You are on page 1of 5


appealed their case to the Court of Appeals, but said court
ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C. dismissed their appeal.
PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, et. al (G.R. No. 84240. March
25, 1992) ISSUE: whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized natural
children from the inheritance of the deceased

FACTS: Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual
are the acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio
Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent HELD: Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are
Don Andres Pascua. his illegitimate children. Thus, petitioners cannot represent their
father in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of
Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October 12, 1973 the decedent Andres, full blood brother of their father.
without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural, adopted
or spurious children and was survived by the following: The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in
Diaz v. IAC, supra, where this Court ruled that:
(a) Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, surviving spouse:
"Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain
(b) Children of Wenceslao Pascual, Sr., a brother of in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between
the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Esperanza C. the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of
Pascual-Bautista; Manuel C. Pascual; Jose C. the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a
Pascual; Susana C. Pascual-Bautista; Erlinda C. natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the
Pascual; Wenceslao C. Pascual, Jr. purposes of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and
illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening
(c) Children of Pedro Pascual, brother of the half
antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is
blood of the deceased, to wit: Avelino Pascual;
disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the
Isoceles Pascual; Loida Pascual-Martinez; Virginia
family is in turn hated by the illegitimate child; the latter
Pascual-Ner; Nona Pascual-Fernando; Octavio
considers the privileged condition of the former, and the
Pascual; Geranaia Pascual-Dubert;
resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn,
sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin,
(d) Acknowledged natural children of Eligio Pascual,
palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life the law does no
brother of the full blood of the deceased, to wit: Olivia
more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
S. Pascual; Hermes S. Pascual
(e) Intestate of Eleuterio T. Pascual, a brother of the
In their memorandum, petitioners insisted that Article 992 in the
half blood of the deceased and represented by the
light of Articles 902 and 989 of the Civil Code allows them
following: Dominga M. Pascual; Mamerta P. Fugoso;
(Olivia and Hermes) to represent Eligio Pascual in the intestate
Abraham S. Sarmiento, III; Regina Sarmiento-
estate of Don Andres Pascual. The Court held:
Macaibay; Eleuterio P. Sarmiento; Dominga P. San
Diego; Nelia P. Marquez; Silvestre M. Pascual;
"Article 902, 98, and 990 clearly speaks of
Eleuterio M. Pascual.
successional rights of illegitimate children, which
rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their
Adela Soldevilla de Pascual, the surviving spouse of the late
death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children)
Don Andres Pascual, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation
Branch 162, a Special Proceeding, Case No. 7554, for
may be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner,
administration of the intestate estate of her late husband. On
one should not overlook the fact that the persons to
December 18, 1973, Adela Soldevilla de Pascual filed a
be represented are themselves illegitimate. The three
Supplemental Petition to the Petition for Letters of
named provisions are very clear on this matter. The
Administration, where she expressly stated that Olivia Pascual
right of representation is not available to illegitimate
and Hermes Pascual, are among the heirs of Don Andres
descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance
of a legitimate grandparent. The rules laid down in
On February 27, 1974, again Adela Soldevilla de Pascual Article 982 that `grandchildren and other descendants
executed an affidavit, to the effect that of her own knowledge, shall inherit by right of representation' and in Article
Eligio Pascual is the younger full blood brother of her late 902 that the rights of illegitimate children . . . are
husband Don Andres Pascual, to belie the statement made by transmitted upon their death to their descendants,
the oppositors, that they are not among the known heirs of the whether legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the
deceased Don Andres Pascual. limitation prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
On October 16, 1985, all the above-mentioned heirs entered from the legitimate children and relatives of his father
into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, over the vehement or mother."
objections of the herein petitioners Olivia S. Pascual and
Hermes S. Pascual.

On September 30, 1987, petitioners filed their Motion to
Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the Memorandum in Support
of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights. On December 18,
1987, the Regional Trial Court, presided over by Judge Manuel
S. Padolina issued an order reiterating the hereditary rights of
Olivia and Hermes.

