Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

163707 September 15, 2006

MICHAE C. GU!, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT O" APPEA S, HON. SI#TO MARE A, $R., Pre%&'&() $*')e, RTC, +r,(-. 13/, M,0,t& C&t1 ,(' m&(or%, 2AREN 3ANES 4EI ,(' 2AMI E 3ANES 4EI, repre%e(te' b1 t.e&r mot.er, REME3IOS OANES, respondents. D !NARES5SANTIAGO, J.6 This petition for revie" on certiorari assails the #anuar$ %%, %&&' Decision ( of the !ourt of )ppeals in !)*+.R. SP No. ,-,'%, "hich affir.ed the Orders dated #ul$ %(, %&&& % and #ul$ (,, %&&// of the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Ma1ati !it$, 2ranch (/3 in SP Proc. !ase No. '4'- den$in0 petitioner5s .otion to dis.iss6 and its Ma$ %4, %&&' Resolution' den$in0 petitioner5s .otion for reconsideration. The facts are as follo"s7 On #une (/, (--,, private respondent*.inors 8aren Oanes 9ei and 8a.ille Oanes 9ei, represented b$ their .other Re.edios Oanes :Re.edios;, filed a petition for letters of ad.inistration4 before the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Ma1ati !it$, 2ranch (/3. The case "as doc1eted as Sp. Proc. No. '4'- and entitled Intestate Estate of Sima Wei :a.k.a. Rufino Guy Susim;. Private respondents alle0ed that the$ are the dul$ ac1no"led0ed ille0iti.ate children of Si.a 9ei, "ho died intestate in Ma1ati !it$ on October %-, (--%, leavin0 an estate valued at P(&,&&&,&&&.&& consistin0 of real and personal properties. <is 1no"n heirs are his survivin0 spouse Shirle$ +u$ and children, .$, #eanne, !ristina, +eor0e and Michael, all surna.ed +u$. Private respondents pra$ed for the appoint.ent of a re0ular ad.inistrator for the orderl$ settle.ent of Si.a 9ei5s estate. The$ li1e"ise pra$ed that, in the .eanti.e, petitioner Michael !. +u$, son of the decedent, be appointed as Special )d.inistrator of the estate. )ttached to private respondents5 petition "as a !ertification )0ainst Foru. Shoppin0= si0ned b$ their counsel, )tt$. Sedfre$ ). Ordo>e?. In his !o..ent@Opposition,, petitioner pra$ed for the dis.issal of the petition. <e asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can be settled "ithout securin0 letters of ad.inistration pursuant to Section (, Rule ,' of the Rules of !ourt. <e further ar0ued that private respondents should have established their status as ille0iti.ate children durin0 the lifeti.e of Si.a 9ei pursuant to )rticle (,4 of the Fa.il$ !ode. The other heirs of Si.a 9ei filed a #oint Motion to Dis.iss3 on the 0round that the certification a0ainst foru. shoppin0 should have been si0ned b$ private respondents and not their counsel. The$ contended that Re.edios should have eAecuted the certification on behalf of her .inor dau0hters as .andated b$ Section 4, Rule , of the Rules of !ourt. !ISION

