Posted By James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioners (Mercedes Cristobal, Anselmo Cristobal, the heirs of the deceased Socorro Cristobal, and Elisa Cristobal-Sikat) claim that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his first marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. On the other hand, private respondents (Norberto, Florencio, Eufrosina and Jose, all surnamed Cristobal) are also the children of Buenaventura Cristobal resulting from his second marriage to Donata Enriquez. On June 18, 1926, Buenaventura Cristobal purchased a parcel of land. Sometime in the year 1930, Buenaventura Cristobal died intestate. More than six decades later, petitioners learned that private respondents had executed an extrajudicial partition of the subject property and transferred its title to their names.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
WON Whether or not petitioners were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal.
HELD:
HELD:
The initial fact that needs to be established is the filiation of petitioners with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal.
Article 172 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
"Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws," may consist of the child's baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the child's name has been entered, common reputation respecting the child's pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
In the present case, the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late Socorro were presented. Baptismal certificate is one of the acceptable documentary evidence to prove filiation in accordance with the Rules of Court and jurisprudence. In the case of Mercedes, who was born on 31 January 1909, she produced a certificationissued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to 1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear.
Petitioners likewise presented Ester Santos as witness who testified that petitioners enjoyed that common reputation in the community where they reside as being the children of Buevaventura Cristobal with his first wife. Testimonies of witnesses were also presented to prove filiation by continuous possession of the status as a legitimate child.
Article 172 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
"Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws," may consist of the child's baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the child's name has been entered, common reputation respecting the child's pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
In the present case, the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late Socorro were presented. Baptismal certificate is one of the acceptable documentary evidence to prove filiation in accordance with the Rules of Court and jurisprudence. In the case of Mercedes, who was born on 31 January 1909, she produced a certificationissued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to 1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear.
Petitioners likewise presented Ester Santos as witness who testified that petitioners enjoyed that common reputation in the community where they reside as being the children of Buevaventura Cristobal with his first wife. Testimonies of witnesses were also presented to prove filiation by continuous possession of the status as a legitimate child.