On January 13, 1988, petitioners filed their motion for
reconsideration and such motion was denied. Petitioners

illegitimate child? It must be noted that under Art. P-20594 was executed in favor of Juan Manuel by from her illegitimate child. cannot inherit from the illegitimate child. initiated this suit. OCT P-19902 and TCT No. LORENZO direct line." The doctrine rejects succession ab intestato in the collateral line between legitimate relatives. ESPERANZA MANUEL. the petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid instruments. 41134 (all still in the name of Juan adoption. HON. Regional Trial Court. Modesta candidly admitted that Modesta executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication claiming for she herself is not an intestate heir of Juan Manuel. Petitioners. the three We must hold. had neither Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim over the the standing nor the cause of action to initiate the complaint. The trial court. Juan legitimate brother of her natural father. AGAPITA MANUEL. On 03 June 1980. married Court in several other cases. Juan Manuel was born. that the complaint of petitioners titles (OCT P-20594. that a natural child cannot represent Laurenciana Manuel. a month after the death of Esperanza. the donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land. was properly dismissed by the trial court. that the natural daughter cannot Retro (with a 10-year period of redemption) over a one-half succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle who is a (1/2) portion of his land covered by TCT No. It is clear that by virtue of this barrier. the illegitimate son of Antonio. certiorari is the inheritance left by an illegitimate child who died Consequently. Lingayen. herself the three parcels of land covered by OCT P-20594. 992 of the 117246. were not the real parties-in- interest to institute the suit. Modesta executed in favor of her co-respondent Estanislaoa not being the real "parties-in-interest" in the case. Pangasinan. nevertheless. when the law speaks of 'brothers and sisters. 1995) Code. on other hand. with an area of latter had no right to the former's inheritance. a basic postulate. nephews and nieces' as legal heirs of an illegitimate child. it has ruled that where the Esperanza Gamba. the legitimate brothers and sisters as well as the children. unredeemed one-half (1/2) portion of the land (now covered by TCT No. NICODEMO T. children and relatives of his father. not being heirs ab intestato of their illegitimate brother Juan Manuel. During his marriage with children. although it does not totally disavow such succession in the BENIGNO MANUEL.R. The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by the Juan Manuel. Esperanza Gamba also passed away. were issued in the Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim in favor of Estanislaoa the name of Modesta Manuel-Baltazar. 41134) in the seeking the nullity of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed name of Juan Manuel were canceled and new titles. This "barrier" between the members of the legitimate and illegitimate family in intestacy is explained by a noted civilist. No. MADRONA MANUEL. Antonio had an extra-marital affair with one Ursula sisters. In a complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen. She is right. nephews and nieces. the one hand. whether legitimate or illegitimate. is neither a compulsory nor a legal heir. that the 2. in its now assailed 15th August 1994 decision. and that an illegitimate Manuel died intestate on 21 February 1990. On 19 October 1992. ISSUE: are the petitioners the legal heirs over one-half of Juan's intestate estate (while the other half would pertain to Juan's surviving spouse) under the provision of the last paragraph of Article 994 of the Civil Code? HELD: Article 992. EMILIA MANUEL and His thesis: NUMERIANA MANUEL. there is a barrier dividing members of the illegitimate family from members of the legitimate family. FERRER. by Modesta. or child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate on 04 February 1992. whether legitimate or illegitimate. A ward (ampon). TCT No. without the benefit of formal (judicial) OCT P-19902 and TCT No. vs. on . MANUEL. 184225) that was sold to the latter by Juan Manuel under the 1980 Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro. Thus. 184225. of such brothers and Beatriz. "What is meant by the law when it speaks of brothers and Branch 37. enunciates what is so commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the "principle of absolute separation between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family. as well as 184223. These acts of Modesta apparently did not sit well with petitioners. 41134. dismissed the complaint holding that petitioners. BASILISA MANUEL. it Petitioners. Juan Manuel executed his natural father in the succession to the estate of the in favor of Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de legitimate grandparent. PLACIDA MANUEL. as legal or intestate heirs of an BALTAZAR and ESTANISLAOA MANUEL (G. Presiding Judge. intestate without any surviving descendant or ascendant. a illegitimate child had half-brothers who were legitimate. the three (3) TCT's issued to her favor. Manuel. the legitimate children of spouses Antonio Manuel refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the and Beatriz Guiling. Following the registration of the document of adjudication with the Office of the Register of Deeds. LIBERATO MANUEL. In consideration of the marriage. covered by Original Certificate of Title legitimate collateral relatives of the mother cannot succeed ("OCT") No. MODESTA sisters. 184224 and TCT No. August 21." Bautista. TCT No.700 square meters. Two years later. In her answer to the complaint. From this relationship. On 05 March 1992. Manuel). and illegitimate relatives. Pangasinan. of such FACTS: The property involved in this petition for review on brothers and sisters.

