G.R. No. L-9665 - FEBRUARY 1916 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-9665February 29, 1916 In Re: Ambrosio Rabalo. Petrona Requejo vs. Gabina Rabalo G.R. No. L-10244February 29, 1916 Santiago Cruzado vs. Estefania Bustos, et al. G.R. No. L-11006February 29, 1916 United States vs. Mateo Balbin, et al. G.R. Nos. L-11055-56February 29, 1916 United States vs. Angel Ang G.R. No. L-10675February 28, 1916 United States vs. Yap Tian Jong G.R. No. L-8271February 26, 1916 Petronila Marquez vs. Florentina Sacay G.R. No. L-10934February 26, 1916 PP. Agustinos Recoletos vs. Galo Lichauco , et al. G.R. No. L-10531February 25, 1916 Juliana Melliza vs. Pablo Araneta, et al. G.R. No. L-9204February 24, 1916 Lazaro Pascual, et al vs. Felipe Pascual, et al. G.R. No. L-10323February 21, 1916 Petra de Castro, et al vs. Justice of the Peace of Bucaue, et al. G.R. No. L-10516February 19, 1916 United States vs. Agapito Solaña, et al. G.R. No. L-10722February 18, 1916 Dolores A. Ignacio vs. Felisa Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-8149February 15, 1916 United States vs. Raymundo Zapanta, et al. G.R. No. L-9277February 15, 1916 Andres M. Calon vs. Balbino Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-9822February 15, 1916 Benigno Solis vs. Pedro de Guzman G.R. No. L-9966February 14, 1916 Trinidad de Ayala, et al. vs. Antonio M. Barretto, et al. G.R. No. L-10427February 14, 1916 United States vs. Soy Chuy G.R. No. L-10666February 14, 1916 United States vs. Que Siang G.R. No. L-10951February 14, 1916 K.S. Young, et al vs. James J. Rafferty G.R. No. L-9977February 12, 1916 Doroteo Karagdag vs. Filomena Barado, et al. G.R. No. L-11065February 12, 1916 United States vs. Lope K. Santos G.R. No. L-9596February 11, 1916 Marcos Mendoza vs. Francisco de Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-11048February 11, 1916 Lim Pue vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-11081February 11, 1916 United States vs. Moro Mohamad, et al. G.R. No. L-10104February 10, 1916 Romana Cortes, et al vs. Florencio G. Oliva G.R. No. L-10251February 10, 1916 Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Alhambra Cigar Mfg. Co. G.R. No. L-10619February 10, 1916 Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Mfg. Company G.R. No. L-10548February 9, 1916 United States vs. Saturtino de Iro G.R. No. L-8166February 8, 1916 Jorge Domalagan vs. Carlos Bolifer G.R. No. L-9038February 7, 1916 Pedro Magayano vs. Tomas Gapuzan, et al. G.R. No. L-10280February 7, 1916 Engracio Coronel, et al vs. Cenon Ona, et al. G.R. No. L-8769February 5, 1916 Smith, Belle & Co. vs. Estate of Mariano Maronilla G.R. No. L-9802February 5, 1916 Tec Bi & Co. vs. Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China G.R. No. L-10078February 5, 1916 United States vs. Marcelino Dacaimat G.R. No. L-10345February 5, 1916 Kuenzle & Streiff vs. Juan Villanueva G.R. No. L-10107February 4, 1916 Clara Cerezo vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company G.R. No. L-10121February 3, 1916 Mauricia Soto, et al vs. Dominga Ong G.R. No. L-9184February 2, 1916 Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. George S. Sellner G.R. No. L-10129February 2, 1916 Clara Tambunting vs. Edilberto Santos G.R. No. L-10744February 2, 1916 Antonio Raymundo, et al vs. Ambrosio Carpio, et al. G.R. No. L-10841February 2, 1916 United States vs. Juan de los Santos G.R. No. L-11086February 2, 1916 Martiniano Valdezco Sy Chiok vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. L-11399February 2, 1916 Real Monasterio de Santa Clara vs. Panfilo Villamar, et al. G.R. No. L-10173February 1, 1916 Mariano Velasco & Co. vs. Gochuico & Co., et al. G.R. No. L-10935February 1, 1916 United States vs. Casimiro E. Velasquez The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In Re: Ambrosio Rabalo. Petrona Requejo vs. Gabina Rabalo Santiago Cruzado vs. Estefania Bustos, et al. United States vs. Mateo Balbin, et al. United States vs. Angel Ang United States vs. Yap Tian Jong Petronila Marquez vs. Florentina Sacay PP. Agustinos Recoletos vs. Galo Lichauco , et al. Juliana Melliza vs. Pablo Araneta, et al. Lazaro Pascual, et al vs. Felipe Pascual, et al. Petra de Castro, et al vs. Justice of the Peace of Bucaue, et al. United States vs. Agapito Solaña, et al. Dolores A. Ignacio vs. Felisa Martinez, et al. United States vs. Raymundo Zapanta, et al. Andres M. Calon vs. Balbino Enriquez, et al. Benigno Solis vs. Pedro de Guzman Trinidad de Ayala, et al. vs. Antonio M. Barretto, et al. United States vs. Soy Chuy United States vs. Que Siang K.S. Young, et al vs. James J. Rafferty Doroteo Karagdag vs. Filomena Barado, et al. United States vs. Lope K. Santos Marcos Mendoza vs. Francisco de Leon, et al. Lim Pue vs. Insular Collector of Customs United States vs. Moro Mohamad, et al. Romana Cortes, et al vs. Florencio G. Oliva Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Alhambra Cigar Mfg. Co. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Mfg. Company United States vs. Saturtino de Iro Jorge Domalagan vs. Carlos Bolifer Pedro Magayano vs. Tomas Gapuzan, et al. Engracio Coronel, et al vs. Cenon Ona, et al. Smith, Belle & Co. vs. Estate of Mariano Maronilla Tec Bi & Co. vs. Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China United States vs. Marcelino Dacaimat Kuenzle & Streiff vs. Juan Villanueva Clara Cerezo vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company Mauricia Soto, et al vs. Dominga Ong Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. George S. Sellner Clara Tambunting vs. Edilberto Santos Antonio Raymundo, et al vs. Ambrosio Carpio, et al. United States vs. Juan de los Santos Martiniano Valdezco Sy Chiok vs. Insular Collector of Customs Real Monasterio de Santa Clara vs. Panfilo Villamar, et al. Mariano Velasco & Co. vs. Gochuico & Co., et al. United States vs. Casimiro E. Velasquez The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9665 February 29, 1916
In the matter of the settlement of the intestate estate of Ambrosio Rabalo, deceased. PETRONA REQUEJO,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
GABINA RABALO,respondent-appellant.
