FINALS CASES Manacop and Fernandez II.docx

8/13/2019 FINALS CASES Manacop and Fernandez II.docx

1/16

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 104875 November 13, 1992

FLORNTE F. MNCOP, petitioner,vs.COURT OF PPELS !"# F.F. CRU$ %CO., &NC., respondents.

MELO, J.:

ollo!in" the dis#issal of his petitionfor certiorariin $.%.&'.R. SP No. ()*+ b- the

Thirteenth Division of respondent $ourt/ustice 0uena P1, 'on2a"a&Re-es and %badSantos, /r.,JJ.3 Pa"e *4, Rollo1, petitioner airs

his concern over the propriet- thereof b-clai#in" in the petition at hand that thedisposition, in practical effect, allo!s a !ritof preli#inar- attach#ent issued b- thecourt of ori"in a"ainst his corporation to bei#ple#ented on his fa#il- ho#e !hich isordinaril- e5e#pt fro# the #esne process.

O!in" to the failure to pa- the sub&contractcost pursuant to a deed of assi"n#entsi"ned bet!een petitioner6s corporation andprivate respondent herein, the latter filed on

/ul- ), 787, a co#plaint for a su# of #one-,!ith a pra-er for preli#inar- attach#ent,a"ainst the for#er. %s a conse9uence of theorder on /ul- (8, 787, the correspondin"!rit for the provisional re#ed- !as issued on%u"ust , 787 !hich tri""ered theattach#ent of a parcel of land in :ue2on $it-o!ned b- Manacop $onstruction Presidentlorante . Manacop, herein petitioner.

In lieu of the ori"inal co#plaint, privaterespondent sub#itted an a#ended

co#plaint on %u"ust 8, 787 intended tosubstitute Manacop $onstruction !ithlorante . Manacop as defendant !ho is;doin" business under the na#e and st-le of.. Manacop $onstruction $o., Inc.;. %fterthe #otion for issuance of su##ons to thesubstituted defendant belo! !as "ranted,petitioner filed his ans!er to the a#endedco#plaint on Nove#ber (4, 787.

Petitioner6s O#nibus Motion filed onSepte#ber +, 774 "rounded on 1irre"ularit- that attended the issuance of thedisputed !rit inspite the absence of anaffidavit therefor3 (1 the feasibilit- ofutili2in" the !rit prior to his sub#ission aspart-&defendant, and )1 e5e#ption fro#attach#ent of his fa#il- ho#e pa"e ),Petition3 pa"e 8,Rollo1, did not #erit the

serious consideration of the court of ori"in.This nonchalant response constrainedpetitioner to elevate the #atter torespondent court !hich, as aforesaid, a"reed!ith the trial court on the stren"th of theensuin" observations ofsupportin" affidavit, ?e subscribe tothe recent rulin" of the Hi"hest

Tribunal that a verified state#entincorporated in the co#plaint !ithouta separate affidavit is sufficient andvalid to obtain the attach#ent Nasservs. $ourt of %ppeals, 7 S$R% @8)1.In the case at bar, the ori"inal as !ellas the a#ended co#plaint filed b-herein private respondent !ere

verified, in substantial co#pliance!ith the re9uire#ents of the la!.

inall-, the petitioner insists that theattached propert- is a fa#il- ho#e,havin" been occupied b- hi# and hisfa#il- since 7@(, and is thereforee5e#pt fro# attach#ent.

The contention is not !ell&ta>en.

?hile %rticle +) of the a#il- $ode

provides that the fa#il- ho#e isdee#ed constituted on a house andlot fro# the ti#e it is occupied as afa#il- residence, it does not #eanthat said article has a retroactiveeffect such that all e5istin" fa#il-residences, petitioner6s included, aredee#ed to have been constituted asfa#il- ho#es at the ti#e of theiroccupation prior to the effectivit- ofthe a#il- $ode and henceforth, aree5e#pt fro# e5ecution for the

pa-#ent of obli"ations incurred beforethe effectivit- of the a#il- $ode on%u"ust ), 788 Monde9uillo vs.0reva, 8+ S$R% @**1. Neither does%rticle *( of said $ode state that theprovisions of $hapter (, Title V thereofhave retroactive effect. It si#pl-#eans that all e5istin" fa#il-residences at the ti#e of theeffectivit- of the a#il- $ode areconsidered fa#il- ho#es and areprospectivel- entitled to the benefits

accorded to a fa#il- ho#e under thea#il- $ode Monde9uillo vs.0reva,supra1. Since petitioner6s debt!as incurred as earl- as Nove#ber (+,78@, it preceded the effectivit- of thea#il- $ode. His propert- is thereforenot e5e#pt fro# attach#ent %nne5;O;, Plaintiff6s Position Paper and


2/16

Me#orandu# of %uthorities, p. @81.pp. +&*, Decision3 pp. *A&*+, Rollo1.