the relationship of the declarant to the common relative the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo and may not be proved by the declaration itself. therefore. petitioners who are entitled to jointly inherit in their own right. subject to the following conditions: ascendant or descendant. Martin Guerrero. (3) that such relationship be shown by to inherit from Teodora Dezoller Guerrero by right of evidence other than the declaration. sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not herein petitioners filed an action for reconveyance on merely to establish a right through his declarations to the November 2. 1983 without any 130 of the Rules of Court. Hermogenes Dezoller. Upon presented as the lone witness. more convincing reason than the presumption that children DEZOLLER vs. and 1001 provide for the manner by which During the hearing. that petitioners are the niece and nephew of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. allegedly as sole heir. but before any controversy has spouse. 995. herein private respondent. (2) that the husband. Plaintiff's Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to Applying the aforequoted statutory provisions. 1988. Hermogenes. No. And well settled is the rule that DOMINGO (G. categorically Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and nephew. hence they seek subject of inquiry. Martin Guerrero could only validly alienate his total the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for undivided three-fourths (3/4) share in the entire property to reconveyance. executed on September 15. and was survived only by her (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify. 1986 an Affidavit arisen thereon. requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship. petitioners. Martin. from the further consideration that private reconveyance filed by herein petitioners against herein private respondent is not the proper party to impugn the legitimacy of respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. died on October 3. On January 2. aunt. petitioners and private respondent are deemed co-owners of the property covered by In upholding the dismissal. as a consequence of which seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and Transfer Certificate of Title No. family picture. respondent Court of Appeals Transfer Certificate of Title No. 374012 was issued some independent proof of this fact. and herein petitioners. private respondent filed a Demurrer to Martin Guerrero. or sometime in 1946. Such a statement respectively. 1973. and (4) that the representation. ISSUE: Was the court correct in ruling that the evidence presented by petitioners insufficient in proving their filiation? HELD: It may thus be safely concluded. Petitioners' declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the father. one-half of the property in question by right of representation. on the sole basis of the decedent's declaration and without need for further proof thereof. Q-88- 1054. the in the latter's name. herein petitioners. As an exception. is that where the party claiming Certificate of Title No. 374012 in the proportion of an declared that the documentary evidence presented by herein undivided onefourth (1/4) and three-fourths (3/4) share thereof. of course. This is FACTS: The present appellate review involves an action for aside. as to whether petitioners are the legitimate children of Hermogenes Dezoller cannot be properly controverted in the present action for reconveyance. There must be thereafter. 358074 was issued in the name declarant. such as the baptismal certificates. On December 3. does not apply where it is Martin Guerrero died on October 25. declaration was made ante litem motam. 66886. Martin Guerrero sold estate. the land in dispute which is covered by Transfer The general rule. and joint affidavits are all inadmissible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation. 1988. Articles 975. as his share in the conjugal partnership. 1992. 121027. Rule Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died on March 5. Quezon City and relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony of which was originally owned by the spouses Martin Guerrero Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible. It appears that petitioners Guerrero in her lifetime. July 31. her surviving matter of the declaration. Transfer Certificate of Title No. over a parcel of land with a house and apartment The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the thereon located at San Francisco del Monte. Resultantly. claiming that they are entitled to inherit property of some other member of the family. Subsequently. 