Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 117740 October 30, 1998 CAROLINA ABA GON!ALES, petitioner, vs. COURT O" APPEALS, #ONORIA EMPA$NA O, CECILIA #. ABA , MARIAN #. ABA ABA , respondents.

%&' ROSEMARIE S.

ROMERO, J.: efore us is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals dated October #$, #$$%, findin& private respondents as the heirs of Ricardo de Mesa "bad as 'ell as annullin& petitioners( e)tra*+udicial partition of the decedent(s estate. The facts are as follo's, On "pril #-, #$./, petitioners !arolina "bad 0on1ales, Dolores de Mesa "bad and !esar de Mesa Tioseco sou&ht the settle2ent of the intestate estate of their brother, Ricardo de Mesa "bad, before the then !ourt of 3irst Instance of Manila. In their petition, doc4eted as Special Proceedin&s No. -5.$/, petitioners clai2ed that the6 'ere the onl6 heirs of Ricardo de Mesa "bad, as the latter alle&edl6 died a bachelor, leavin& no descendants or ascendants, 'hether le&iti2ate or ille&iti2ate. On Ma6 $, #$./, petitioners a2ended their petition b6 alle&in& that the real properties covered b6 T!T Nos. #7879, 875.#, and 5%9/#, listed therein as belon&in& to the decedent, 'ere actuall6 onl6 ad2inistered b6 the latter, the true o'ner bein& their late 2other, :ucila de Mesa. On ;une #5, #$./, the trial court appointed !esar de Mesa Tioseco as ad2inistrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa "bad. Mean'hile, on Ma6 /, #$./, petitioners e)ecuted an e)tra+udicial settle2ent of the estate of their late 2other :ucila de Mesa, cop6in& therein the technical descriptions of the lots covered b6 T!T Nos. #7879, 875.#, and 5%9/#. 6 virtue thereof, the Re&ister of Deeds cancelled the above*2entioned T!Ts in the na2e of Ricardo "bad and issued, in lieu thereof, T!T No. #9-%-/ in the na2e of Dolores de Mesa "bad, T!T No. #9-%-7 in the na2e of !esar de Mesa Tioseco and T!T No. #9-%-% in the na2e of !arolina "bad 0on1ales. The three pro2ptl6 e)ecuted real estate 2ort&a&es over the real properties in favor of Mrs. ;osefina Viola, the 'ife of their counsel, <scolastico Viola. On ;ul6 ., #$./, private respondents Honoria <2pa6nado, !ecilia "bad <2pa6nado, and Marian "bad <2pa6nado filed a 2otion to set aside proceedin&s and for leave to file opposition in Special Proceedin&s No. -5.$/. In their 2otion, the6 alle&ed that Honoria <2pa6nado had been the co22on*la' 'ife of Ricardo "bad for t'ent6*seven 6ears before his death, or fro2 #$%7 to #$.#, and that durin& this period, their union had produced t'o children, !ecilia "bad <2pa6nado and Marian "bad <2pa6nado. Private respondents also disclosed the e)istence of Rose2arie "bad, a child alle&edl6 fathered b6 Ricardo "bad 'ith another 'o2an, Dolores Saracho. "s the la' a'ards the entire estate to the survivin& children to the e)clusion of collateral relatives, private respondents char&ed petitioners 'ith deliberatel6 concealin& the e)istence of said three children in other to deprive the latter of their ri&hts to the estate of Ricardo "bad. On ;ul6 /%, #$./, private respondents filed a 2otion to 'ithdra' their first 2otion and, in lieu thereof, filed a 2otion for reconsideration pra6in& that !ecilia "bad be appointed ad2inistrator instead of !esar Tioseco. The trial court denied private respondents( 2otion to re2ove !esar Tioseco as ad2inistrator, but allo'ed the2 to appear in the proceedin&s to establish their ri&ht as alle&ed heirs of Ricardo "bad.