In a Manifestation@Motion as Supple.ent to the #oint Motion to Dis.iss,- petitioner and his co*heirs alle0ed that private respondents5 clai. had been paid, "aived, abandoned or other"ise eAtin0uished b$ reason of Re.edios5 #une ,, (--/ Release and 9aiver of !lai. statin0 that in eAchan0e for the financial and educational assistance received fro. petitioner, Re.edios and her .inor children dischar0e the estate of Si.a 9ei fro. an$ and all liabilities. The Re0ional Trial !ourt denied the #oint Motion to Dis.iss as "ell as the Supple.ental Motion to Dis.iss. It ruled that "hile the Release and 9aiver of !lai. "as si0ned b$ Re.edios, it had not been established that she "as the dul$ constituted 0uardian of her .inor dau0hters. Thus, no renunciation of ri0ht occurred. )ppl$in0 a liberal application of the rules, the trial court also reBected petitioner5s obBections on the certification a0ainst foru. shoppin0. Petitioner .oved for reconsideration but "as denied. <e filed a petition for certiorari before the !ourt of )ppeals "hich affir.ed the orders of the Re0ional Trial !ourt in its assailed Decision dated #anuar$ %%, %&&', the dispositive portion of "hich states7 9< R FOR , pre.ises considered, the present petition is hereb$ D NI D DC !OCRS and accordin0l$ DISMISS D, for lac1 of .erit. !onseDuentl$, the assailed Orders dated #ul$ %(, %&&& and #ul$ (,, %&&/ are hereb$ both )FFIRM D. Respondent #ud0e is hereb$ DIR !T D to resolve the controvers$ over the ille0iti.ate filiation of the private respondents :sic; .inors E*F 8aren Oanes 9ei and 8a.ille Oanes 9ei "ho are clai.in0 successional ri0hts in the intestate estate of the deceased Si.a 9ei, a.1.a. Rufino +u$ Susi.. SO ORD R D.(& The !ourt of )ppeals denied petitioner5s .otion for reconsideration, hence, this petition. Petitioner ar0ues that the !ourt of )ppeals disre0arded eAistin0 rules on certification a0ainst foru. shoppin06 that the Release and 9aiver of !lai. eAecuted b$ Re.edios released and dischar0ed the +u$ fa.il$ and the estate of Si.a 9ei fro. an$ clai.s or liabilities6 and that private respondents do not have the le0al personalit$ to institute the petition for letters of ad.inistration as the$ failed to prove their filiation durin0 the lifeti.e of Si.a 9ei in accordance "ith )rticle (,4 of the Fa.il$ !ode. Private respondents contend that their counsel5s certification can be considered substantial co.pliance "ith the rules on certification of non*foru. shoppin0, and that the petition raises no ne" issues to "arrant the reversal of the decisions of the Re0ional Trial !ourt and the !ourt of )ppeals. The issues for resolution are7 (; "hether private respondents5 petition should be dis.issed for failure to co.pl$ "ith the rules on certification of non*foru. shoppin06 %; "hether the Release and 9aiver of !lai. precludes private respondents fro. clai.in0 their successional ri0hts6 and /; "hether private respondents are barred b$ prescription fro. provin0 their filiation. The petition lac1s .erit. Rule ,, Section 4 of the Rules of !ourt provides that the certification of non*foru. shoppin0 should be eAecuted b$ the plaintiff or the principal part$. Failure to co.pl$ "ith the reDuire.ent shall be cause for dis.issal of the case. <o"ever, a liberal application of the rules is proper "here the hi0her interest of Bustice "ould be served. InSy Chin v. Court of Appeals,(( "e ruled that "hile a petition .a$ have been fla"ed "here the certificate of non*foru. shoppin0 "as si0ned onl$ b$ counsel and not b$ the part$, this procedural lapse .a$ be overloo1ed in the interest of substantial Bustice. (% So it is in the present controvers$ "here the .erits (/ of the case and the absence of an intention to violate