1997) the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA born in wedlock are legitimate. The issue. Subsequently. as an exception to the hearsay rule. therefore. 1988. of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating unto himself.R. but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's of Martin Guerrero. It seems that both the court a quo and respondent appellate court have regrettably overlooked the universally recognized presumption on legitimacy. Branch 98. the remaining prove their legitimate filiation with the deceased Teodora half shall be equally divided between the widower and herein Guerrero in accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code. with documentary evidence the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. is the sister of petitioners' father. . declared that the former is Teodora's niece. respectively. There is no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. one-half of the subject offered to prove petitioners' filiation to their father and their property was automatically reserved to the surviving spouse. under Section 39. not only before the commencement of the suit involving the subject Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. that is. the trial court issued an order granting Hence. docketed as the aforesaid Civil Case No. petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case.

the belonged to the conjugal partnership of Justa's parents. Enecia. the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones. Justa decedent Justa. Primitiva Uriarte.2 hectares which belonged to her in Pascasio was one of the sons of Primitiva Arnaldo and her own right. represented herein by meaning of Art. by Julieta maternal lines. are the widow and daughters of Pascasio Uriarte. The other petitioners are the children of Primitiva and those of Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares. was the the 2. Agatonica Arreza. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out. concerning division between paternal and children of Gregorio Arnaldo. aside from Pascasio. MADRILYN and LOURDES URIARTE. They claimed that the entire land. The private respondent is only a half-blood relative Arnaldo-Sering. This 2. He complained that Pascasio Uriarte who. while petitioners are entitled to the other 0. He is therefore Justa's nephew. No. surviving relative. ROSELYN ISSUE: URIARTE. relatives of the full and half blood. .5 hectares of the land in question Juan Arnaldo by whom she had another daughter. was originally owned by Ambrocio Arnaldo.5 hectares had been acquired by Justa's parents.125 hectares. Contrary to the trial court's finding. whose parents were Pedro Arreza and Ursula Tubil. and who among the petitioners and the private respondent is HEIRS OF PRIMITIVA ARNALDO and HEIRS OF entitled to Justa's estate as her nearest relatives within the GREGORIO ARNALDO.R. all surnamed Uriarte. and FELOMINA BUNIEL URIARTE. Upon the death of Pedro Arreza. In their answer.5 hectare land which Justa had inherited from her parents Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil. and of Article 987. private respondent was held to be entitled to share in the estate of Justa. during their marriage. Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his heirs. "The without issue.125 hectares of the half hectare land as her the nephew of Justa by her half sister Agatonica. On appeal. are Jorencio. ascendant. the relatives within the fifth degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousin Primitiva According to Article 962 of the Civil Code. the Court of Appeals reversed. Petitioners are thus grandchildren. Private respondent claimed to be the sole is immaterial. Private respondent Benedicto Estrada is thus was entitled to 0. 