Private respondents later discovered that petitioners had 2ana&ed to cancel T!T Nos. #7879, 875.#, and 5%9/# throu&h the strata&e2 of e)tra*+udiciall6 partitionin& their 2other(s estate. "ccordin&l6, on October %, #$.7, private respondents filed a 2otion to annul the e)tra*+udicial partition e)ecuted b6 petitioners, as 'ell as T!T Nos. #9-%-/, #9-%-7, and #9-%-%, the Torrens titles issued in substitution of T!T Nos. #7879, 875.#, and 5%9/# and the real estate 2ort&a&es constituted b6 the latter on said properties. "fter due trial, the lo'er court, on Nove2ber /, #$.7, rendered the follo'in& +ud&2ent, =H<R<3OR<, +ud&2ent is hereb6 rendered as follo's, >#? Declarin& !ecilia <. "bad, Marian <. "bad and Rose2arie S. "bad ac4no'led&ed natural children of the deceased Ricardo M. "bad@ >/? Declarin& said ac4no'led&ed natural children, na2el6, !ecilia <. "bad, Marian <. "bad, and Rose2arie S. "bad the onl6 survivin& le&al heirs of the deceased Ricardo M. "bad and as such entitled to succeed to the entire estate of said deceased, sub+ect to the ri&hts of Honoria <2pa6nado, if an6, as co*o'ner of an6 of the propert6 of said estate that 2a6 have been acAuired thru her +oint efforts 'ith the deceased durin& the period the6 lived to&ether as husband and 'ife@ >7? Den6in& the petition of decedent(s collateral relatives, na2el6, Dolores M. "bad, !esar M. Tioseco and !arolina M. "bad to be declared as heirs and e)cludin& the2 fro2 participatin& in the ad2inistration and settle2ent of the estate of Ricardo "bad@ >%? "ppointin& Honoria <2pa6nado as the ad2inistratri) in this intestac6 'ith a bond of THIRTB THOCS"ND >P79,999.99? P<SOS@ and
>8? Orderin& !esar Tioseco to surrender to the ne' ad2inistratri) all propert6 or properties, 2onies and such papers that ca2e into his possession b6 virtue of his appoint2ent as ad2inistrator, 'hich appoint2ent is hereb6 revo4ed. 1

The trial court, li4e'ise, found in favor of private respondents 'ith respect to the latter(s 2otion for annul2ent of certain docu2ents. On Nove2ber #$, #$.%, it rendered the follo'in& +ud&2ent, =H<R<3OR<, this !ourt finds oppositors( Motion for "nnul2ent, dated October %, #$.7 to be 2eritorious and accordin&l6 D #. Declares that the si) >5? parcels of land described in T!T Nos. #7879, 875.# and 5%9/#, all re&istered in the na2e of Ricardo "bad, as replaced b6 T!T No. #9-%-/ in the na2e of Dolores de Mesa "bad, T!T No. #9-%-7 in the na2e of !esar de Mesa Tioseco and T!T No. #9-%-% in the na2e of !arolina de Mesa "bad* 0on1ales, and the residential house situated at /%7/ Opalo Street, San "ndres Subdivision, Manila, to be the properties of the late Ricardo "bad@ /. Declares the deed of <)tra ;udicial Settle2ent of the <state of the Deceased :ucila de Mesa, e)ecuted on Ma6 /, #$./ >Doc. No. %%8, Pa&e No. -5, oo4 No. VII, Series of #$./ of the notarial boo4 of 3austino S. !ru1? b6 petitioners and !arolina de Mesa "bad*0on1ales, to be ine)istent and void fro2 the be&innin&@ 7. Declares as null and void the cancellation of T!T Nos. #7879, 875.# and 5%9/# and issuance in lieu thereof, of T!T Nos. #9-%-/, #9-%-7 and #9-%-%@ %. Orders the Re&ister of Deeds of Manila to cancel T!T No. #9-%-/ of Dolores de Mesa "bad@ T!T No. #9-%-7 of !esar de Mesa Tioseco@ and T!T No. #9-%-% of !arolina de Mesa "bad*0on1ales and in lieu thereof, restore andEor issue the correspondin& certificate of title in the na2e of Ricardo "bad@