Rafael de la Sierra for appellant.
Salvador Imperial for appellee.
CARSON,J.:
The petition in this case, alleging that Ambrosio Rabalo died intestate, leaving as his only heirs his widow, Petrona Raquejo, and their three children, Emilio Rabalo, Eufrasia Rabalo and Gabina Rabalo, and that Emilio died subsequently, without descendants, prays for the distribution of the estate in accordance with these allegations of facts.
The petition was opposed by Gabina Rabalo, who claims that her father had no surviving children at the time of his death other than herself; and alleges that Emilio Rabalo and Eufrasia Rabalo were born before the marriage of Ambrosio Requejo is their mother, Ambrosio Rabalo was not their father.
To our mind the evidence satisfactorily discloses that Emilio and Eufrasia Rabalo were the children of Ambrosio Rabalo and Petrona Requejo born out of lawful wedlock; that Eufrasia was born in the year 1871 and that Emilio was born in the year 1873; that, thereafter, on the 28th of November, 1874, Ambrosio Rabalo and Petrona Requejo were lawfully married, and that in the year 1876 there was born to the couple another child, Gabina, the appellant herein; that these three children were all living at the time of the death of their father, and that Emilio died later, leaving neither wife nor descendant surviving him; and that Eufrasia and Emilio, from the date of the marriage in 1874 down to the date of the death of Ambrosio Rabalo were given by him the status of acknowledged and legitimated children, and were openly recognized by him as such.
The court below held that Eufrasia and Emilio were the acknowledged natural children of Ambrosio Rabalo, legitimated by his subsequent marriage with their mother, Petrona Requejo, and decreed the distribution of the estate accordingly.
Counsel for the appellant relies upon the provisions of articles 119, 121, and 131 of the Civil Code, claiming that the evidence fails to disclose that Ambrosio Rabalo acknowledged Eufrasia and Emilio as his children, by will or by any other public instrument, as required by these provisions of the law.
It is clear, however, that since it is admitted that these children were born and Ambrosio Rabalo and Petrona Requejo were married more than thirteen years before the Civil Code was promulgated in the Philippine Islands, we must look to the law in force prior to its promulgation in determining their status as alleged legitimated natural children, at least as far as it is alleged that they acquired such status prior to the promulgation of the Code. The laws applicable to the facts under consideration are therefore Law 11 of Toro, and Law 1, Title 5, Book 10 of theNovisima Recopilacion. (Buenaventura vs. Urbano, 5 Phil. Rep., 1; Capistrano vs. Gabino, 8 Phil., Rep., 135; Serrano vs. Aragon, 22 Phil. Rep., 10.).
Under these laws no special form of acknowledgment of natural children was prescribed and the question for determination therefore is whether the evidence sustains a finding of facts from which the court may conclude that before the enactment of the code Ambrosio Rabalo clearly signified his intention to recognize these children as his own and to give them the status of legitimated natural children.
The evidence of record conclusively established that Ambrosio Rabalo always recognized these children as his own, and that during his lifetime, and for at least 13 years before the Civil Code went into effect in these Islands, they lived with him and their mother, and were given the status of legitimated children, enjoying all the rights and privileges which were accorded to their sister, Gabina, born after the marriage took place.
Two witnesses were introduced on behalf of the opponent, but both of them were compelled to admit on cross-examination that Eufrasia and Emilio Rabalo always lived with Ambrosio Rabalo and his wife, and were treated by Ambrosio as though they were his own children.
Such conclusive proof of long continued status as recognized children was, under the laws in existence prior to the promulgation of the Civil Code, a sufficient recognition to give the children the status of recognized natural children, and this together with the proof of the marriage of their parents leaves no doubt as to the soundness of the ruling of the court below declaring them to be entitled to the heritable rights to legitimated children of Ambrosio Rabalo, deceased.
It is to be observed that this is not an action brought to compel the recognition of these children. It was brought for the purpose merely of securing the distribution of the estate of their alleged father, and to that end, a declaration of their rights of inheritance as the legitimated children of the deceased, upon proof of their allegations that he had in fact recognized them as such during his lifetime.
It is not necessary to discuss or decide the questions raised as to the admissibility of the evidence offered with regard to the entries in the baptismal registries of the parish where these children were born, because, as we have indicated above, even if we wholly disregard this evidence, the decree entered in the trial court must be affirmed. So ordered..
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Trent, JJ.,concur.