0. one-third. HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE. Ursula married Indeed. the appellate court found that the 0. on the ground that the latter died aunt's heir. HELD: In this case.575 or 2. the half- 1998) sister of Justa. On the other hand. Applying the principle that the nearest FACTS: Private respondent Benedicto Estrada is the son of excludes the farthest. January 22. Lupecino and Felisa. their great granduncle. He is thus a third degree relative of Justa. he determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half- claimed. They are thus fifth degree relatives of Justa. refused to give him blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of (private respondent) his share of the harvest." that Pascasio had no right to the entire land of Justa but could claim only one-half of the 0. The children of Primitiva by Conrado subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with respect to Uriarte. The paragraph 2. her brother Gregorio. Domingo and Virgilio. These other petitioners are thus grandchildren and relatives Petitioners misappreciate the relationship between Justa and within the fifth degree of consanguinity of Justa by her cousins private respondent. then plaintiff is the lawful heir of Justa. This alone does not disqualify him from being his surviving heir of Justa. Ambrocio's nephews. private respondent is Gregorio Arnaldo and Primitiva Arnaldo. Juan Arnaldo. were brothers. Domingo private respondent Benedicto Estrada as Justa's nearest Arnaldo and Justa's father.7-hectare land. His mother. He contended the survivors. The heirs claimed that the land had always been in their possession and that in her lifetime Justa never asserted exclusive right over the property but only received her share of the harvest from it. Domingo was to receive two-thirds of the land and Juan. are Josefina. Ilogon. defendants and intervenors are the sons and daughters of Justa's cousin. namely. COURT OF APPEALS and BENEDICTO ESTRADA (G. in a holographic will executed by Ambrocio in 1908. The trial court sustained petitioner's contention. given the fact that 0. saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. Simplicio. father's (Juan Arnaldo's) share in the conjugal property. As the nephew of Justa by her half-sister Agatonica. It was alleged bequeathed to Domingo and Juan Arnaldo. referred to in this case as the heirs of Pascasio Justa inherited her mother's (Ursula Tubil's) share consisting of Uriarte. Petitioners. Gaudencio.25 hectares. 962 of the Civil Code FELISA ARNALDO SULLANO and LUPECINO ARNALDO vs. Primitiva's brother. worked the land as Justa's tenant.58-hectare land was inherited by daughter of Domingo Arnaldo and Catalina Azarcon. As already stated. In every inheritance.58 hectares of Conrado Uriarte. Justa owned a total of 2. the son of Justa's half-sister Agatonica. Nicolas. In addition. Arnaldo Uriarte. plaintiff is the son of Agatonica. Juan Arnaldo and Ursula Tubil. A nephew is considered a collateral relative who may Private respondent Benedicto Estrada brought this case in the inherit if no descendant. the heirs denied they were mere tenants of Justa but the latter's heirs entitled to her entire land. or spouse survive the Regional Trial Court for the partition of the land left by Justa decedent. subject of the case. Plus the 2. 116775.

Order dated November 2. Cecilia Abad Empaynado and Marian The evidence presented by private respondents Abad Empaynado. 1972. and 108484. The trial court denied wife. On July court's decision. 13530.A. 108483. . listed therein as belonging to the beginning decedent. the mother of petitioners? Meanwhile. 86792. 1972. thus: In his individual statements of income 24. and as his legitimate dependent private respondents' motion to remove Cesar Tioseco as children. and the order dated November 19. all surnamed Ricardo de Mesa Abad. 53671. Art. COURT OF 9. private respondents Honoria Empaynado. declaring sought the settlement of the intestate estate of their brother. petitioners Carolina Abad the appellate court. and 64021 and the real estate mortgages constituted by the latter on said properties. ISSUE: are petitioners entitled to the subject estate whether it was owned by Ricardo or by Lucila. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants. 53671. petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their late mother Lucila de Mesa. Ricardo Abad actually belong to their mother Lucila de Mesa. executed on May 2. 108482 in the name of Dolores de Mesa Abad. Due to the dismissal of their two appeals. docketed as Special Proceedings surviving heirs of the deceased Ricardo Abad and the Order No. whether legitimate or 64021 are the properties of Ricardo Abad. and 64021 evidence presented by private respondents proved that said through the stratagem of extra-judicially partitioning their properties in truth belong to Ricardo Abad. and 64021. 