In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of the Deceased Josefa Delgado and Guillermo
Rustia Proceedings
Representation | January 27, 2006 | Corona, J.
Nature of the Case: Review on Certiorari
SUMMARY: Two groups of claimants wanted to claim the intestate estates of Josefa and
Guillermo, who both died intestate: the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado consists of her
half- and full-blood siblings, nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and grand-nieces;
whereas the alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia, particularly, his sisters, his nephews and
nieces, his illegitimate child, and the de facto adopted child (ampun-ampunan) of the
decedents.
DOCTRINE: The right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in favor
of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces); It cannot be exercised by
grandnephews and grandnieces), and adjudication by an heir of the decedent’s entire
estate to himself by means of an affidavit is allowed only if he is the sole heir of the
estate.
FACTS:
Alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado
 Felisa and Lucio were never married but had six children, namely Nazario, Edilberta,
Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio, and the deceased Josefa.
 But before Lucio, Felisa had a relationship with one Ramon with whom she begot a
son, Luis. The legal status of Felisa and Ramon’s union was in dispute, and its
settlement was important because:
o If Ramon and Felisa had been validly married, then their only child Luis was
a legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa and therefore excluded from the
latter’s intestate estate. He and his heirs would be barred by the principle of
absolute separation between the legitimate and illegitimate families.
o If the couple were never married, Luis and his heirs would be entitled to
inherit from Josefa’s intestate estate, as they would all be within the
illegitimate line.
 Josefa died without a will and she was survived by Guillermo and some collateral
relatives, petitioners herein.
 Petitioners Carlota Delgado Vda. de De La Rosa et al. alleged that Ramon and Felisa
were never married since no evidence was presented to prove such marriage.
 Oppositors insist that the absence of a record of the alleged marriage did not
necessarily mean what no marriage took place; that in 1917, Guillermo proposed
marriage to Josefa but w/n it was celebrated was disputed; they lived together as
husband and wife until 1972; were known to their family and friends as husband and
wife; and other documents in support of their position.
Alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia
 Josefa and Guillermo never had a children of their own but took into their home their
ámpun-ampunan (not legally adopted) Guillermina and Nanie.
 Guillermo also fathered an illegitimate child named Guillerma (intervenor), who
alleged she enjoyed open and continuous possession of such status.
 Oppositors alleged Guillerma was never acknowledged as an illegitimate child; while
in the case of Guillermina, although a petition for adoption was filed y Guillermo, he
died pending its resolution.
 When Guillermo died, he was survived by his sisters Marciana and Hortencia, and by
the children of his predeceased brother Roman.
 In 1975, Luisa Delgado, daughter of Luis (son of Felisa, Josefa’s mother, with Ramon),
filed the original petition for letters of administration of the intestate estates of
“spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia”. She died pending litigation and was
substituted by her sister Carlota.
 This was opposed by: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely, Marciana Rustia vda.
de Damian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz; (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustia’s late brother,
Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia on the
theory that Luisa Delgado Vda. de Danao and the other claimants were barred under
the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa.
 Guillerma, Guillermo’s alleged illegitimate daughter, moved to intervene claiming
that she was the only surviving descendant in the direct line of Guillermo.
 In 1978, the original petition for letters of administration was amended to state that
Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia were never married but had merely lived
together as husband and wife.
 RTC granted the petition and (1) appointed Carlota as administratrix of the estate of
Josefa, (2) declared petitioners et al as the only legal heirs of Josefa, (3) declared the
intervenor Guillerma as Guillermo’s sole and surviving heir, and (4) set aside the
affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of Josefa executed by Guillermo.
 CA initially affirmed but eventually reversed RTC’s decision, declaring (1) Guillermo
and Josefa to have been legally married; (2) the intestate estate of Guillermo, Jacoba,
and the children of Gorgonio entitled to partition among themselves the estate of
Josefa, (3) the oppositors as the legal heirs of Guillermo, and (4) Guillerma as
ineligible to inherit from Guillermo thus revoking her appointment as administratrix
of his estate.
 Hence this petition.
ISSUES:
W/N there was a valid marriage between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado – YES.
 Absence of marriage contract is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place.
Several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed
between Josefa and Guillermo:
o Cohabitation of more than 50 years;
o Their family and friends knew them to be married;
o Their reputed status as husband and wife was such that even the original
petition for letters of administration filed by Luisa Delgado Vda. de Danao
in 1975 referred to them as “spouses”;
o Certificate of identity issued to Josefa as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia;
o Passport issued to Josefa D. Rustia;
o Declaration under oath of Guillermo that he was married to Josefa;
o Titles to the property in the name of Guillermo married to Josefa;
o Petitioner’s own witness Elisa confirmed that Guillermo proposed to Josefa
and the two had “lived together as husband and wife.”
 Given these circumstances, the presumption of marriage was not rebutted.
W/N Josefa’s mother, Felisa, was validly married to Ramon – NO.
 Importance:
o If Ramon and Felisa had been validly married, then their only child Luis was
a legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa and therefore excluded from the
 latter’s intestate estate. He and his heirs would be barred by the principle of
absolute separation between the legitimate and illegitimate families.
o If the couple were never married, Luis and his heirs would be entitled to
inherit from Josefa’s intestate estate, as they would all be within the
illegitimate line.
 Little was said of the cohabitation or alleged marriage of Felisa and Ramon:
o Felisa and her son with Ramon continued using Felisa’s maiden surname,
Delgado;
o Luis and Caridad’s Partida de Casamiento identifying Luis as hijo natural de
Felisa Delgado.
 Unlike in the case of Josefa and Guillermo, these factors sufficiently overcome the
rebuttable presumption of marriage.
 Because Felisa and Ramon were never married, all the children of Felisa were her
natural or illegitimate children.
Who are the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado – The
only collateral relatives of Josefa who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate
are her brothers and sisters, or their children who were still alive at the time of her
death on September 8, 1972.
Lawful heirs of Josefa:
 The siblings of Josefa were related to her by full-blood, except Luis, her half-brother.
Nonetheless, since they were all illegitimate, they may inherit from each other. Thus,
all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa.
 However, petitioners are already the nephews, nieces, grandnephews and
grandnieces of Josefa. Under Article 972, the right of representation in the collateral
line takes place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and
nieces). Consequently, it cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces.
 TC must determine who were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their children) of
Josefa at the time of her death. Together with Guillermo, they are entitled to inherit
from Josefa in accordance with Art. 1001.
 Since Josefa had heirs other than Guillermo, Guillermo could not have validly
adjudicated Josefa’s estate all to himself, which is only allowed if he’s the sole heir.
The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators, specially in
cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented
in the management of the estates.
RULING: The petition (which seeks to reinstate RTC’s decision) is DENIED. CA’s decision
is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
1. Guillermo Rustia’s June 15, 1973 affidavit of self-adjudication is hereby ANNULLED
2. The intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of
Josefa Delgado. The remaining half shall pertain to (a) the full and half-siblings of
Josefa Delgado who survived her and (b) the children of any of Josefa Delgado’s full-
or half-siblings who may have predeceased her, also surviving at the time of her
death. Josefa Delgado’s grandnephews and grandnieces are excluded from her estate.
In this connection, the trial court is hereby ordered to determine the identities of the
relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to share in her estate.
3. Guillermo Rustia’s estate (including its one-half share of Josefa Delgado’s estate) shall
be inherited by Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose
respective shares shall be per capita) and the children of the late Roman Rustia, Sr.
(who survived Guillermo Rustia and whose respective shares shall be per stirpes).
Considering that Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz are now
deceased, their respective shares shall pertain to their estates.
4. Letters of administration over the still unsettled intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia
and Josefa Delgado shall issue to Carlota Delgado Vda. de de la Rosa and to a nominee
from among the heirs of Guillermo Rustia, as joint administrators, upon their
qualification and filing of the requisite bond in such amount as may be determined by
the trial court.

Lawful heirs of Guillermo:

 Guillerma cannot claim recognition, whether compulsory or voluntary, because the
right to compulsory recognition can only be filed prior to the death of the child or the
putative father, and because Guillerma’s report card from UST presented for
voluntary recognition was not an authentic writing. Same fate befalls the ampun-
ampunan, Guillermina since the petition for adoption never came to fruition.
 Since the two claimants of Guillermo’s estate are not the lawful heirs, Art. 1002
provides that if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or
surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased.
 Thus, the lawful heirs of Guillermo are the remaining claimants, consisting of his
sisters, nieces, and nephews.

Who should be issued letters of administration – Carlota Delgado Vda. de la Rosa

and a nominee of the nephews and nieces of Guillermo, as they are the next of kin of
Josefa and Guillermo, respectively.