The atte#pt to reconsider respondent court6sstance !as to no avail pa"e @+, Rollo13hence, the petition at bar.

Did respondent court err in dis#issin" the

challen"e posed b- petitioner a"ainst thedenial of his o#nibus #otionB

?e are not read- to accept the ne"ativeaspersions put for!ard b- petitioner a"ainstrespondent court in the petition before Cs.

Petitioner harps on the supposition that theappellate court should not have pierced theveil of corporate fiction because he is distinctfro# the personalit- of his corporation and,therefore, the !rit of attach#ent issued

a"ainst the corporation cannot be used toplace his o!n fa#il- ho#e in custodia legis.

This puerile ar"u#ent #ust suffer re=ectionsince the doctrine in co##ercial la!adverted to and e#plo-ed in e5culpation b-petitioner, durin" the pendenc- of hispetition for certiorariin the appellate courtand even at this sta"e, #a- not be per#ittedto si#pl- sprout fro# no!here for suchsubtle e5peri#ent is prescribed b- theo#nibus #otion rule under Section 8, Rule+ of the Revised Rules of $ourt, thusin" a pleadin"or a proceedin" shall include allob=ections then available, andall ob=ections not so includedshall be dee#ed !aived.

The spirit that surrounds the fore"oin"statutor- nor# is to re9uire the #ovant toraise all available e5ceptions for relief durin"a sin"le opportunit- so that #ultiple andpieceeal ob=ections #a- be avoided

Rafanan, et al. vs. Rafanan,78 Phil. *(7++E3 Martin, Rules of $ourt !ith Notesand $o##ents, 787 Rev. Fdition, p. A7(3Savit vs. Rodas, @) Phil. )4 7AE1.

%nother #ista>en notion entertained b-petitioner concerns the i#propriet- ofissuin" the !rit of attach#ent on %u"ust ,787 !hen he ;!as not -et a defendant inthis case.; This erroneous perception see#sto su""est that =urisdiction over the personof petitioner, as defendant belo!, #ust

initiall- attach before the provisional re#ed-involved herein can be re9uested b- aplaintiff. % contrario, $hief /ustice Narvasaobliterated this unfounded assertionin Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Courtof Appeals(4A S$R% 77E1 !hosedissertation on the sub=ect as related and

applied to the present in9uir- is 9uiteenli"htenin"s of the "rant of there#ed- ;at the co##ence#ent of theaction or at an- ti#e thereafter,; The

phrase, ;at the co##ence#ent of theaction,; obviousl- refers to the date ofthe filin" of the co#plaint G !hich, asabove pointed out, is the date that#ar>s ;the co##ence#ent of theaction3 and the reference plainl- is toa ti#e before su##ons is served onthe defendant, or even beforesu##ons issues. ?hat the rule issa-in" 9uite clearl- is that after anaction is properl- co##enced G b-the filin" of the co#plaint and the

pa-#ent of all re9uisite doc>et andother fees G the plaintiff #a- appl-for and obtain a !rit of preli#inar-attach#ent upon fulfill#ent of thepertinent re9uisites laid do!n b- la!,and that he #a- do so at an- ti#e,either before or after service ofsu##ons on the defendant. %nd this

indeed, has been the i##e#orialpractice sanctioned b- the courts< forthe plaintiff or other proper part- toincorporate the application forattach#ent in the co#plaint or otherappropriate pleadin" counterclai#,cross&clai#, third&part- clai#1 and forthe Trial $ourt to issue the !rit e!

parteat the co##ence#entapplication other!ise sufficient in for#and substance. at pp. )A@&)+4.1

Petitioner see>s to capitali2e on the le"alrepercussion that ipso factotoo> place !henthe co#plaint a"ainst hi# !as a#ended. Heproffers the idea that the e5tinction of aco#plaint via a supersedin" one carries !ithit the cessation of the ancilliar- !rit ofpreli#inar- attach#ent. ?e could havea"reed !ith petitioner alon" this line had he

e5pounded the adverse after#ath of ana#ended co#plaint in his o#nibus #otion.0ut the four corners of his #otion in thisrespect filed on Septe#ber +, 774 arecircu#scribed b- other salient points setforth b- Cs relative to the propriet- of theassailed !rit itself. This bein" so, petitioner6seleventh hour effort in pressin" a crucialfactor for e5culpation #ust be renderedineffective and barred b- the o#nibus#otion rule.

astl-, petitioner is one of the belief that hisabode at :ue2on $it- since 7@( is a fa#il-ho#e !ithin the purvie! of the a#il- $odeand therefore should not have beensub=ected to the ve5atious !rit. et,petitioner #ust concede that respondentcourt properl- applied the discussionconve-ed b- /ustice 'anca-co in this re"ard!hen he spo>e for the irst Division of this$ourt in Mode"uillo vs. #reva8+ S$R% @**774E1 thaten.

