RATIO: Carmelita, as the spurious daughter of Vicente de la Puerta, has successional rights to the intestate estate of her father but not to the estate of Dominga Revuelta.
FACTS: Deceased Dominga Revuelta died at the age of 92 and left a will leaving all her properties to her three surviving children, namely, Alfredo, Vicente and Isabel. Isabel was given the free portion in addition to her legitime and was appointed executrix of the will. The petition for the probate of the will filed by Isabel was opposed by her brothers who averred that their mother was already senile at the time of the execution of the will and did not fully comprehend its meaning. Alfredo subsequently died, leaving Vicente the lone oppositor.
On August 1, 1974, Vicente de la Puerta filed with the Court of First Instance of Quezon a petition to adopt Carmelita de la Puerta. After hearing, the petition was granted. However, the decision was appealed by Isabel to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, Vicente died, prompting her to move for the dismissal of the case .
On November 20, 1981, Carmelita, having been allowed to intervene in the probate proceedings, filed a motion for the payment to her of a monthly allowance as the acknowledged natural child of Vicente de la Puerta. At the hearing on her motion, Carmelita presented evidence to prove her claimed status to which Isabel was allowed to submit counter-evidence. The probate court granted the motion, declaring that it was satisfied from the evidence at hand that Carmelita was a natural child of Vicente de la Puerta and was entitled to the amounts claimed for her support.
The petitioner's main argument is that Carmelita was not the natural child of Vicente de la Puerta, who was married to Genoveva de la Puerta in 1938 and remained his wife until his death in 1978. Carmelita's real parents are Juanita Austrial and Gloria Jordan. Invoking the presumption of legitimacy, she argues that Carmelita was the legitimate child of Juanita Austrial and Gloria Jordan, who were legally or presumably married. Moreover, Carmelita could not have been a natural child of Vicente de la Puerta because he was already married at the time of her birth in 1962.
The lower court ruled in favor of Carmelita.
ISSUE: Whether or not Carmelita may claim support and successional rights to the state of Dominga Revuelta.
HELD: No. In testamentary succession, the right of representation can take place only in the following cases: first, when the person represented dies before the testator; second, when the person represented is incapable of succeeding the testator; and third, when the person represented is disinherited by the testator. In all of these cases, since there is a vacancy in the inheritance, the law calls the children or descendants of the person represented to succeed by right of representation.
The law is clear that there is representation only when relatives of a deceased person try to succeed him in his rights which he would have had if still living.
In this case, Vicente did not predecease his mother and Carmelita is a spurious child.
Not having predeceased Dominga, Vicente had the right to inherit from her directly or in his own right. No right of representation was involved, nor could be invoked by Carmelita upon her father’s death, which came after Dominga’s death.
Moreover, as a spurious child, Carmelita is barred from inheriting from Dominga because of Article 992 which lays down the barrier between legitimate and illegitimate families.
No comments:
Post a Comment