8. Declares as ine)istent and void fro2 the be&innin& the three >7? real estate 2ort&a&es e)ecuted on ;ul6 ., #$./ e)ecuted b6 >a? petitioner Dolores de Mesa "bad, identified as Doc. No. #%8, Pa&e No. 79, oo4 No. FF, Series of #$./, >b? petitioner !esar de Mesa Tioseco, identified as Doc. No. #%5, Pa&e 7#, oo4 No. FF, Series of #$./@ and >c? !arolina de Mesa "bad*0on1ales, identified as Doe. No. #%%, Pa&e No. 79, oo4 No. FF, Series of #$./, all of the notarial boo4 of Ricardo P. Bap of Manila, in favor of Mrs. ;osefina !. Viola, and orders the Re&ister of Deeds of Manila to cancel the re&istration or annotation thereof fro2 the bac4 of the torrens title of Ricardo "bad@ and 5. Orders "tt6. <scolastico R. Viola and his la' associate and 'ife, ;osefina !. Viola, to surrender to the ne' ad2inistratri), Honoria <2pa6nado, T!T Nos. #9-%-/, #9-%-7, and #9-%-% 'ithin five >8? da6s fro2 receipt hereof.
SO ORD<R<D. (

Petitioners( 2otion for reconsideration of the Nove2ber /, #$.7 decision 'as denied b6 the trial court. Their notice of appeal 'as li4e'ise denied on the &round that the sa2e had been filed out of ti2e. ecause of this rulin&, petitioners, instituted certiorari and 2anda2us proceedin&s 'ith the !ourt of "ppeals, doc4eted there as !.".*0.R. No. SP*97/5-*R. On Nove2ber /, #$.%, the appellate court &ranted petitioners( petition and ordered the lo'er court to &ive due course to the latter(s appeal. The trial court, ho'ever, a&ain dis2issed petitioners( appeal on the &round that their record on appeal 'as filed out of ti2e. :i4e'ise, on ;anuar6 %, #$.8, petitioners filed their notice of appeal of the Nove2ber #$, #$.% rulin& of the trial court. On March /#, #$.8, this appeal 'as si2ilarl6 denied on the &round that it had been filed out of ti2e. Due to the dis2issal of their t'o appeals, petitioners a&ain instituted certiorari and mandamus proceedin&s 'ith the !ourt of "ppeals, doc4eted therein as !.".*0.R. No. SP*9%78/. The appellate court affir2ed the dis2issal of the t'o appeals, pro2ptin& petitioners to appeal to the Supre2e !ourt. On ;ul6 $, #$-8, this !ourt directed the trial court to &ive due course to petitioners( appeal fro2 the order of Nove2ber /, #$.7 declarin& private respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo "bad, and the order dated Nove2ber #$, #$.%, annullin& certain docu2ents pertainin& to the intestate estate of deceased. The t'o appeals 'ere accordin&l6 elevated b6 the trial court to the appellate court. On October #$, #$$%, the !ourt of "ppeals rendered +ud&2ent as follo's, =H<R<3OR<, all the fore&oin& considered, the instant appeal is D<NI<D for lac4 of 2erit. The orders of the court a quo in SP No. -5.$/, to 'it, #. Order dated Nove2ber /, #$.7, declarin& in substance that !ecilia, Marian and Rose2arie, all surna2ed "bad as the ac4no'led&ed natural children and the onl6 survivin& heirs of the deceased Ricardo "bad@ /. Order dated Nove2ber #$, #$.%, declarin& in substance that the si) >5? parcels of land described in T!T Nos. #7879, 875.# and 5%9/# are the properties of Ricardo "bad@ that the e)tra*+udicial partition of the estate of the deceased :ucila de Mesa e)ecuted on Ma6 /, #$./ is ine)istent and void fro2 the be&innin&, the cancellation of the afore2entioned T!Ts is null and void@ the Re&ister of Deeds be ordered to restore andEor issue the correspondin& !ertificates of Title in the na2e of Ricardo "bad@ and 7. Order dated March /#, #$.8 den6in& the appeal of Dolores de Mesa "bad and !esar de Mesa Tioseco fro2 the latter Order, for bein& filed out of ti2e, are all "33IRM<D in toto. =ith costs a&ainst petitioner*appellants.
SO ORD<R<D. 3

