LAZATIN vs.

CAMPOS

FACTS:
Dr. Mariano Lazatin was survived by his wife Margarita De Asis and two adopted twin children, Nora L. De Leon and
Irma L. Veloso. When Dr. Mariano died and after a few months, Margarita died as well.
Marga left a will to Arlene (Nora’s daughter), Ramon (Renato’s son) and Rodolfo Gallardo (son of Marga’s late sister).
A few days after the death of Marga, Nora visited the bank where she and Marga created a joint deposit safety box. Nora
was able to get all the contents or items in good faith.
When Ramon (Renato’s son) learned that the deposit box was opened by Nora, he filed a motion and demand to submit
the contents inside Marga’s deposit box but Nora only submitted two keys for a new deposit box which can only be
opened upon a new court order. This gave an assumption of Nora’s failure to comply of the court order.
A motion to intervene was filed by Renato claiming that he is the adopted son of Dr. Mariano and Marga with evidences
to prove that a declaration by Dr. Mariano in witness of the doc’s brother, the use of the Lazatin family name (but changed
to Sta. Clara since they did not approve Renato’s wife), support from Dr. Mariano and Marga such as living at the house
of Marga’s father (Renato’s grandfather) and moved to the hospital owned by Doc and Marga and photos with Irma and
Marga.
CONTENTIONS:
Respondents: The evidence presented by Renato to intervene the case was only to prove as a natural child and
not of as an adopted child.

Petitioner: A motion to declare as established the fact of his adoption was filed for Nora’s failure to comply
the court order to present the items inside the safety box which Renato believed has evidences to support his
adoption.
ISSUE:
WON Renato can assail the motion to declare as established the fact of his adoption due to Nora’s act of failure to
submit the order of the court.
RULING:
NO –
The fact of adoption is never presumed but must be affirmatively proved by the person claiming its existence.
The evidences presented were only assumed as secondary evidences and thus not enough to claim as the
adopted child of Dr. Mariano and Marga.
Renato cannot assail the Rule 29 as an established fact because in the first place, there is no proof that Nora
did held the evidences against his adoption and that upon diligent search evidence no judicial records of such
adoption or copies thereof are presented or attempted to be presented which is the basic process for evidences
in adoption. IN THIS CASE, RENATO IS NOT AN ADOPTED CHILD OF DOC AND MARGA BUT
ONLY THEIR NATURAL CHILD.
BUT CAN YOU USE SECONDARY EVIDENCES? (in case mag ask si maam)
YES, YOU CAN, provided that the correct order of proof is followed: (EELC)
1. Existence;
2. Execution;
3. Loss; and,
4. Contents;
After the follow through of the court’s order of proof, only then you can use the secondary evidences
to present such claim.

Go Alfa, way sirado!