the rules "ith i.punit$ should be considered as co.pellin0 reasons to te.per the strict application of the rules. )s re0ards Re.edios5 Release and 9aiver of !lai., the sa.e does not bar private respondents fro. clai.in0 successional ri0hts. To be valid and effective, a "aiver .ust be couched in clear and uneDuivocal ter.s "hich leave no doubt as to the intention of a part$ to 0ive up a ri0ht or benefit "hich le0all$ pertains to hi.. ) "aiver .a$ not be attributed to a person "hen its ter.s do not eAplicitl$ and clearl$ evince an intent to abandon a ri0ht. (' In this case, "e find that there "as no "aiver of hereditar$ ri0hts. The Release and 9aiver of !lai. does not state "ith clarit$ the purpose of its eAecution. It .erel$ states that Re.edios received P/&&,&&&.&& and an educational plan for her .inor dau0hters Gb$ "a$ of financial assistance and in full settle.ent of an$ and all clai.s of "hatsoever nature and 1ind A A A a0ainst the estate of the late Rufino +u$ Susi..G(4 !onsiderin0 that the docu.ent did not specificall$ .ention private respondents5 hereditar$ share in the estate of Si.a 9ei, it cannot be construed as a "aiver of successional ri0hts. Moreover, even assu.in0 that Re.edios trul$ "aived the hereditar$ ri0hts of private respondents, such "aiver "ill not bar the latter5s clai.. )rticle (&'' of the !ivil !ode, provides7 )RT. (&''. )n$ person havin0 the free disposal of his propert$ .a$ accept or repudiate an inheritance. A(1 &(.er&t,(-e 7e8t to m&(or% or &(-,p,-&t,te' per%o(% m,1 be ,--epte' b1 t.e&r p,re(t% or )*,r'&,(%. P,re(t% or )*,r'&,(% m,1 rep*'&,te t.e &(.er&t,(-e 7e8t to t.e&r 9,r'% o(71 b1 :*'&-&,7 ,*t.or&;,t&o(. The ri0ht to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belon0 to the persons desi0nated b$ the testator to deter.ine the beneficiaries and distribute the propert$, or in their default, to those .entioned in )rticle (&/&. : .phasis supplied; Parents and 0uardians .a$ not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their "ards "ithout Budicial approval. This is because repudiation a.ounts to an alienation of propert$ (= "hich .ust pass the court5s scrutin$ in order to protect the interest of the "ard. Not havin0 been Budiciall$ authori?ed, the Release and 9aiver of !lai. in the instant case is void and "ill not bar private respondents fro. assertin0 their ri0hts as heirs of the deceased. Further.ore, it .ust be e.phasi?ed that "aiver is the intentional relinDuish.ent of a 1no"n ri0ht. 9here one lac1s 1no"led0e of a ri0ht, there is no basis upon "hich "aiver of it can rest. I0norance of a .aterial fact ne0ates "aiver, and "aiver cannot be established b$ a consent 0iven under a .ista1e or .isapprehension of fact.(, In the present case, private respondents could not have possibl$ "aived their successional ri0hts because the$ are $et to prove their status as ac1no"led0ed ille0iti.ate children of the deceased. Petitioner hi.self has consistentl$ denied that private respondents are his co*heirs. It "ould thus be inconsistent to rule that the$ "aived their hereditar$ ri0hts "hen petitioner clai.s that the$ do not have such ri0ht. <ence, petitioner5s invocation of "aiver on the part of private respondents .ust fail. )nent the issue on private respondents5 filiation, "e a0ree "ith the !ourt of )ppeals that a rulin0 on the sa.e "ould be pre.ature considerin0 that private respondents have $et to present evidence.

