Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 OLIVIA S. PASCUAL an !ERMES S. PASCUAL, petitioners, vs. ESPERAN"A C. PASCUAL#$AUTISTA, MANUEL C. PASCUAL, %OSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL#$AUTISTA, ERLIN&A C. PASCUAL, 'ENCESLAO C. PASCUAL, %R., INTESTATE ESTATE O( ELEUTERIO T. PASCUAL, AVELINO PASCUAL, ISOCELES PASCUAL, LEI&A PASCUAL#MARTINES, VIRGINIA PASCUAL#NER, NONA PASCUAL#(ERNAN&O, OCTAVIO PASCUAL, GERANAIA PASCUAL#&U$ERT, an T!E !ONORA$LE PRESI&ING %U&GE MANUEL S. PA&OLINA o) $r. 1*2, RTC, Pa+,-, M./ro Man,0a, respondents.

PARAS, J.: his is a petition for revie! on certiorari !hich see"s to reverse and set aside# $a% the decision of the Court of &ppeals 1 dated &pril '(, )(** in C&+,.R. SP. No. )-.). entitled /Olivia S. Pascual and 0er1es S. Pascual v. Esperan2a C. Pascual+3autista, Manuel C. Pascual, 4ose Pascual, Susana C. Pascual+3autista, Erlinda C. Pascual, 5enceslao C. Pascual, 4r., et al./ !hich dis1issed the petition and in effect affir1ed the decision of the trial court and $b% the resolution dated 4ul6 )-, )(** den6in7 petitioners8 1otion for reconsideration. he undisputed facts of the case are as follo!s# Petitioners Olivia and 0er1es both surna1ed Pascual are the ac"no!led7ed natural children of the late Eli7io Pascual, the latter bein7 the full blood brother of the decedent Don &ndres Pascual $ Rollo, petition, p. )9%. Don &ndres Pascual died intestate on October )', )(9: !ithout an6 issue, le7iti1ate, ac"no!led7ed natural, adopted or spurious children and !as survived b6 the follo!in7# $a% &dela Soldevilla de Pascual, survivin7 spouses; $b% Children of 5enceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of the full blood of the deceased, to !it# Esperan2a C. Pascual+3autista Manuel C. Pascual 4ose C. Pascual Susana C. Pascual+3autista Erlinda C. Pascual 5enceslao C. Pascual, 4r.

$c% Children of Pedro+3autista, brother of the half blood of the deceased, to !it# &velino Pascual Isoceles Pascual <oida Pascual+Martine2 Vir7inia Pascual+Ner Nona Pascual+=ernando Octavio Pascual ,eranaia Pascual+Dubert; $d% &c"no!led7ed natural children of Eli7io Pascual, brother of the full blood of the deceased, to !it# Olivia S. Pascual 0er1es S. Pascual $e% Intestate of Eleuterio . Pascual, a brother of the half blood of the deceased and represented b6 the follo!in7# Do1in7a M. Pascual Ma1erta P. =u7oso &braha1 S. Sar1iento, III Re7ina Sar1iento+Macaiba6 Eleuterio P. Sar1iento Do1i7a P. San Die7o Nelia P. Mar>ue2 Silvestre M. Pascual Eleuterio M. Pascual $Rollo, pp. -?+-9% &dela Soldevilla de Pascual, the survivin7 spouse of the late Don &ndres Pascual, filed !ith the Re7ional rial Court $R C%, 3ranch )?' $C=I of Ri2al, 3r. @@III%, a Special Proceedin7, Case No. 9AA-, for ad1inistration of the intestate estate of her late husband $ Rollo, p. -9%. On Dece1ber )*, )(9:, &dela soldevilla de Pascual filed a Supple1ental Petition to the Petition for letters of &d1inistration, !here she eBpressl6 stated that Olivia Pascual and 0er1es Pascual, are a1on7 the heirs of Don &ndres Pascual $Rollo, pp. ((+).)%. On =ebruar6 '9, )(9-, a7ain &dela Soldevilla de Pascual eBecuted an affidavit, to the effect that of her o!n "no!led7e, Eli7io Pascual is the 6oun7er full blood brother of her late husband Don &ndres Pascual, to belie the state1ent 1ade b6 the oppositors, that the6 !ere are not a1on7 the "no!n heirs of the deceased Don &ndres Pascual $Rollo, p. ).'%. On October )?, )(*A, all the above+1entioned heirs entered into a COMPROMISE &,REEMEN , over the vehe1ent obCections of the herein petitioners Olivia S. Pascual and 0er1es S. Pascual, althou7h para7raph V of such co1pro1ise a7ree1ent provides, to !it# his Co1pro1ise &7ree1ent shall be !ithout preCudice to the continuation of the above+entitled proceedin7s until the final deter1ination thereof b6 the court, or b6 another co1pro1ise a7ree1ent, as re7ards the clai1s of Olivia Pascual and 0er1es Pascual as le7al heirs of the deceased, Don &ndres Pascual. $Rollo, p. ).*%

