22. SOLINAP vs.
LOCSIN issuance of letters of administration since he failed to prove his
FACTS:
Eleven months after Juan “Jhonny” Locsin, Sr. died intestate on
December 11, 1990, respondent Juan E. Locsin, Jr. filed a “Petition
for Letters of Administration” praying that he be appointed
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased. He alleged that
he is an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin and
that he is the only surviving legal heir of the decedent.
January 10, 1992, the heirs of Jose Locsin, Jr., the heirs of Maria
Locsin, Manuel Locsin and Ester Jarantilla, claiming to be the lawful
heirs of the deceased, filed an opposition to respondent’s petition for
letters of administration. They averred that respondent is not a child or
an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin, who during
his lifetime never affixed “Sr.” in his name.
January 5, 1993, another opposition to the petition was filed by Lucy
Salinop (sole heir of the late Maria LocsinVda. De Araneta, sister of
the deceased), Manuel Locsin and the successors of the late Lourdes
C. Locsin alleging that respondent’s clainm as a natural child is barred
by prescription or the statute of limitations.
The Intestate Estate of the late Jose Locsin, Jr., (brother of the
deceased) also entered its appearance in the estate proceedings,
joining the earlier oppositors. This was followed by an appearance
and opposition dated January 26, 1993 of Ester LocsinJarantilla
(another sister of Juan C. Locsin), Likewise stating that there is no
filial relationship between herein respondent and the deceased.
To support his claim that he is an acknowledged natural child of the
deceased respondent submitted a machine copy of his Certificate of
Live Birth No. 477 found in the bound volume of birth records in the
Office of the Local Clerk Registrar of Iloilo City. It contains the
information that respondent’s father is Juan C. Locsin stated therein
as evidenced by his signatures. To prove the existence and
authenticity of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 from which Exhibit was
machine copied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Juan C. LocsinJr is an interested party and is qualified
to be granted letters of Administration.
DECISION:
No, Juan C. Locsin is not an interested person within the meaning of
Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court entitled to the
filiation with the late Juan C. Locsin, Sr., (Certificate of Live Birth No.
477 is spurious).
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court lays down the
persons preferred who are entitled to the issuance of letters of
administration. Upon the other hand, Section 2 of the Rule 79
provides that a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an
interested person.
An “interested party”, in estate proceedings, is one who would be
benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor. The deceased, Juan C. Locsin,
was not survived by a spouse. In his petition for issuance of letters of
administration, respondent alleged that he is an acknowledged natural
son of the deceased, implying that he is an interested person in the
estate and is considered as next of kin. But has respondent
established that he is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased.
The petition is denied.
23. Tecson v. COMELEC
FACTS
Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the
Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party. In his certificate of
candidacy, FPJ, represented himself to be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines.
Fornier, initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and
to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy alleging
that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of
candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in
truth, his parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was
an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national.
Granting that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have
transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being illegitimate.
In the hearing before the 3rd Division of the COMELEC, Fornier, in
support of his claim, presented several documentary exhibits while
FPJ presented twenty-two documentary pieces of evidence.
COMELEC dismissed the case for lack of merit.
MR was denied by the COMELEC en banc so Fornier went to the SC.
1. Yes.
The other petitions, later consolidated with G. R. No. 161824, would
include G. R. No. 161434, entitled "Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, and
Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., vs. The Commission on Elections, Ronald Allan
Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.), and Victorino X. Fornier," and
the other, docketed G. R. No. 161634, entitled "Zoilo Antonio G.
Velez, vs. Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.," both
challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the
Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the
basic issue on the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley
Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe might be accepted to prove the
acts of Allan F. Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship with
FPJ
PROVISION
Rule 130
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to
the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage,
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree"
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names
of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy,
in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received
in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or
other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and
the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
RULING & RATIO
1. Civil law provisions point to a bias against illegitimacy and this
discriminatory attitude may be traced to the Spanish family
and property laws which provided distinctions in the rights of
legitimate and illegitimate children.
2. In the monarchial set-up of old Spain, the distribution and
inheritance of titles and wealth were strictly according to
bloodlines and the concern to keep these bloodlines
uncontaminated by foreign blood was paramount.
3. These distinctions were codified in the Spanish Civil Code,
and the invidious discrimination survived when the Spanish
Civil Code became the primary source of our Civil Code.
4. Such distinction, however, remains and should remain only in
the sphere of civil law and not unduly impede or impinge on
the domain of political law.
5. The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining
citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from
and not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law
purposes.
6. The Civil Code or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation
or paternity, although good law, do not have preclusive effects
on matters alien to personal and family relations. The ordinary
rules on evidence could well and should govern.
7. The matter about pedigree is not necessarily precluded from
being applicable by the Civil Code or Family Code provisions.
8. For the rule to apply, it would be necessary that (a) the
declarant is already dead or unable to testify, (b) the pedigree
of a person must be at issue, (c) the declarant must be a
relative of the person whose pedigree is in question, (d)
declaration must be made before the controversy has
occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and
the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
9. Given this, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley
Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted before the
COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F.
Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e,
living together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including
FPJ) in one house, and as one family.