Cnder %rticle *( of the a#il-$ode, it is provided that ;theprovisions of this $hapter shallalso "overn e5istin" fa#il-residences insofar as saidprovisions are applicable.; Itdoes not #ean that %rticles +(and +) of said $ode have aretroactive effect such that alle5istin" fa#il- residences aredee#ed to have beenconstituted as fa#il- ho#es at

the ti#e of their occupationprior to the effectivit- of thea#il- $ode and are e5e#ptfro# e5ecution for the pa-#entof obli"ations incurred beforethe effectivit- of the a#il-$ode. %rticle *( si#pl- #eansthat all e5istin" fa#il-residences at the ti#e of theeffectivit- of the a#il- $ode,are considered fa#il- ho#esand are prospectivel- entitled

to the benefits accorded to afa#il- ho#e under the a#il-$ode. %rticle *( does not statethat the provisions of $hapter (,

Title V have a retroactive effect.

Is the fa#il- ho#e of petitionere5e#pt fro# e5ecution of the

#one- =ud"#ent aforecitedBNo. The debt or liabilit- !hich!as the basis of the =ud"#entarose or !as incurred at theti#e of the vehicular accidenton March *, 7@* and the#one- =ud"#ent arisin"therefro# !as rendered b- theappellate court on /anuar- (7,788. 0oth preceded theeffectivit- of the a#il- $ode on%u"ust ), 788. This case doesnot fall under the e5e#ptionsfro# e5ecution provided in thea#il- $ode. at pp. @@&@@(1.

Veril-, accordin" to petitioner, his debt !asincurred in 78@ or prior to the effectivit- on%u"ust ), 788 of the a#il- $ode pa"e @,petition3 pa"e ((, Rollo1. This fact alone !ill

#ilitate heavil- a"ainst the so&callede5e#ption b- sheer force of e5clusione#bodied under para"raph (, %rticle ++ ofthe a#il- $ode cited inMode"uillo.

?HFRFORF, the petition is hereb-DISMISSFD, !ith costs a"ainst petitioner.

SO ORDFRFD.

#idin, Davide and Romero, JJ., concur.


Manila

SF$OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1083'' Febr(!r) 1', 1994

*O+N PUL E. FERNNE$, ETL., petitioners,vs.T+E COURT OF PPELS !"# CRL&TO S.FERNNE$, respondents.

$rlinda #. $spe%o for petitioners.

C.#. Car&on ' Associates for privaterespondent.

PUNO, J.:

The le"al dispute bet!een the parties be"an!hen the petitioners filed $ivil $ase No. :&A++*@ for support a"ainst the privaterespondent before the RT$ of :ue2on $it-.

The co#plaint !as dis#issed on Dece#ber7, 78* b- /ud"e %ntonio P. Solano,1!hofound that ;t1here is nothin" in the #aterialalle"ations in the co#plaint that see>s to

A


5/16

co#pel private respondent1 to reco"ni2e orac>no!led"e petitioners1 as his ille"iti#atechildren,; and that there !as no sufficientand co#petent evidence to prove thepetitioners filiation.2

Petitioners plodded on. On ebruar- 7,78@, the- file the case at bench, anotheraction for reco"nition and support a"ainstthe private respondent before anotherbranch of the RT$ of :ue2on $it-, 0ranch 8@.

The case !as doc>eted as $ivil $ase No. :&+4.

The evidence sho!s that VIOFT% P.FS'CFRR%, sin"le, is the #other and"uardian ad litem of the t!o petitioners,$%RO %NTONIO FRN%NDFJ and /OHN P%CFRN%NDFJ, #et so#eti#e in 78), at theMeralco $o#pound tennis courts. % Meralco

e#plo-ee and a tennis enthusiast, $arlitoused to spend his !ee>&ends re"ularl- atsaid courts, !here Violeta6s father served astennis instructor.

Violeta pointed to $arlito as the father of hert!o sons. She clai#ed that the- started theirillicit se5ual relationship si5 *1 #onths aftertheir first #eetin". The tr-st resulted in thebirth of petitioner $laro %ntonio on March ,78A, and of petitioner /ohn Paul on not>no! that $arlito !as #arried until the birth

of her t!o children. She averred the- !ere#arried in civil rites in October, 78). InMarch, 78+, ho!ever, she discovered thatthe #arria"e license !hich the- used !asspurious.