Petitioners no' see4 to annul the fore&oin& +ud&2ent on the follo'in& &rounds, I. TH< !OCRT O3 "PP<":S "ND TH< TRI": !OCRT 0R"V<:B <RR<D IN HO:DIN0 TH"T R<SPOND<NTS !<!I:I" <. " "D, M"RI"N <. " "D "ND ROS<M"RI< S. " "D "R< TH< "!GNO=:<D0<D N"TCR": !HI:DR<N O3 TH< D<!<"S<D RI!"RDO D< M<S" " "D. II. P<TITION<RS "R< <NTIT:<D TO TH< SC ;<!T <ST"T< =H<TH<R TH< S"M< IS O=N<D B TH< D<!<"S<D RI!"RDO D< M<S" " "D OR B :C!I:" D< M<S", TH< MOTH<R O3 P<TITION<RS "ND RI!"RDO D< M<S" " "D. =e are not persuaded. Petitioners, in contestin& !ecilia, Marian and Rose2arie "bad(s filiation, sub2it the startlin& theor6 that the husband of Honoria <2pa6nado, ;ose :ibunao, 'as still alive 'hen !ecilia and Marian "bad 'ere born in #$%- and #$8%, respectivel6. It is undisputed that prior to her relationship 'ith Ricardo "bad, Honoria <2pa6nado 'as 2arried to ;ose :ibunao, their union havin& produced three children, "n&elita, !esar, and Maria Nina, prior to the birth of !ecilia and Marian. ut 'hile private respondents clai2 that ;ose :ibunao died in #$%7, petitioners clai2 that the latter died so2eti2e in #$.#. The date of ;ose :ibunao(s death is i2portant, for if he 'as still alive in #$.#, and &iven that he 'as le&all6 2arried to Honoria <2pa6nado, the presu2ption 'ould be that !ecilia and Marian are not Ricardo "bad(s children 'ith the latter, but of ;ose :ibunao and Honoria <2pa6nado. "rticle /85, the applicable provision of the !ivil !ode, provides,
"rt. /85. The child shall be presu2ed le&iti2ate, althou&h the 2other 2a6 have declared a&ainst its le&iti2ac6 or 2a6 have been sentenced as an adulteress. 4

To bolster their theor6, petitioners presented in evidence the application for enrol2ent at Mapua Institute of Technolo&6 of "n&elita :ibunao, acco2plished in #$85, 'hich states, 3ather(s Na2e, ;ose :ibunao Occupation, en&ineer >2inin&?
Mother(s Na2e, Honoria <2pa6nado )

as 'ell as !esar :ibunao(s #$8- application for enrol2ent at the Mapua Institute of Technolo&6, 'hich states, 3ather(s Na2e, ;ose :ibunao Occupation, none
Mother(s Na2e, Honoria <2pa6nado *

Petitioners clai2 that had ;ose :ibunao been dead durin& the ti2e 'hen said applications 'ere acco2plished, the enrol2ent for2s of his children 'ould have stated so. These not bein& the case, the6 conclude that ;ose :ibunao 2ust have still been alive in #$85 and #$8-. "dditionall6, petitioners presented the +oint affidavit of ;uan Huia2bao and "le+andro Ra2os 7 statin& that to their 4no'led&e ;ose :ibunao had died in #$.#, leavin& as his 'ido', Honoria <2pa6nado, and that the for2er had been interred at the :o6ola Me2orial Par4.

:astl6, petitioners presented the affidavit of Dr. Pedro "renas, 8 Ricardo "bad(s ph6sician, declarin& that in #$78, he had e)a2ined Ricardo "bad and found hi2 to be infected 'ith &onorrhea, and that the latter had beco2e sterile as a conseAuence thereof. =ith these pieces of evidence, petitioners clai2 that !ecilia and Marian "bad are not the ille&iti2ate children of Ricardo "bad, but rather the le&iti2ate children of the spouses ;ose :ibunao and Honoria <2pa6nado. "t the outset, it 2ust be noted that petitioners are disputin& the veracit6 of the trial court(s findin& of facts. It is a funda2ental and settled rule that factual findin&s of the trial court, adopted and confir2ed b6 the !ourt of "ppeals, are final and conclusive and 2a6 not be revie'ed on appeal. 9 Petitioners, ho'ever, ar&ue that factual findin&s of the !ourt of "ppeals are not bindin& on this !ourt 'hen there appears in the record of the case so2e fact or circu2stance of 'ei&ht and influence 'hich has been overloo4ed, or the si&nificance of 'hich has been 2isinterpreted, that if considered, 'ould affect the result of the case. 10 This !ourt finds no +ustifiable reason to appl6 this e)ception to the case at bar. 3irst, the evidence presented b6 petitioners to prove that ;ose :ibunao died in #$.# are, to sa6 the least, far fro2 conclusive. 3ailure to indicate on an enrol2ent for2 that one(s parent is IdeceasedI is not necessaril6 proof that said parent 'as still livin& durin& the ti2e said for2 'as bein& acco2plished. 3urther2ore, the +oint affidavit of ;uan Huia2bao and "le+andro Ra2os as to the supposed death of ;ose :ibunao in #$.# is not co2petent evidence to prove the latter(s death at that ti2e, bein& 2erel6 secondar6 evidence thereof. ;ose :ibunao(s death certificate 'ould have been the best evidence as to 'hen the latter died. Petitioners have, ho'ever, ine)plicabl6 failed to present the sa2e, althou&h there is no sho'in& that said death certificate has been lost or destro6ed as to be unavailable as proof of ;ose :ibunao(s death. More tellin&, 'hile the records of :o6ola Me2orial Par4 sho' that a certain ;ose Bautista :ibunao 'as indeed buried there in #$.#, this person appears to be different fro2 Honoria <2pa6nado(s first husband, the latter(s na2e bein& ;ose Santos :ibunao. <ven the na2e of the 'ife is different. ;ose autista :ibunao(s 'ife is listed as ;osefa Re6es 'hile the 'ife of ;ose Santos :ibunao 'as Honoria <2pa6nado. "s to Dr. "renas( affidavit, the sa2e 'as ob+ected to b6 private respondents as bein& privile&ed co22unication under Section /% >c?, Rule #79 of the Rules of !ourt. 11 The rule on confidential co22unications bet'een ph6sician and patient reAuires that, a? the action in 'hich the advice or treat2ent &iven or an6 infor2ation is to be used is a civil case@ b? the relation of ph6sician and patient e)isted bet'een the person clai2in& the privile&e or his le&al representative and the ph6sician@ c? the advice or treat2ent &iven b6 hi2 or an6 infor2ation 'as acAuired b6 the ph6sician 'hile professionall6 attendin& the patient@ d? the infor2ation 'as necessar6 for the perfor2ance of his professional dut6@ and e? the disclosure of the infor2ation 'ould tend to blac4en the reputation of the patient. 1( Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit 2eets the first four reAuisites. The6 assert, ho'ever, that the findin& as to Ricardo "bad(s Isterilit6I does not blac4en the character of the deceased. Petitioners convenientl6 for&et that Ricardo "bad(s Isterilit6I arose 'hen the latter contracted &onorrhea, a fact 'hich 2ost assuredl6 blac4ens his reputation. In fact, &iven that societ6 holds virilit6 at a pre2iu2, sterilit6 alone, 'ithout the attendant e2barrass2ent of contractin& a se)uall6*trans2itted disease, 'ould be sufficient to blac4en the reputation of an6 patient. =e thus hold the affidavit inad2issible in evidence. "nd the sa2e re2ains inad2issible in evidence, not'ithstandin& the death of Ricardo "bad. "s stated b6 the trial court, In the case of Westover vs. Aetna Life Insurance Company , $$ N.B. 8$, it 'as pointed out that, IThe privile&e of secrec6 is not abolished or ter2inated because of death as stated in established precedents. It is an established rule that the purpose of the la' 'ould be th'arted and the polic6 intended to be pro2oted thereb6 'ould be defeated, if death re2oved the seal of secrec6, fro2 the co22unications and disclosures 'hich a patient should 2a4e to his ph6sician. "fter one has &one to his &rave, the livin& are not per2itted to i2pair his na2e and dis&race his 2e2or6 b6 dra&&in& to li&ht co22unications and disclosures 2ade under the seal of the statute. 0iven the above disAuisition, it is clearl6 apparent that petitioners have failed to establish their clai2 b6 the Auantu2 of evidence reAuired b6 la'. On the other hand, the evidence presented b6 private respondents over'hel2in&l6 prove that the6 are the ac4no'led&ed natural children of Ricardo "bad. =e Auote 'ith approval the trial court(s decision, thus,

In his individual state2ents of inco2e and assets for the calendar 6ears #$8- and #$.9, and in all his individual inco2e ta) returns for the 6ears #$5%, #$58, #$5., #$5-, #$5$ and #$.9, he has declared therein as his le&iti2ate 'ife, Honoria <2pa6nado@ and as his le&iti2ate dependent children, !ecilia, Marian >e)cept in <)h. #/? and Rose2arie "bad ><)hs. #/ to #$@ TSN, 3ebruar6 /5, #$.7, pp. 77*%%?. ))) ))) ))) In Dece2ber #$8$, Ricardo "bad insured his dau&hters !ecilia, then eleven >##? 6ears old, and Marian, then >8? 6ears old, on JaK t'ent6 >/9? 6ear*endo'2ent plan 'ith the Insular :ife "ssurance !o., :td. and paid for their pre2iu2s ><)h. 7% and 7%*"@ 7%* to !@ 78, 78*" to D@ TSN, 3ebruar6 /., #$.7, pp. .*/9?. In #$55, he and his dau&hter !ecilia "bad opened a trust fund account of P#99,999,99 'ith the People(s an4 and Trust !o2pan6 'hich 'as rene'ed until >sic? #$.#, pa6able to either of the2 in the event of death ><)hs. 75*"@ 75*<?. On ;anuar6 8, #$.#, Ricardo "bad opened a trust fund of P#99,999.99 'ith the sa2e ban4, pa6able to his dau&hter Marian ><)h. 7.*"?. On ;anuar6 %, #$.#, Ricardo "bad and his sister Dolores "bad had >sic? a&reed to stipulate in their P T! Trust "&ree2ent that the $L inco2e of their P#99,999.99 trust fund shall >sic? be paid 2onthl6 to the account reserved for !ecilia, under P T! Savin&s "ccount No. %$987 in the na2e of Ricardo "bad andEor !ecilia "bad ><)h. 7-? 'here the inco2e of the trust fund intended for !ecilia 'as also deposited 2onthl6 >TSN, 3ebruar6 /., #$.7, pp. /#*75?. Ricardo "bad had also deposited >2one6? 'ith the Monte de Piedad and Savin&s an4 in the na2e of his dau&hter Marian, represented b6 hi2, as father, under Savin&s "ccount #.7%- 'hich has >sic? a balance of P7%,-#/./- as of ;une 79, #$./. ><)h. 59* ?. . . =ith the findin& that private respondents are the ille&iti2ate children of Ricardo "bad, petitioners are precluded fro2 inheritin& the estate of their brother. The applicable provisions are, "rt. $--. In the absence of le&iti2ate descendants or ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. "rt. #997. If there are no . . . illegitimate children, or a survivin& spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance 'ith the follo'in& articles. ><2phasis supplied?. "s to petitioners( clai2 that the properties 2 the na2e of Ricardo "bad actuall6 belon& to their 2other :ucila de Mesa, both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that the evidence presented b6 private respondents proved that said properties in truth belon& to Ricardo "bad. "s stated earlier, the findin&s of fact b6 the trial court are entitled to &reat 'ei&ht and should not be disturbed on appeal, it bein& in a better position to e)a2ine the real evidence, as 'ell as to observe the de2eanor of the 'itnesses 'hile testif6in& in the case. 13 In fact, petitioners see2 to accept this conclusion, their contention bein& that the6 are entitled to the sub+ect estate 'hether the sa2e is o'ned b6 Ricardo "bad or b6 :ucila de Mesa. Di&ressin& fro2 the 2ain issue, in its decision dated October #$, #$$%, the !ourt of "ppeals affir2ed the trial court(s order dated March /#, #$.8 den6in& the appeal of Dolores de Mesa "bad and !esar de Mesa Tioseco on the &round that the sa2e 'as filed out of ti2e. This affir2ance is erroneous, for on ;ul6 $, #$-8, this !ourt had alread6 ruled that the sa2e 'as not filed out of ti2e. =ell*settled is the dictu2 that the rulin&s of the Supre2e !ourt are bindin& upon and 2a6 not be reversed b6 a lo'er court. =H<R<3OR<, pre2ises considered, the instant petition is hereb6 D<NI<D. The decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"*0.R. !V No. 79#-% dated October #$, #$$% is "33IRM<D 'ith the MODI3I!"TION that the affir2ance of the Order dated March /#, #$.8 den6in& the appeal of Dolores de Mesa "bad and !esar de Mesa Tioseco for bein& filed out of ti2e is S<T "SID<. !osts a&ainst petitioners. SO ORD<R<D.

Narvasa, apunan, !urisima and !ardo, ""., concur. "oot&ote+ # TSN, Nove2ber /, #$.7. pp. #$*/9. / Records, pp. #9$*###. 7 #ollo, pp. 88*85. % The 3a2il6 !ode has a substantiall6 si2ilar provision, thus, "rt. #5.. The children shall be considered le&iti2ate althou&h the 2other 2a6 have declared a&ainst its le&iti2ac6 or 2a6 have been sentenced as an adulteress. 8 Records, p. #8/. 5 Records, p. #87. . Records, p. #8#. - Records, p. #85. $ 0SIS vs. !", 0.R. No. #/-%.#, March 5, #$$#9 :ee vs. !", /9# S!R" %98 >#$$#?. ## Sec. /%. $isqualification %y reason of privileged communication . D The follo'in& persons cannot testif6 as to 2atters learned in confidence in the follo'in& cases, ))) ))) ))) >c? " person authori1ed to practice 2edicine, sur&er6 or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, 'ithout the consent of the patient, be e)a2ined as to an6 advice or treat2ent &iven b6 hi2 or an6 infor2ation 'hich he 2a6 have acAuired in attendin& such patient in a professional capacit6, 'hich infor2ation 'as necessar6 to enable hi2 to act in that capacit6, and 'hich 'ould blac4en the reputation of the patient@ ))) ))) ))). #/ 3rancisco, <vidence, 7rd ed., pp. #8$*#5/. #7 Pruducers( an4 vs. !", 0.R. No. ##9%$8, ;anuar6 /$, #$$-.