2efore the Fa.il$ !ode too1 effect, the 0overnin0 la" on actions for reco0nition of ille0iti.ate children "as )rticle %34 of the !ivil !ode, to "it7 )RT. %34. The action for the reco0nition of natural children .a$ be brou0ht onl$ durin0 the lifeti.e of the presu.ed parents, eAcept in the follo"in0 cases7 <1= I8 t.e 8,t.er or mot.er '&e' '*r&() t.e m&(or&t1 o8 t.e -.&7', &( 9.&-. -,%e t.e 7,tter m,1 8&7e t.e ,-t&o( be8ore t.e e>p&r,t&o( o8 8o*r 1e,r% 8rom t.e ,tt,&(me(t o8 .&% m,:or&t1? :%; If after the death of the father or of the .other a docu.ent should appear of "hich nothin0 had been heard and in "hich either or both parents reco0ni?e the child. In this case, the action .ust be co..enced "ithin four $ears fro. the findin0 of the docu.ent. : .phasis supplied; 9e ruled in Bernabe v. Alejo(3 that ille0iti.ate children "ho "ere still .inors at the ti.e the Fa.il$ !ode too1 effect and "hose putative parent died durin0 their .inorit$ are 0iven the ri0ht to see1 reco0nition for a period of up to four $ears fro. attainin0 .aBorit$ a0e. This vested ri0ht "as not i.paired or ta1en a"a$ b$ the passa0e of the Fa.il$ !ode. (On the other hand, )rticles (,%, (,/ and (,4 of the Fa.il$ !ode, "hich superseded )rticle %34 of the !ivil !ode, provide7 )RT. (,%. The filiation of le0iti.ate children is established b$ an$ of the follo"in07 :(; The record of birth appearin0 in the civil re0ister or a final Bud0.ent6 or :%; )n ad.ission of le0iti.ate filiation in a public docu.ent or a private hand"ritten instru.ent and si0ned b$ the parent concerned. In the absence of the fore0oin0 evidence, the le0iti.ate filiation shall be proved b$7 :(; The open and continuous possession of the status of a le0iti.ate child6 or :%; )n$ other .eans allo"ed b$ the Rules of !ourt and special la"s. )RT. (,/. The action to clai. le0iti.ac$ .a$ be brou0ht b$ the child durin0 his or her lifeti.e and shall be trans.itted to the heirs should the child die durin0 .inorit$ or in a state of insanit$. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five $ears "ithin "hich to institute the action. The action alread$ co..enced b$ the child shall survive not"ithstandin0 the death of either or both of the parties. )RT. (,4. Ille0iti.ate children .a$ establish their ille0iti.ate filiation in the sa.e "a$ and on the sa.e, evidence as le0iti.ate children. The action .ust be brou0ht "ithin the sa.e period specified in )rticle (,/, eAcept "hen the action is based on the second para0raph of )rticle (,%, in "hich case the action .a$ be brou0ht durin0 the lifeti.e of the alle0ed parent.