To bolster their case, petitioners presentedthe follo!in" docu#entar- evidence< theircertificates of live birth, identif-in"respondent $arlito as their father3 thebaptis#al certificate of petitioner $laro!hich also states that his father is

respondent $arlito3 photo"raphs of $arlitota>en durin" the baptis# of petitioner $laro3and pictures of respondent $arlito and $larota>en at the ho#e of Violeta Fs"uerra.

Petitioners li>e!ise presented as !itnesses,Rosario $antoria,3Dr. Mila"rosVillanueva,4Rub- $hua $u,5and r. iberatoernande2.'The first three !itnesses toldthe trial court that Violeta Fs"uerra had, atdifferent ti#es,7introduced the privaterespondent to the# as her ;husband;. r.

ernande2, on the other hand, testified that$arlito !as the one !ho presented hi#self asthe father of petitioner $laro durin" thelatter6s baptis#.

In defense, respondent $arlito deniedVioleta6s alle"ations that he sired the t!opetitioners. He averred he onl- served as

one of the sponsors in the baptis# ofpetitioner $laro. This clai# !as corroboratedb- the testi#on- of Rodante Pa"ta>han, anoffice#ate of respondent $arlito !ho alsostood as a sponsor of petitioner $laro durin"his baptis#. The Private respondent alsopresented as !itness, idel %rca"ua, a !aiterof the i"hthouse Restaurant. He disputedVioleta6s alle"ation that she and respondent$arlito fre9uented the said restaurant durin"their affair. %rca"ua stated he never sa!Violeta Fs"uerra and respondent $arlitoto"ether at the said restaurant. Privaterespondent also declared he onl- learned he!as na#ed in the birth certificates of bothpetitioners as their father after he !as suedfor support in $ivil $ase No.:&A++*@.

0ased on the evidence adduced b- the

parties, the trial court ruled in favor ofpetitioners, vi(.oned as of the filin" of theco#plaint on ebruar- 7, 78@.

SO ORDFRFD.

On appeal, the decision !as set aside andpetitioners co#plaint dis#issed b- therespondent $ourt of %ppeals8in its i#pu"neddecision, dated October (4, 77(. It foundthat the ;proof relied upon b- the trial1 courtis1 inade9uate to prove the privaterespondent6s1 paternit- and filiation ofpetitioners1.; It further held that thedoctrine of res %udicata applied because ofthe dis#issal of the petitioners co#plaint in$ivil $ase No. :&A++*@. Petitioners6 #otionfor reconsideration !as denied on Dece#ber

((, 77(.

Petitioners no! contend that the respondentappellate court erred in< 1 not "ivin" fullfaith and credit to the testi#on- in of VioletaFs"uerra3 (1 not "ivin" !ei"ht and value tothe testi#on- of ather iberato ernande23)1 not "ivin" probative value to the

+


6/16

nu#erous pictures of respondent $arlitoernande2 ta>en durin" the baptis#alcere#on- and inside the bedroo# of VioletaFs"uerra3 A1 not "ivin" probative value tothe birth certificates of petitioners3 +1 "ivin"so #uch credence to the self&servin" andincredible testi#on- of respondent $arlitoernande23 and *1 holdin" that the principleof res %udicata is applicable in the case atbar.

?e find no #erit in the petition.

The rule is !ell&settled that findin"s of factsof the $ourt of %ppeals #a- be revie!ed b-this court onl- under e5ceptionalcircu#stances. One such situation is !henthe findin"s of the appellate court clash !iththose of the trial court as in the case atbench. It behooves us therefore to e5ercise

our e5traordinar- po!er, and settle the issueof !hether the rulin" of the appellate courtthat private respondent is not the father ofthe petitioners is substantiated b- theevidence on record.

?e shall first e5a#ine the docu#entar-evidence offered b- the petitioners !hich therespondent court re=ected as insufficient toprove their filiation. irstl-, !e hold thatpetitioners cannot rel- on the photo"raphssho!in" the presence of the private

respondent in the baptis# of petitioner $laroF5h. ;0&8;, F5h. ;0&(;, F5h. ;H; and F5h.;I;1. These photo"raphs are far fro# proofsthat private respondent is the father ofpetitioner $laro. %s e5plained b- the privaterespondent, he !as in the baptis# as one ofthe sponsors of petitioner $laro. Histesti#on- !as corroborated b- RodantePa"ta>han.

