#3 SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-66574. June 17, 1987

ANSELMA DIAZ, guardian of VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA and MIGUEL, all
surnamed SANTERO, Petitioners, and FELIXBERTA PACURSA, guardian of
FEDERICO SANTERO, Et Al.,
vs
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELISA PAMUTI
JARDIN, Respondents.
PONENTE: PARAS, J.

Facts:
Spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion have two legitimate children [Simona
Pamuti and Juliana]. Juliana married Simon Jardin and their union gave birth to
respondent Felisa Pamuti. Simona, on the other hand, married Pascual Santero, their
union gave birth to Pablo Santero. Later Pablo sired six illegitimate children, four of them
with Anselma Diaz [co-petitioners] and two of them with Felixberta Pacursa [co-
petitioners]. Pascual Santero died in 1970, Pablo died in 1973, and Simona died in 1976.

Respondent Felisa therefore is a niece of Simona Pamuti. In January 1976, respondent

Felisa filed a petition in CFI Cavite [SP:B-21] praying that she be appointed as special
administatrix of Simonas estate. In December 1976, the CFI declared respondent Felisa
as Simonas sole legitimate heir. In the CFI, SP:B-4 [intestate proceedings of Pablo] and
SP:B-5 [intestate proceedings of Pascual] were earlier filed. Upon oppositions by
petitioners Anselma and Felixberta, the CFI in 1980 excluded respondent Felisa from
intervening in SP:B-5 and SP:B-4, and declare her to be not an heir of Simona.

On appeal, the IAC reversed the CFI decision declaring Felisa as Simonas sole heir and
ordered oppositors-appellees not to interfere in the declaration of heirship in SP:B-21.
Oppositors-appellees [petitioners] moved to reconsider, but was denied. Hence, the
present petition for review.

Issue:
Whether or not Simonas grandchildren [Pablos illegitimate natural children] are the
legal heirs of Simona, and not respondent Felisa being her niece. Otherwise stated,
whether or not oppositors-appellees [petitioners] as illegitimate children of Pablo could
inherit from Simona by right of representation of their father Pablo who is a legitimate
child of Simona. Right of Representation vs Bar or Iron Curtain. [NO. Bar or Iron
Curtain]

Ruling:
Petition is Dismissed.

The dispute at bar refers only to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero
and the issue here is whether oppositors-appellees (petitioners herein) as illegitimate
children of Pablo Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, by right of
representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a legitimate child of Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero.

Now then what is the appropriate law on the matter? Petitioners contend in their
pleadings that Art. 990 of the New Civil Code is the applicable law on the case. They
contend that said provision of the New Civil Code modifies the rule in Article 941 (Old
Civil Code) and recognizes the right of representation (Art. 970) to descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate and that Art. 941, Spanish Civil Code denied illegitimate
children the right to represent their deceased parents and inherit from their deceased
grandparents, but that Rule was expressly changed and/or amended by Art. 990 New
Civil Code which expressly grants the illegitimate children the right to represent their
deceased father (Pablo Santero) in the estate of their grandmother (Simona Pamuti)" 5

Petitioners contention holds no water. Since the hereditary conflict refers solely to the
intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, who is the legitimate mother of Pablo
Santero, the applicable law is the provision of Art. 992 of the Civil Code which reads as
follows:

ART. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child. (943a).

Pablo Santero is a legitimate child, he is not an illegitimate child. On the other hand, the
oppositors (petitioners herein) are the illegitimate children of Pablo Santero.

Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits
absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a
natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Art. 992.
Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an
intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked
down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child;
the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is
thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product
of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than recognize
this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment. 6

Thus, petitioners herein cannot represent their father Pablo Santero in the succession of
the letter to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero,
because of the barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the New Civil Code.

In answer to the erroneous contention of petitioners that Article 941 of the Spanish Civil
Code is changed by Article 990 of the New Civil Code, We are reproducing herewith the
Reflections of the Illustrious Hon. Justice Jose B.L. Reyes which also finds full support
from other civilists, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of representation was admitted only within
the legitimate family; so much so that Article 943 of that Code prescribed that an
illegitimate child can not inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of
his father and mother. The Civil Code of the Philippines apparently adhered to this
principle since it reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish Code in its own Art. 992, but with
fine inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990, 995 and 998) our Code allows the
hereditary portion of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art, 992 prevents the illegitimate issue of a
legitimate child from representing him in the intestate succession of the grandparent, the
illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so. This difference being indefensible
and unwarranted, in the future revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice
and decide either that the illegitimate issue enjoys in all cases the right of representation,
in which case Art. 992 must be suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said article and
modify Articles 995 and 998. The first solution would be more in accord with an
enlightened attitude vis-a-vis illegitimate children. (Reflections on the Reform of
Hereditary Succession, JOURNAL of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, First Quater,
1976, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 40-41).

It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase "legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as
the word "relative" includes all the kindred of the person spoken of. 7 The record shows
that from the commencement of this case the only parties who claimed to be the
legitimate heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and
the six minor natural or illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein
are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court
did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to
the intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Lastly, petitioners claim that the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court erred in ruling
that the Orders of the Court a quo dated December 1, 1976 and December 9, 1976 are
final and executory. Such contention is without merit. The Hon. Judge Jose Raval in his
order dated December 1, 1976 held that the oppositors (petitioners herein) are not entitled
to intervene and hence not allowed to intervene in the proceedings for the declaration of
the heirship in the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero. Subsequently,
Judge Jose Raval issued an order, dated December 9, 1976, which declared Felisa
Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti. The said Orders were
never made the subjects of either a motion for reconsideration or a perfected appeal.
Hence, said orders which long became final and executory are already removed from the
power of jurisdiction of the lower court to decide anew. The only power retained by the
lower court, after a judgment has become final and executory is to order its execution.
The respondent Court did not err therefore in ruling that the Order of the Court a quo
dated May 30, 1980 excluding Felisa Pamuti Jardin as intestate heir of the deceased
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero "is clearly a total reversal of an Order which has become
final and executory, hence null and void."

- Digested [31 October 2017, 19:58]

***