48.

RAMOS V. PANGILINAN et. Al

G.R. No. 185920,   [July 20, 2010]

FACTS:

Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against E.M. Ramos Electric,
Inc., a company owned by Ernesto M. Ramos (Ramos), the patriarch of herein
petitioners. The labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to pay the
respondents’ back-wages, separation pay, 13th month pay & service incentive
leave pay. The decision became final and executory so a writ of execution was
issued which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) implemented by levying a property in Ramos’ name situated in
Pandacan.  Alleging that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence,
exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment award, Ramos and the company
moved to quash the writ of execution. Respondents argued that it is not the
family home there being another one in Antipolo and that the Pandacan
address is actually the business address. The motion was denied and the
appeal was likewise denied by the NLRC. Ramos and the company appealed to
the Court of Appeals during the pendency of which Ramos died and was
substituted by herein petitioners.

 The appellate court, in denying petitioners’ appeal, held that the Pandacan

property was not exempted from execution, for while “Article 153 of the Family
Code provides that the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot
from the time it is occupied as a family residence, it did not mean that the
article has a retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are
deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their
occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.”

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid

RULING:

YES. The general rule is that the family home is a real right which is
gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling
place and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a particular
family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the person
constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain
special cases.

 For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as
to what law applies based on when it was constituted and
what requirements must be complied with by the judgment debtor or his
successors claiming such privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable.

49.

Aguilar vs Siasat

G.R. No. 200169

January 28, 2015

Facts:

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar spouses)

died, intestate and without debts, Included in their estate are two parcels of
land

In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod City
(Bacolod RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against
respondent Edna G. Siasat alleged that petitioner is the only son and sole
surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he (petitioner) discovered that the
subject titles were missing, and thus he suspected that someone from the
Siasat clan could have stolen the same.

In her Answer,8 respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole
surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised by
the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is
not a natural or adopted child of the Aguilar spouses; that since Alfredo Aguilar
predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, the latter inherited the
conjugal share of the former; that upon the death of Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar,
her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as she had no issue; and that the
subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted to her for safekeeping by
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt. By way of counterclaim,
respondent prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.
Issue:

Whether the petitioner can not prove filiation to the Spouse Aguilar who is the
owner of the land due to the lost of his Certificate of Live Birth and Alfredo
Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1is a mere proof of open and continuous possession.

Ruling:

No. It must be concluded that petitioner – who was born on March 5, 1945, or
during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar28 and
before their respective deaths29 – has sufficiently proved that he is the
legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. As petitioner correctly argues, Alfredo
Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for proof of
filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the Family
Code; by itself, said document constitutes an "admission of legitimate filiation
in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned."

Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth since
all the records covering the period 1945-1946 of the Local Civil Registry of
Bacolod City were destroyed, which necessitated the introduction of other
documentary evidence – particularly Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit
"G") – to prove filiation. It was erroneous for the CA to treat said document as
mere proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code; it is
evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof, the same being an
express recognition in a public instrument.
50.

GERARDO B. CONCEPCION, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MA. THERESA ALMONTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 123450
August 31, 2005

Facts:
Petitioner Gerardo B. Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte were married on
December 29, 1989. They lived in Fairview, Quezon City and a year later on
December 8, 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth to Jose Gerardo.

On December 19, 1991, Gerardo filed a petition to have his marriage to Ma.
Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy, alleging that her marriage with
Mario Gopiao on December 10, 198- was never annulled. Although Ma. Theresa
did not deny marrying Mario, she averred that the marriage was a sham and
that she have never lived with Mario at all.

The trial court said otherwise, and ruled that Ma. Theresa’s marriage to Mario
was valid and subsisting, thus declaring her marriage to Gerardo as void ab
initio. It deemed Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child and the custody was
awarded to Ma. Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. Also, it
allowed the child to use the surname of his father.

Ma. Theresa appealed and pleaded for the reverse of the court’s decisions. The
Court of Appeals ruled that Jose Gerardo was not the son of Ma. Theresa by
Gerardo but by Mario during her first marriage considering the fact that the
second marriage was void from the beginning. Therefore, the child Jose
Gerardo – under the law – is the child of the legal and subsisting marriage
between Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao.

Gerardo Concepcion moved for the reconsideration of the decision.

Issue:
Whether the child is the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Gopiao or the
illegimate child of Ma. Theresa and Gerardo.

Ruling:
The child, Jose Gerardo, is the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario
Gopiao.
The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised as per Art. 164 of the
Family Code which states, “A child who is conceived or born during the
marriage of his parents is legitimate.” It is fully supported by Art. 167 of the
Family Code which states, “The child shall be considered legitimate although
the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been
sentenced as an adulteress.”. The law requires that every reasonable
presumption be made in favor of the legitimacy. It is grounded on the policy to
protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.

Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was void from the very
beginning, he never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to
impugn the legitimacy of her child. The minor cannot be deprived of his/her
legitimate status on the bare declaration of the mother and/or even much less,
the supposed father. In fine, the law and only the law determines who are the
legitimate or illegitimate children for one’s legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever
be compromised. It should be what the law says and not what a parent says it
is. Additionally, public policy demands that there be no compromise on the
status and filiation of a child. Otherwise, the child will be at the mercy of those
who may be so minded to exploit his defenselessness.

As a legitimate child, Jose Gerardo shall have the right to bear the surnames of
his father Mario and mother Ma. Theresa, in conformity with the provisions of
the Civil Code on surnames. Also, there being no such parent-child
relationship between the child and Gerardo, Gerardo has no legally
demandable right to visit the child.

The State as parens patriae affords special protection to children from abuse,
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It is
mandated to provide protection to those of tender years. Through its laws, the
State safeguards them from every one, even their own parents, to the end that
their eventual development as responsible citizens and members of society
shall not be impeded, distracted or impaired by family acrimony. This is
especially significant where, as in this case, the issue concerns their filiation as
it strikes at their very identity and lineage. The child, by reason of his mental
and physical immaturity, needs special safeguard and care, including
appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth. In case of assault on
his rights by those who take advantage of his innocence and vulnerability, the
law will rise in his defense with the single-minded purpose of upholding only
his best interests.

WHEREFORE, the petition of Gerardo is hereby DENIED. The resolution of the

Court of Appeals in favor of respondents is AFFIRMED.