieces and
respective shares shall be per stirpes). Considering that Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and
nephews.70 Hortencia Rustia Cruz are now deceased, their respective shares shall pertain to their estates.

Entitlement To Letters Of Administration 4. Letters of administration over the still unsettled intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Delgado shall issue to Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and to a nominee from among the heirs
An administrator is a person appointed by the court to administer the intestate estate of of Guillermo Rustia, as joint administrators, upon their qualification and filing of the requisite bond in
the decedent. Rule 78, Section 6 of the Rules of Court prescribes an order of preference such amount as may be determined by the trial court.
in the appointment of an administrator:
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED