Mendoza v.

CA
GR No. 86302, 24 Sept 1991, Cruz, J.
Law 126 – Evidence

Summary: Teopista filed a case for recognition by Casimiro as his illegitimate daughter. The RTC
ruled against her, finding that she failed to establish open and continuous possession of the status
of an child by alleged father, as provided by Art. 283 of the Civil Code. The SC agreed with the
RTC, but found that Teopista had established her status using Rule 130, Sec. 39 in relation to the
testimony of Casimiro’s nephew.

Doctrine: Rule 130, Sec. 39 is an exception to the hearsay rule because “it is best the nature of the
case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from
its admission.” Safeguards must nonetheless be complied with:
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2. The pedigree must be in issue.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue.
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose.
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be
shown by evidence other than such declaration.

FACTS
● RESP claims that she is the daughter of PET. Her testimony:
1. Her mother, Brigida Toring, told her that PET was her father. She lived with her
mother because PET was married but she used to visit her at his house.
2. When she married her husband, PET bought a passenger truck and had him drive it
so they had a livelihood. PET later sold the truck but the proceeds went to RESP
and her husband.
3. PET allowed her son, Lolito Tufiaco, to build a lot on his land, as well as gave her
money to buy her own lot from her brother, Vicente Toring.
4. PET opened a joint savings account with RESP as a co-depositor.
● Lolito’s (RESP’s son) corroborated RESP, adding that he was told by RESP that PET was
his grandfather. He would be invited to PET’s house and be given jackfruit, would kiss the
latter’s hand when they met, and would be given money.
● Isaac Mendoza (nephew of PET) also testified for RESP:
1. He testified that his father Hipolito, PET’s brother, and his grandmother
Brigida, PET’s mother, told him that PET was RESP’s father.
2. He worked on PET’s boat and whenever he received his salary from the same, he
would be given money (ranging from P2 to P10) to be given to RESP. Isaac also
testified that PET intended to give certain properties to the RESP.
● Note: RESP had other witnesses but they were to prove open and continuous possession of
illegitimate status; the court did not use them in applying Rule 130, Sec. 39.
 ● The trial court ruled in favor of PET, finding that RESP had failed to show that she was in
continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the
latter or his family.
● CA overturned the RTC. An MR was filed, but it was denied because of the death of PET.

ISSUES & HOLDING

● Was RESP the illegitimate daughter of PET? – YES. Her claim was established under
Rule 130, Sec. 39.
o Was Isaac’s testimony regarding the statements of his father and grandmother
admissible? YES. It was an exception to the hearsay rule.

RATIO
● The Court conceded that the trial court was correct in ruling that RESP failed to show that
she was in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child of PET,
but found that she had established the status via Rule 130, Sec. 39.
● An illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by “any other means
allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.”
● The court stressed that Issac Mendoza had testified on the question of pedigree – he was
informed by his father and grandmother that RESP was PET’s daughter.
● Such acts or declarations are received as an exception to the hearsay rule because “it
is best the nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from
the rejection of such proof than from its admission.”
● By its nature as hearsay evidence, however, there are safeguards to be met (from
Francisco):
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2. The pedigree must be in issue.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue.
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose.
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question
must be shown by evidence other than such declaration.
● The requisites were satisfied in this case. The persons who made the declarations as
regards RESP’s pedigree were the mother and the brother of PET, both dead (1). The
declarations referred to the filiation of RESP and paternity of PET, the issue involved in
the case for recognition (2). The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by
RESP, or before the controversy arose between the two (4). The relationship between the
declarants and PET were shown by evidence other than the declaration: an extrajudicial
partition in the estate of Florencio Mendoza, where PET was mentioned as one of his heirs
(5).
● The declarations were not refuted, which PET could have done by deposition if he were
too weak to testify.
● Considered with the other circumstances narrated under oath by RESP and her witnesses,
the court concluded that RESP was the illegitimate daughter of PET.
DISPOSITIVE
Petition DENIED.