Secondl-, the pictures ta>en in the house ofVioleta sho!in" private respondent

sho!erin" affection to $laro fall short of theevidence re9uired to prove paternit-F5hibits ;0;, ;0&;, ;0&(;, ;0&@;, ;0&A; and;0&+;1. %s !e held in )an vs. )rocio, 7(S$R% @*A, vi(eness to each other. Saidevidence is inconclusive to provepaternit- and #uch less !ould proveviolation of co#plaint6s person andhonor. F#phasis supplied1

Thirdl-, the baptis#al certificates F5h. ;D;1of petitioner $laro na#in" privaterespondent as his father has scantevidentiar- value. There is no sho!in" thatprivate respondent participated in itspreparation. On this score, !e heldin #erciles vs. *+stems, et al. (8 S$R% +)78A1e the ad#inistrationof the sacra#ent upon a da- stated3 itis no proof of the declarations in therecord !ith respect to the parenta"eof the child bapti2ed, or of prior anddistinct facts !hich re9uire separateand concrete evidence.

In Macandang vs. Court of Appeals, 44S$R% @) 7841, !e also ruled that !hilebaptis#al certificates #a- be consideredpublic docu#ents, the- can onl- serve asevidence of the ad#inistration of thesacra#ents on the dates so specified. The-are not necessaril- co#petent evidence ofthe veracit- of entries therein !ith respect tothe child6s paternit-.

ourth, the certificates of live birth F5h. ;%;3

F5h. ;0;1 of the petitioners identif-in"private respondent as their father are notalso co#petent evidence on the issue oftheir paternit-. %"ain, the records do nosho! that private respondent had a hand inthe preparation of said certificates. Inre=ectin" these certificates, the rulin" of therespondent court is in accord !ith ourpronounce#ent in Roces vs. Local CivilRegistrar, 4( Phil. 4+4 7+81,vi(e orrecord the paternit- of an ille"iti#atechild upon the infor#ation of a thirdperson and the certificate of birth ofan ille"iti#ate child, !hen si"ned onl-b- the #other of the latter, isinco#petent evidence of fathership ofsaid child. F#phasis supplied1

?e reiterated this rule in 0erciles, op.cit., !hen !e held that ;a birthcertificate no si"ned b- the alle"edfather therein indicated is notco#petent evidence of paternit-.;

?e have also revie!ed the relevanttesti#onies of the !itnesses for thepetitioners and !e are satisfied that therespondent appellate court properl-

calibrated their !ei"ht. Petitioners capitali2eon the testi#on- of ather iberatoernande2 !ho sole#ni2ed the baptis#alcere#on- of petitioner $laro. He declared onthe !itness standed hi#B

% es, li>e for e5a#ple, do -ourenounce Satan and his !or>sB

: ?hat !as the ans!er of ernande2B

% es, I do.

: I =ust !ant to be sure, ather, !ill-ou please loo> at the defendanta"ain. I !ant to be sure if he is theperson !ho appeared before -ou onthat occasionB

% I a# sure.

TSN, Ma- (), 78*, pp. A&*1

Ho!ever, on cross e5a#ination,ather ernande2 ad#itted that hehas to be sho!n a picture of theprivate respondent b- VioletaFs"uerra to reco"ni2e the privaterespondent, vi(

: ?hen !as the, appro5i#atel-, !hen-ou !ere first sho!n this picture b-Violeta Fs"uerraB

% I cannot recall.

: %t least the #onth and the -earB

% It #ust be in 78*.

: ?hat #onth in 78*.

% It is difficult. . .

: ?hen !as the first ti#e -ou >no!-ou are "oin" to testif- hereB

% et us see, -ou ca#e there t!oti#es and first one !as -ou !ant to"et a baptis#al certificate and thenthe second ti#e !as I as>ed -ou for!hat is thisB %nd -ou said it is for thecourt.

: On the second ti#e that Ms. VioletaFs"uerra !ent to -our place, -ou !erealread- infor#ed that -ou !ill testif-here before this Honorable $ourtB

% es.

: %nd -ou !ere infor#ed b- this Ms.Violeta Fs"uerra that this #an !earin"the blue T&shirt is the fatherB

% es, sir.

: So, it !as Violeta Fs"uerra !ho. . .

% es.

TSN, Ma- (), 78*, pp. 8 to ((1

Indeed, there is no proof that atherernande2 is a close friend of VioletaFs"uerra and the private respondent !hich

should render un9uestionable hisidentification of the private respondentdurin" petitioner $laro6s baptis#. In theabsence of this proof, !e are not prepared toconcede that ather ernande2 !hoofficiates nu#erous baptis#al cere#onies

@


8/16

da- in and da- out can re#e#ber theparents of the children he has bapti2ed.

?e cannot also disturb the findin"s of therespondent court on the credibilit- of VioletaFs"uerra. Her testi#on- is hi"hl- suspect asit is self&servin" and b- itself, is insufficientto prove the paternit- of the petitioners.

?e shall not pass upon the correctness ofthe rulin" of the respondent appellate courtappl-in" the doctrine of res %udicata asadditional reason in dis#issin" petitionersaction for reco"nition and support. It isunnecessar- considerin" our findin"s thatpetitioners evidence failed to substantiatetheir cause of action.

IN VIF? ?HFRFO, the petition isDISMISSFDand the Decision of the

respondent court in $%&'.R. $V No. (78( is%IRMFD. $osts a"ainst petitioners.

SO ORDFRFD.

-arvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, and -ocon,JJ., concur.


Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 14325' (-(/ 28, 2001

ROOLFO FERNNE$ !"# MERCEESCRNTO FERNNE$, +USN !"#&FE, E&E C. FERNNE$ !"# LU$FERNNE$, SPOUSES,petitioners,vs.ROMEO FERNNE$, POTENC&NOFERNNE$, FRNC&SCO FERNNE$,

*UL&T FERNNE$, &LL&MFERNNE$, MR FERNNE$,LE*NRO FERNNE$, GERROFERNNE$, ROOLFO FERNNE$ !"#GREGOR&O FERNNE$,respondents.

GON$GREES, J.

0efore Cs is a petition for revie! on certiorariassailin" the decisionof the respondent$ourt of %ppeals dated Dece#ber ((, 777affir#in" the decision(of the Re"ional Trial

$ourt 0ranch A4, Da"upan $it- in an actionfor nullit- of contracts, partition, recover- ofpossession and da#a"es in favor ofplaintiffs&appellees, herein respondents.

The facts as found b- the respondent $ourtof %ppeals, are as follo!sencare of b- the couple and !as sent toschool and beca#e a dentaltechnician. He lived !ith the coupleuntil the- beca#e old and disabled.

On /ul- (4, 78(, /ose L. ernande2died thereb- leavin" his !ife 'enerosa%. de Venecia and Rodolfo ernande2and an estate consistin" of thefollo!in"in"advanta"e of the total ph-sical and#ental incapacit- of the deceased'enerosa de Venecia a""ravated b-unla!ful sche#e confederated,colluded and conspired !ith eachother in causin" the fa>e, si#ulated"rossl- inauthentic contractspurportin" to be e5ecuted on %u"ust), 787 and =ointl- on the sa#e date,caused the e5ecution of the deed ofabsolute sale purportedl- si"ned b-'enerosa de Venecia coverin" thesa#e propert- described in the deedof e5tra&=udicial partition and b- virtueof the said acts, appellants !ere ableto secure ne! land titles in their favorRecords, pp. )&A, $o#plaint1.%ppellees thus pra-ed that the Deedof F5tra&=udicial Partition, Deed of%bsolute Sale and Transfer $ertificateof Title No. +A*A be declared voidfro# the be"innin".

Si"nificantl-, in their ans!er,defendants alle"edno!led"e, consent andapproval of the parties theretoand for value.; Records, pp. (4&(, %ns!er1.;

On Ma- 4, 77*, the Re"ional Trial $ourtrendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs,the dispositive portion reads


10/16

%u"ust ), 787 F5h. 8;1, the T$T No.+A*A, and the T$T No. +A*7) nulland void3

(. Orderin" the defendants toreconve- to, and to peacefull-surrender to the plaintiffs thepossession of the house and lot in9uestion3

). Orderin" the defendants, =ointl- andseverall- to pa- to plaintiffs thefollo!in"e, #a- bereceived as evidence of pedi"ree,+A1 thecertification issued b- the RecordsMana"e#ent and %rchives Office that there!as no available infor#ation about the birthof petitioner Rodolfo to the spousesernande2, +1 the application of Dr. /oseernande2 for bac>pa- certificate na#in"petitioner Rodolfo as his son !as doubtfulconsiderin" that there !ere ble#ishes oralteration in the ori"inal cop-3 *1 thatRodolfo6s baptis#al certificate !as spuriousand falsified since there !ere no availablerecords of baptis# !ith the parish fro# /une@, 7)4 to %u"ust 8, 7)*, !hile Rodolfo6s

baptis#al certificate !hich !as issued in787 sho!ed that he !as bapti2ed onNove#ber (A, 7)A. The court found that thee5tra&=udicial partition and the deed ofabsolute sale !ere prepared and e5ecutedunder abnor#al, unusual and irre"ularcircu#stances !hich rendered thedocu#ents null and void.

Defendants Rodolfo ernande2 et. alappealed to the respondent $ourt of %ppeals!hich affir#ed the trial court6s =ud"#ent inits assailed decision dated Dece#ber ((,777.

