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 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 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 in his
2
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:
 Sp. Proc. No. B-4—is the Petition for the Letters of
"a) 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.

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, not
3
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-

_______________

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
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 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 6
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.
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:

"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 word7
"relative" includes all the kindred of the person
spoken of. 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.
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

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 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.