he said Co1pro1ise &7ree1ent had been entered into despite the ManifestationDMotion of the petitioners Olivia Pascual and 0er1es Pascual, 1anifestin7 their hereditar6 ri7hts in the intestate estate of Don &ndres Pascual, their uncle $Rollo, pp. )))+))'%. On Septe1ber :., )(*9, petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate 0ereditar6 Ri7hts $ Rollo, pp. )):+ ))-% and the Me1orandu1 in Support of Motion to reiterate 0ereditar6 Ri7hts $ Rollo, pp. ))?+):.%. On Dece1ber )*, )(*9, the Re7ional rial Court, presided over b6 4ud7e Manuel S. Padolina issued an order, the dispositive portion of !hich reads# 50ERE=ORE, pre1ises considered, this Court resolves as it is hereb6 resolved to Den6 this 1otion reiteratin7 the hereditar6 ri7hts of Olivia and 0er1es Pascual $Rollo, p. ):?%. On 4anuar6 ):, )(**, petitioners filed their 1otion for reconsideration $Rollo, pp. A)A+A'?%. and such 1otion !as denied. Petitioner appealed their case to the Court of &ppeals doc"eted as C&+,.R. No. )-.). $ Rollo, p. )A.%. On &ril '(, )(**, the respondent Court of &ppeals rendered its decision the decision the dispositive part of !hich reads# 50ERE=ORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs a7ainst the petitioners. SO ORDERED. $Rollo, p. :*% Petitioners filed their 1otion for reconsideration of said decision and on 4ul6 )-, )(**, the Court of &ppeals issued its resolution den6in7 the 1otion for reconsideration $ Rollo, p. -'%. 0ence, this petition for revie! on certiorari. &fter all the re>uire1ents had been filed, the case !as 7iven due course. he 1ain issue to be resolved in the case at bar is !hether or not &rticle ((' of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to eBclude reco7ni2ed natural children fro1 the inheritance of the deceased. Petitioners contend that the6 do not fall s>uarel6 !ithin the purvie! of &rticle ((' of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to eBclude reco7ni2ed and of the doctrine laid do!n in Diaz v. IAC $)A. SCR& ?-A E)(*9F% because bein7 ac"no!led7ed natural children, their ille7iti1ac6 is not due to the subsistence of a prior 1arria7e !hen such children !ere under conception $ Rollo, p. -)*%. Other!ise stated the6 sa6 the ter1 /ille7iti1ate/ children as provided in &rticle ((' 1ust be strictl6 construed to refer onl6 to spurious children $Rollo, p. -)(%. On the other hand, private respondents 1aintain that herein petitioners are !ithin the prohibition of &rticle ((' of the Civil Code and the doctrine laid do!n in Diaz v. IAC is applicable to the1. he petition is devoid of 1erit.