In resolvin" the appeal, the respondent courtdelved into the le"iti#ac- of defendant&appellant Rodolfo ernande26 filiation !iththe deceased spouses. It found thatappellants6 evidence !hich consisted of a

certificate of baptis# statin" that he !as achild of the spouses ernande2 and theapplication for reco"nition of ri"hts to bac>pa- under R% 87@ filed b- Dr. /oseernande2, !herein the latter referred toRodolfo as his son, did not ac9uireevidentiar- !ei"ht to prove his filiation. Theappellate court concluded that !hilebaptis#al certificates #a- be consideredpublic docu#ents, the- !ere evidence onl-to prove the ad#inistration of thesacra#ents on the dates therein specified,

but not the veracit- of the state#ents ordeclarations #ade therein !ith respect to his>insfol>3 that !hile the application for bac>pa- !as a public docu#ent, it !as note5ecuted to ad#it the filiation of /ose L.ernande2 !ith Rodolfo V. ernande2, theherein appellant3 that the public docu#entconte#plated in %rticle @( of the a#il-$ode referred to the !ritten ad#ission offiliation e#bodied in a public docu#entpurposel- e5ecuted as an ad#ission offiliation and not as obtainin" in this case

!herein the public docu#ent !as e5ecutedas an application for the reco"nition of ri"htsto bac> pa- under Republic %ct No. 87@.

%ppellants Rodolfo ernande2 et al filed their#otion for reconsideration !hich !as deniedin a resolution dated Ma- @, (444.*

Rodolfo ernande2 et al filed the instantpetition for revie! !ith the follo!in" issuesno!led"e such as thead#inistration of the sacra#ent onthe da- and in the place and #annerset forth in the certificate3 but it doesnot constitute proof of the state#ents#ade therein concernin" theparenta"e of the person bapti2edrancisco, Fvidence, 77A ed., p. +*,

citin" 0arcia vs. 0a%ul, +) Phil.*A(3Adriano vs. de Jesus, () Phil.)+43 #uan vs. Ar"ui(a, + Phil.7)3 *iguion vs. *iguion, 8 Phil. @1.Public docu#ents are perfect evidenceof the fact !hich "ive rise to theire5ecution and of the date of the latterif the act !hich the officer !itnessedand certified to or the date !ritten b-hi# are not sho!n to be false3 butthe- are not conclusive evidence !ithrespect to the truthfulness of thestate#ents #ade therein b- theinterested parties Martin, Rules of$ourt in the Philippines !ith Note and$o##ents, vol. A, p. +@@1.

$orollaril-, the %pplication forReco"nition of 0ac> Pa- Ri"hts Cnder%ct No. 87@ is onl- a proof that /ose L.

ernande2 filed said application on/une +, 7+A in Da"upan $it- but itdoes not prove the veracit- of thedeclaration and state#ent containedin the said application that concernthe relationship of the applicant !ithherein appellant. In li>e #anner, it isnot a conclusive proof of the filiationof appellant !ith his alle"ed father,

/ose L. ernande2 the contents bein",onl- pri#a facie evidence of the factsstated therein.

%dditionall-, appellant clai#s that heen=o-ed and possessed the status ofbein" a le"iti#ate child of the spousesopenl- and continuousl- until the-died Rollo, p. A(3 %ppellants6 0rief1.Open and continuous possession ofthe status of a le"iti#ate child is#eant the en=o-#ent b- the child ofthe position and privile"es usuall-attached to the status of a le"iti#atechild such as bearin" the paternal

surna#e, treat#ent b- the parentsand fa#il- of the child as le"iti#ate,constant attendance to the child6ssupport and education, and "ivin" thechild the reputation of bein" a child ofhis parents Se#pio&Di-, The a#il-$ode of the Philippines, pp. (A+&(A*1.Ho!ever, it #ust be noted that, as!as held in 1uismundo vs. 2CC, )(S$R% +74, possession of status of achild does not in itself constitute anac>no!led"#ent3 it is onl- a "round

for a child to co#pel reco"nition b- hisassu#ed parent.

astl-, to substantiate his clai# ofbein" a le"iti#ate child appellantpresented a baptis#al certificateissued b- r. Rene Mendo2a of the St.

