8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

VOL, 150, JUNE 17, 1987 645

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
*
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,

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

646

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

respondents.

Civil Law; Succession; Illegitimate child cannot 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—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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

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. 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.

PETITION to review the decision of the Intermediate Appellate

Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for
petitioners.
Pedro S. Sarino for respondent R.P. Jar din.

PARAS, J.:

Private respondent filed a Petition dated January 23, 1976 with

the Court of First Instance of Cavite in Sp. Proc. Case No. B-
21, "In The Matter of the Intestate Estate of the late Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero," praying among other things, that the
corresponding letters of Administration be issued in her favor
and that she be appointed as special ad-

647

VOL. 150, JUNE 17, 1987 647

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

ministratrix of the properties of the deceased Simona Pamuti

Vda. de Santero.
It is undisputed: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

mother Juliana were the only legitimate children of the spouses

Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; 2) that Juliana married
Simon Jardin and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti
and another child who died during infancy; 3) that Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and
the mother of Pablo Santero; 4) that Pablo Santero was the only
legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero and Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero; 5) that Pascual Santero died in 1970;
Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; 6) that
Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his
mother Simona Santero and his six minor natural children to
wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor
children with Felixberta Pacursa. 1
Judge Jose Raval in2 his Orders dated December 1,19761
and December 9, 1976 declared Felisa Pamuti Jardin as the
sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Before the trial court, there were 4 interrelated cases filed to
wit:

"a) Sp. Proc. No. B-4—is the Petition for the Letters of
Administration of the Intestate Estate of Pablo
Santero;
"b) Sp. Proc. No. B-5—is the Petition for the Letters of
Administration of the Intestate Estate of Pascual
Santero;
"c) Sp. Proc. No. B-7—is the Petition for Guardianship
over the properties of an Incompetent Person, Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero;
"e) Sp. Proc. No. B-21—is the Petition for Settlement of
the Intestate Estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero."

Felisa Jardin upon her Motion to Intervene in Sp. Proceedings

Nos. B-4 and B-5, was allowed to intervene in the intestate
estates of Pablo Santero and Pascual Santero by Order

_______________

1 RA pp. 30-35.
2 RA pp. 35-38.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

648

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

of the Court dated August 24, 1977.

Petitioner Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children,
filed her "Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa
PamutiJardin dated March 13, 1980, from further taking part or
intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero, as well as in the intestate estate of
Pascual Santero and Pablo Santero.
Felixberta Pacursa guardian for her minor children, filed
thru counsel, her Manifestation of March 14, 1980 adopting the
Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti, filed by
Anselma Diaz.
On May 20, 1980, Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza issued an order
excluding Felisa Jardin "from further taking part or intervening
in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda.
de Santero, as well as in the intestate estates of Pascual Santero
and Pablo Santero and declared her to be,3 not an heir of the
deceased Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero."
After her Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial
court in its order dated November 1, 1980, Felisa P. Jardin filed
her appeal to the Intermediate
4
Appellate Court in CAG.R. No.
69814-R. A decision was rendered by the Intermediate
Appellate Court on December 14, 1983 (reversing the decision
of the trial court) the dispositive portion of which reads—

"WHEREFORE, finding the Order appealed from not consistent with

the facts and law applicable, the same is hereby set aside and another
one entered sustaining the Orders of December 1 and 9, 1976
declaring the petitioner as the sole heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero and ordering oppositors-appellees not to interfere in the
proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the estate of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero."
"Costs against the oppositors-appellees."

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by oppositors-

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

_______________

3 R.A. p. 87.
4 Penned by Justice Marcelino R. Veloso and concurred in by Justices
Porfirio V. Sison, Abdulwahid A. Bidin and Desiderio P. Jurado.

649

VOL. 150, JUNE 17, 1987 649

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

appellees (petitioners herein) was denied by the same

respondent court in its order dated February 17, 1984 hence, the
present petition for Review with the following:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. The Decision erred in ignoring the right to intestate

succession of petitioners grandchildren Santero as direct
descending line (Art. 978) and/or natural/"illegitimate
children" (Art. 988) and prefering a niece, who is a collateral
relative (Art. 1003);
II. The Decision erred in denying the right of representation of
the natural grandchildren Santero to represent their father
Pablo Santero in the succession to the intestate estate of their
grandmother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero (Art. 982);
III. The Decision erred in mist aking the intestate estate of the
grandmother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the estate of
"legitimate child or relative" of Pablo Santero, her son and
father of the petitioners' grandchildren Santero;
IV. The Decision erred in ruling that petitioner-appellant Felisa P.
Jardin who is a niece and therefore a collateral relative of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero excludes the natural children
of her son Pablo Santero, who are her direct descendants
and/or grand children;
V. The Decision erred in applying Art. 992, when Arts. 988, 989
and 990 are the applicable provisions of law on intestate
succession; and
VI. The Decision erred in considering the orders of December 1
and December 9, 1976 which are provisional and
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

interlocutory as final and executory.

The real issue in this case may be briefly stated as follows—

who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero—her
niece Felisa Pamuti Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural
children of Pablo Santero)?
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.

650

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

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)
5
in the estate of their
grandmother (Simona Pamuti)"
Petitioners' contention holds no water. Since the heridatary
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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

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

_______________

5 Motion for Reconsideration, p. 78-79, Rollo.

651

VOL. 150, JUNE 17, 1987 651

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

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 6this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
resentment.
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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

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:

"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. 4041).

_______________

6 F. Manresa 110 cited in Grey v. Fabie 40 O.G. (First S) No. 3, p. 196).

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

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 7word
"relative" includes all the kindred of the person spoken of. The
record shows that from the commencement of this case the only
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

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.
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.''

_______________

7 Comment, p. 139 Rollo citing, p. 2862, Bouvier's Law Dictionary vol. II,
Third Revision, Eight Edition.

653

VOL. 150, JUNE 17, 1987 653

People vs. Crisologo
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
8/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 150

WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the

assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., and Cortés, JJ.,

concur.
Padilla, J., took no part; principal counsel of
petitioners is related to me.
Bidin, J., no part, see footnotes 4.

Petition dismissed. Decision affirmed.

Notes.—In the settlement proceedings of the estate of the

deceased spouse, the entire conjugal partnership property of the
marriage and not just the one-half portion belonging to the
deceased is under administration. (Picardal vs. Lladas, 21
SCRA 1485.)
The practice in the distribution of the estates of deceased
persons pursuant to the provision of Section 1 of Rule 91 of the
Rules of Court, is to assign the whole of the estate left for
distribution among the heirs in definite proportion, an aliquot
part pertaining in such of heirs. (Blas vs. Muñoz-Palma, 4
SCRA 900.)

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6a8b335152b05818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10