1985. Private respondents also disclosed the overwhelmingly prove that they are the acknowledged natural existence of Rosemarie Abad. 988 and 1003: No. 1998) certain documents pertaining to the intestate estate of deceased The two appeals were accordingly elevated by the trial court to FACTS: On April 18. this Court directed the trial court to give due course to petitioners' appeal from the order of November 2. declaring in substance that the six Ricardo de Mesa Abad. On June 16. If there are no .-G. On May 9. On July CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES vs. We quote with approval the trial Ricardo Abad with another woman. docketed therein as C. Honoria Empaynado. administrator. SP. MARIAN H. and Marian Abad Empaynado filed a motion to set aside proceedings and for leave to file opposition Art. petitioners again instituted certiorari and mandamus proceedings with the Court of Appeals. the Torrens titles issued in substitution of TCT Nos. 53671. he has declared therein as his legitimate administrator instead of Cesar Tioseco. prompting petitioners to appeal to the Supreme Court. Their notice of appeal was likewise denied on the ground that the same had been filed out of time. but allowed them to appear in the proceedings to As to petitioners' claim that the properties in the name of establish their right as alleged heirs of Ricardo Abad. the illegitimate children shall succeed to On July 7. the entire estate of the deceased. on May 2. 53671. as the latter allegedly died a bachelor. TCT provisions are Arts. Marian and Rosemarie. from inheriting the estate of their brother. the Court of Appeals Gonzales. In their petition. and 64021. 1972. their union had produced two children. The applicable TCT No. 1974. declaring private respondents heirs of the deceased Ricardo ABAD. and that during this period. that the extrajudicial illegitimate. 53671 and leaving no descendants or ascendants. 108482. in substance that Cecilia. mother's estate Accordingly. private respondents filed a motion to annul the extra-judicial partition executed by petitioners. the Register of Deeds cancelled the above-mentioned illegitimate children of Ricardo Abad. 1967. 1994. 1972. as well as TCT Nos.R. No. 1973 APPEALS. 86792. 1972 is inexistent and void from the 13530. or from with the following articles. Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco rendered judgment . . 1969 and 1970. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the November 2. Maria and Rosemarie Abad. petitioners amended their petition partition of the estate of the deceased Lucila de Mesa by alleging that the real properties covered by TCT Nos. Lucila de Mesa. a child allegedly fathered by children of Ricardo Abad. Private respondents later discovered that petitioners had both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that the managed to cancel TCT Nos. ABAD and ROSEMARIE S. copying therein the technical descriptions of the lots covered by TCT Nos. (6) parcels of land described in TCT Nos. in lieu thereof. the trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad. 13530. CECILIA H. No. the collateral relatives shall succeed that Honoria Empaynado had been the common-law wife of to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance Ricardo Abad for twenty-seven years before his death. October 30. 1974. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the two appeals. . petitioners are precluded TCTs in the name of Ricardo Abad and issued. illegitimate children.R. 1003. HONORIA EMPAYNADO. 1972. 117740. petitioners claimed that they were the only heirs of dated November 19. annulling (G. before the then Court of First Instance Abad as the acknowledged natural children and the only of Manila. or a in Special Proceedings No. On October 19. in lieu thereof. filed a motion for individual income tax returns for the years 1964. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents and considered them as natural children. 1973. With the finding that private respondents are the thereof. 13530. were actually only administered by the latter. 1965. ABAD Abad. 1972. 108483 in the name of Cesar de Mesa Tioseco and TCT No 108484 in the name of Carolina Abad Gonzales. Cecilia. Dolores Saracho. 13530. reconsideration praying that Cecilia Abad be appointed 1968. and in all his first motion and.04352. 988. private respondents filed a motion to withdraw their and assets for the calendar years 1958 and 1970. the true owner being their late mother. In their motion. Cecilia Abad Empaynado. 1973. 1943 to 1971. 1973 decision was denied by the trial court. on October 4. By virtue HELD: No. they alleged surviving spouse.