/ohn Metropolitan $athedral of

)


14/16

Da"upan $it- on %u"ust 4, 787statin" therein that appellant is a childof the late spouses havin" been bornon Nove#ber +, 7)A and bapti2edon Nove#ber (A, 7)A F5h. ;;F5hibits for the Defendants1. %sstated, !hile baptis#al certificates#a- be considered public docu#ents,the- are evidence onl- to prove thead#inistration of the sacra#ents onthe dates therein specified, but notthe veracit- of the state#ents ordeclarations #ade therein !ithrespect to his >insfol> Re+es vs. Courtof Appeals, )+ S$R% A)71. It #a- bear"ued that a baptis#al certificate isone of the other #eans allo!ed b- theRules of $ourt and special la!s ofprovin" filiation but in this case, theauthenticit- of the baptis#alcertificate !as doubtful !hen r.Ra-#undo :. de 'u2#an of St. /ohnthe Fvan"elist Parish of in"a-en&Da"upan, Da"upan $it- issued acertification on October *, 77+attestin" that the records of baptis#on /une @, 7)4 to %u"ust 8, 7)*!ere all da#a"ed Records, p. A8,F5h. ;';1. Neither the fa#il- portraitoffered in evidence establishes asufficient proof of filiation Pictures donot constitute proof of filiation Re-esvs. $ourt of %ppeals1 supra1. In fine,the evidence presented b- appellantdid not ac9uire evidentiar- !ei"ht toprove his filiation. $onse9uentl- theF5tra&/udicial Partition dated %u"ust), 787 e5ecuted b- appellantRodolfo ernande2 and 'enerosa deVenecia is null and void.;

$onsiderin" the fore"oin" findin"s, petitionerRodolfo is not a child b- nature of thespouses ernande2 and not a le"al heir of Dr.

/ose ernande2, thus the sub=ect deed ofe5tra&=udicial settle#ent of the estate of Dr./ose ernande2 bet!een 'enerosa vda. deernande2 and Rodolfo is null and voidinsofar as Rodolfo is concerned)pursuant to%rt. 4+ of the Ne! $ivil $ode !hich stateser inSaudi %rabia fro# 78(&787 !hichrespondents failed to controvert b-presentin" evidence to the contrar-. Thepresu#ption that a contract has sufficientconsideration cannot be overthro!n b- a#ere assertion that it has noconsideration.@Cnder %rt. )+A of the $ivil$ode, consideration is presu#ed unless the

contrar- is proven.

Respondents also clai# that the si"natureappearin" in the deed of sale !as not that of'enerosa because she !as alread-bedridden !ith both le"s a#putated beforeshe died. or"er- cannot be presu#ed3 it#ust be proved b- clear, positive andconvincin" evidence8and !hoever alle"es ithas the burden of provin" the sa#e37aburden respondents failed to dischar"e. Therespondents had not presented an-

convincin" proof to override the evidentiar-value of the dul- notari2ed deed of sale. %notarial docu#ent is evidence of the facts inthe clear une9uivocal #anner thereine5pressed. It has in its favor the presu#ptionof re"ularit-. To contradict all these, there#ust be evidence that is clear, convincin"and #ore than #erel- preponderant.(4

?e note ho!ever, that 'enerosa sold theentire ( store- buildin" to petitioner Fddieernande2, i.e. she did not onl- sell her undivided share in the buildin" but also the share of the respondents. ?e rule, thatsuch a sale of the entire buildin" !ithout theconsent of the respondents is not null andvoid as onl- the ri"hts of the co&o!ner sellerare transferred, thereb- #a>in" the bu-er,petitioner Fddie, a co&o!ner of the shareof the buildin" to"ether !ith the respondents!ho o!ned the share therein.(

inall-, anent the issue of actual and #oralda#a"es and attorne-6s fees a!arded b- thetrial court, !e find the# to be bereft offactual basis. % part- is entitled to anade9uate co#pensation for such pecuniar-loss actuall- suffered b- hi# as he has dul-proven.((Such da#a"es, to be recoverable,

#ust not onl- be capable of proof, but #ustactuall- be proved !ith a reasonable de"reeof certaint-.()$ourts cannot si#pl- rel- onspeculation, con=ecture or "uess!or> indeter#inin" the fact and a#ount ofda#a"es.(AThe testi#on- of respondentRo#eo ernande2 that he suffered aroundP44,444 actual da#a"es !as not supportedb- an- docu#entar- or other ad#issibleevidence. ?e also a"ree !ith the petitionersthat the respondent court should not havea!arded #oral da#a"es in the a#ount of

P44,444 since the- also failed to sho! proofof #oral sufferin", #ental an"uish, seriousan5iet-, bes#irched reputation, !oundedfeelin"s and social hu#iliation. %ttorne-6sfees should li>e!ise be deleted for lac> offactual basis and le"al =ustification. 0oth thelo!er courts did not cite specific factual basisto =ustif- the a!ard of attorne-6s fees, !hichis in violation of the proscription a"ainst thei#position of a penalt- on the ri"ht toliti"ate.(+

?HFRFORF, pre#ises considered, theassailed =ud"#ent is hereb- %ffir#ed !ithModification, as follo!s

Documents

FINALS CASES Manacop and Fernandez II.docx