Cnder the Fa.il$ !ode, "hen filiation of an ille0iti.ate child is established b$ a record of birth appearin0 in the civil re0ister or a final Bud0.ent, or an ad.ission of filiation in a public docu.ent or a private hand"ritten instru.ent si0ned b$ the parent concerned, the action for reco0nition .a$ be brou0ht b$ the child durin0 his or her lifeti.e. <o"ever, if the action is based upon open and continuous possession of the status of an ille0iti.ate child, or an$ other .eans allo"ed b$ the rules or special la"s, it .a$ onl$ be brou0ht durin0 the lifeti.e of the alle0ed parent. It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends on the t$pe of evidence to be adduced b$ private respondents in provin0 their filiation. <o"ever, it "ould be i.possible to deter.ine the sa.e in this case as there has been no reception of evidence $et. This !ourt is not a trier of facts. Such .atters .a$ be resolved onl$ b$ the Re0ional Trial !ourt after a full*blo"n trial. 9hile the ori0inal action filed b$ private respondents "as a petition for letters of ad.inistration, the trial court is not precluded fro. receivin0 evidence on private respondents5 filiation. Its Burisdiction eAtends to .atters incidental and collateral to the eAercise of its reco0ni?ed po"ers in handlin0 the settle.ent of the estate, includin0 the deter.ination of the status of each heir. %& That the t"o causes of action, one to co.pel reco0nition and the other to clai. inheritance, .a$ be Boined in one co.plaint is not ne" in our Burisprudence. %( )s held in Briz v. Briz7%% The Duestion "hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in an$ event .aintain a co.pleA action to co.pel reco0nition as a natural child and at the sa.e ti.e to obtain ulterior relief in the character of heir, is one "hich in the opinion of this court .ust be ans"ered in the affir.ative, provided al"a$s that the conditions Bustif$in0 the Boinder of the t"o distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. In other "ords, there is no absolute necessit$ reDuirin0 that the action to co.pel ac1no"led0.ent should have been instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in "hich that sa.e plaintiff see1s additional relief in the character of heir. !ertainl$, there is nothin0 so peculiar to the action to co.pel ac1no"led0.ent as to reDuire that a rule should be here applied different fro. that 0enerall$ applicable in other cases. A A A The conclusion above stated, thou0h not heretofore eAplicitl$ for.ulated b$ this court, is undoubtedl$ to so.e eAtent supported b$ our prior decisions. Thus, "e have held in nu.erous cases, and the doctrine .ust be considered "ell settled, that a natural child havin0 a ri0ht to co.pel ac1no"led0.ent, but "ho has not been in fact ac1no"led0ed, .a$ .aintain partition proceedin0s for the division of the inheritance a0ainst his coheirs :Si0uion0 vs. Si0uion0, 3 Phil., 46 Tia.son vs. Tia.son, /% Phil., =%;6 and the sa.e person .a$ intervene in proceedin0s for the distribution of the estate of his deceased natural father, or .other :!apistrano vs. Fabella, 3 Phil., (/46 !onde vs. )ba$a, (/ Phil., %'-6 Ra.ire? vs. +.ur, '% Phil., 344;. In neither of these situations has it been thou0ht necessar$ for the plaintiff to sho" a prior decree co.pellin0 ac1no"led0.ent. The obvious reason is that in partition suits and distribution proceedin0s the other persons "ho .i0ht ta1e b$ inheritance are before the court6 and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedin0s. 4HERE"ORE, the instant petition is 3ENIE3. The Decision dated #anuar$ %%, %&&' of the !ourt of )ppeals in !)*+.R. SP No. ,-,'% affir.in0 the denial of petitioner5s .otion to dis.iss6 and its Resolution dated Ma$ %4, %&&' den$in0 petitioner5s .otion for reconsideration, are A""IRME3. Het the records be REMAN3E3 to the Re0ional Trial !ourt of Ma1ati !it$, 2ranch (/3 for further proceedin0s. SO OR3ERE3. an!aniban" C.#." Chairperson" Austria$%artinez" Callejo" Sr." Chi&o$'azario" #.#." concur.

"oot(ote% Rollo, pp. (-*%=. Penned b$ )ssociate #ustice Martin S. Villara.a, #r. and concurred in b$ )ssociate #ustices Mario H. +uari>a III and #ose !. Re$es, #r.
( %

Id. at '3*'-. Penned b$ #ud0e SiAto Marella, #r. Id. at 4/. Id. at %3. Id. at %-*/(. Id. at /(. Id. at /4*/=. Id. at /,*'(. Id. at '%*''. Id. at %4. /-- Phil. ''% :%&&&;. Id. at '4'.

'

(&

((

(%

T"in To"ers !ondo.iniu. !orporation v. !ourt of )ppeals, +.R. No. (%/44%, Februar$ %,, %&&/, /-3 S!R) %&/, %(%.
(/ ('

Tho.son v. !ourt of )ppeals, /43 Phil. ,=(, ,,3 :(--3;. Rollo, p. ''. Tolentino, !ivil !ode of the Philippines, Vol. III, p. 44'.

(4

(=

D.M. !onsunBi, Inc. v. !ourt of )ppeals, +.R. No. (/,3,/, )pril %&, %&&(, /4, S!R) %'-, %==.
(, (3

'%' Phil. -// :%&&%;. Id. at -''.

(-

2orro.eo*<errera v. 2orro.eo, +.R. Nos. H*'((,(, H*44&&&, H*=%3-4, H*=/3(3 and H* =4--4, #ul$ %/, (-3,, (4% S!R) (,(, (3%*(3/.
%& %(

Ta$a0 v.!ourt of )ppeals, +.R. No. -4%%-, #une -, (--%, %&- S!R) ==4, =,%.

%%

'/ Phil. ,=/, ,=3*,=- :(-%%;.