Pertinent thereto, &rticle ((' of the civil Code, provides# &n ille7iti1ate child has no ri7ht to inherit ab intestato fro1 the le7iti1ate children and relatives of his father or 1other; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the sa1e 1anner fro1 the ille7iti1ate child. he issue in the case at bar, had alread6 been laid to rest in Diaz v. IAC, supra, !here this Court ruled that# &rticle ((' of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutel6 a succession ab intestato bet!een the ille7iti1ate child and the le7iti1ate children and relatives of the father or 1other of said le7iti1ate child. he6 1a6 have a natural tie of blood, but this is not reco7ni2ed b6 la! for the purposes of &rticle (('. 3et!een the le7iti1ate fa1il6 and ille7iti1ate fa1il6 there is presu1ed to be an intervenin7 anta7onis1 and inco1patibilit6. he ille7iti1ate child is dis7racefull6 loo"ed do!n upon b6 the le7iti1ate fa1il6; the fa1il6 is in turn hated b6 the ille7iti1ate child; the latter considers the privile7ed condition of the for1er, and the resources of !hich it is thereb6 deprived; the for1er, in turn, sees in the ille7iti1ate child nothin7 but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a ble1ish bro"en in life; the la! does no 1ore than reco7ni2e this truth, b6 avoidin7 further 7rounds of resent1ent. Eli7io Pascual is a le7iti1ate child but petitioners are his ille7iti1ate children. &ppl6in7 the above doctrine to the case at bar, respondent I&C did not err in holdin7 that petitioners herein cannot represent their father Eli7io Pascual in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent &ndres Pascual, full blood brother of their father. In their 1e1orandu1, petitioners insisted that &rticle ((' in the li7ht of &rticles (.' and (*( of the Civil Code allo!s the1 $Olivia and 0er1es% to represent Eli7io Pascual in the intestate estate of Don &ndres Pascual. On 1otion for reconsideration of the decision in Diaz v. IAC, this Court further elucidated the successional ri7hts of ille7iti1ate children, !hich s>uarel6 ans!ers the >uestions raised b6 the petitioner on this point. he Court held# &rticle (.', (*(, and ((. clearl6 spea"s of successional ri7hts of ille7iti1ate children, !hich ri7hts are trans1itted to their descendants upon their death. he descendants $of these ille7iti1ate children% !ho 1a6 inherit b6 virtue of the ri7ht of representation 1a6 be le7iti1ate or ille7iti1ate. In !hatever 1anner, one should not overloo" the fact that the persons to be represented are the1selves illegitimate. he three na1ed provisions are ver6 clear on this 1atter. he ri7ht of representation is not available to ille7iti1ate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a le7iti1ate 7randparent. It 1a6 be ar7ued, as done b6 petitioners, that the ille7iti1ate descendant of a le7iti1ate child is entitled to represent b6 virtue of the provisions of &rticle (*', !hich provides that /the 7randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b6 ri7ht of representation./ Such a conclusion is erroneous. It !ould allo! intestate succession b6 an ille7iti1ate child to the le7iti1ate parent of his father or 1other, a situation !hich !ould set at nau7ht the provisions of &rticle (('. &rticle (*' is inapplicable to the instant case because &rticle ((' prohibits absolutel6 a

succession ab intestatobet!een the ille7iti1ate child and the le7iti1ate children and relatives of the father or 1other. It 1a6 not be a1iss to state &rticle (*' is the 7eneral rule and &rticle ((' the eBception. he rules laid do!n in &rticle (*' that /7randchildren and other descendants shall inherit b6 ri7ht of representation/ and in &rticle (.' that the ri7hts of ille7iti1ate children . . . are trans1itted upon their death to their descendants, !hether le7iti1ate or ille7iti1ate are subject to the limitation prescribed b6 &rticle ((' to the end that an ille7iti1ate child has no ri7ht to inherit ab intestato fro1 the le7iti1ate children and relatives of his father or 1other. $&1icus Curiae8s Opinion b6 for1er 4ustice Minister Ricardo C. Puno, p. )'%. Dia2 v. Inter1ediate &ppellate Court, )*' SCR& -'9; pp. -:)+-:'; E)((.F%. Veril6, the interpretation of the la! desired b6 the petitioner 1a6 be 1ore hu1ane but it is also an ele1entar6 rule in statutor6 construction that !hen the !ords and phrases of the statute are clear and une>uivocal, their 1eanin7 1ust be deter1ined fro1 the lan7ua7e e1plo6ed and the statute 1ust be ta"en to 1ean eBactl6 !hat is sa6s. $3aranda v. ,ustilo, )?A SCR& 9A*+9A( E)(**F%. he courts 1a6 not speculate as to the probable intent of the le7islature apart fro1 the !ords $&parri v. C&, )'9 SCR& ':: E)(*-F%. 5hen the la! is clear, it is not susceptible of interpretation. It 1ust be applied re7ardless of !ho 1a6 be affected, even if the la! 1a6 be harsh or onerous. $Nepo1uceno, et al. v. =C, )). Phil. -'%. &nd even 7rantin7 that eBceptions 1a6 be conceded, the sa1e as a 7eneral rule, should be strictl6 but reasonabl6 construed; the6 eBtend onl6 so far as their lan7ua7e fairl6 !arrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the 7eneral provisions rather than the eBception. hus, !here a 7eneral rule is established b6 statute, the court !ill not curtail the for1er nor add to the latter b6 i1plication $Sa1son v. C.&., )-A SCR& ?A- E)(*?F%. Clearl6 the ter1 /ille7iti1ate/ refers to both natural and spurious. =inall6 under &rticle )9? of the =a1il6 Code, all ille7iti1ate children are 7enerall6 placed under one cate7or6, !hich undoubtedl6 settles the issue as to !hether or not ac"no!led7ed natural children should be treated differentl6, in the ne7ative. It 1a6 be said that the la! 1a6 be harsh but that is the la! $DGR& <E@ SED <E@%. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lac" of 1erit and the assailed decision of the respondent Court of &ppeals dated &pril '(, )(** is &==IRMED. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, adilla, Regalado and !ocon, ""., concur.