Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 228 views

    De Gala v. de Gala

    Uploaded by

    d2015member
    This case involved a man, Sinforoso de Gala, suing to compel his alleged father Pedro de Gala to recognize him as his natural son. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Sinforoso argued that the trial court erred in not admitting as evidence a transcript from another case where Pedro's legitimate son Generoso had declared in court that Sinforoso was his brother. The Supreme Court held that the transcript was not "impertinent" evidence and should have been admitted, as Generoso's statement was a relevant fact that could help establish Sinforoso's claim to be Pedro's natural son. The Court found several facts in the record demonstrating that Pedro had tacitly and expressly recognized Sinfor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Gala v. de Gala

    Uploaded by

    d2015member
    228 views2 pages
    This case involved a man, Sinforoso de Gala, suing to compel his alleged father Pedro de Gala to recognize him as his natural son. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Sinforoso argued that the trial court erred in not admitting as evidence a transcript from another case where Pedro's legitimate son Generoso had declared in court that Sinforoso was his brother. The Supreme Court held that the transcript was not "impertinent" evidence and should have been admitted, as Generoso's statement was a relevant fact that could help establish Sinforoso's claim to be Pedro's natural son. The Court found several facts in the record demonstrating that Pedro had tacitly and expressly recognized Sinfor

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    De Gala v. De Gala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a man, Sinforoso de Gala, suing to compel his alleged father Pedro de Gala to recognize him as his natural son. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Sinforoso argued that the trial court erred in not admitting as evidence a transcript from another case where Pedro's legitimate son Generoso had declared in court that Sinforoso was his brother. The Supreme Court held that the transcript was not "impertinent" evidence and should have been admitted, as Generoso's statement was a relevant fact that could help establish Sinforoso's claim to be Pedro's natural son. The Court found several facts in the record demonstrating that Pedro had tacitly and expressly recognized Sinfor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    228 views2 pages

    De Gala v. de Gala

    Uploaded by

    d2015member
    This case involved a man, Sinforoso de Gala, suing to compel his alleged father Pedro de Gala to recognize him as his natural son. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Sinforoso argued that the trial court erred in not admitting as evidence a transcript from another case where Pedro's legitimate son Generoso had declared in court that Sinforoso was his brother. The Supreme Court held that the transcript was not "impertinent" evidence and should have been admitted, as Generoso's statement was a relevant fact that could help establish Sinforoso's claim to be Pedro's natural son. The Court found several facts in the record demonstrating that Pedro had tacitly and expressly recognized Sinfor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    d2015member

    DE GALA v. DE GALA (1922)


    Plaintiff-appellant: Sinforoso de Gala
    Defendant: Pedro de Gala
    Appellee: Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala
    Ponente: Johnson, J.
    FACTS:
    An action was commenced to compel defendant Pedro to recognize the plaintiff Sinforoso as his natural son. The complaint alleged
    that the plaintiff Sinforoso had been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child, justified by the cond uct of the
    father and his fathers family. The defendant interposed a general denial. Josefa Alabastro is the widow and Generoso is the
    legitimate son of Pedro (so he is the half-brother of Sinforoso).
    CFI Tayabas dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed to the SC. However, while this appeal was pending, the father died, and
    the widow and half-brother were substituted as defendants.
    In the appeal, appellant (plaintiff) Sinforoso alleges that the CFI committed an error in not admitting his Exhibit C in evidence. Exhibit
    C is a transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial of an election protest case (Nadres vs.Javier) in the CFI of Tayabas,
    2 years before the trial of the present case. During that trial, Generoso, the said only legitimate son, testifying as a witness, declared
    in open court that Sinforoso, was his brother.
    The defendant objected to its admission because it was impertinent. CFI sustained the objection, stating that, in the first place,
    Generoso was not an interested party in this case, and also, the mere fact that Generoso declared that Sinforoso was his brother
    would not entitle Sinforoso to be recognized as a natural son of the defendant.
    ISSUE: Was Exhibit C impertinent?
    HELD: No, it is not impertinent.
    RATIO:
    Related to topic in outline:
    Generosos spontaneous admission, publicly made, in open court, cannot be said to be "impertinent" for the purpose of proving the
    plaintiff's claim because that admission was a "conduct" which tends to confirm the status claimed by the alleged natural child.
    Neither can it be said that the said only legitimate was not an interested party in this case because he is a forced heir of the
    defendant, and his recognition of the plaintiff as a natural son would diminish his hereditary rights.
    While it is true that such admission would not, of itself, be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a compulsory recognition by the
    defendant as his natural child, it should have been admitted in evidence as a factum probans, which would help to establish
    the factum probandum the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child. Such status cannot be proved by a single
    specific act or conduct of the defendant or of his family. It must be proved by showing a series of acts, conduct, and circumstances
    indicative of the intention of the father to acknowledge his alleged natural child. Hence, to reject evidence of a single act, conduct, or
    circumstance as being insufficient to prove the status claimed, would be to prevent the claimant from proving it at all.
    Not related to topic in outline:
    However, considering that the plaintiff was born in 1879, before the adoption of the Civil Code, the provisions of la Ley de Toro may
    govern in the solution of the question of recognition. Under la Ley de Toro, a natural child might be recognized tacitly, and the
    recognition was open to such proof as would support the fact in an ordinary action.
    It will be found upon an examination of the facts hereinafter stated, that the defendant not only made a tacit, but a express
    recognition of the plaintiff as his natural child, both before and after the adoption of the Civil Code (year 1879). If acts of recognition
    took place before the adoption of the Civil Code, and if they were sufficient under the prior law to constitute a recognition, then the
    defendant cannot require the proof of recognition prescribed by the new law (Civil Code).
    Several instances prove recognition by the father:
    1. During plaintiffs infancy and childhood, he lived with his mother in the same barrio of the defendant.
    2. The defendant not only frequented the house where the plaintiff lived, but provided sustenance for both the mother and
    the plaintiff, giving them rice out of his camarin.
    3. Defendant sent the plaintiff to a school and paid for his instruction.
    4. While in school, the plaintiff was enrolled under the name of "Sinf oroso Dimatulac," but was known and called by his
    classmates and others by "Sinforoso de Gala." When he became old enough to know that his father's surname was not
    Dimatulac but "De Gala," he adopted the de Gala surname, with the acquiescence of the defendant.
    5. Defendant continued to give the plaintiff money and had a house built for the plaintiff, and also gave him a parcel of land
    to cultivate as his own
    6. Plaintiff always addressed the defendant as "father" (tatay), in public as well as in private, to which address the defendant
    responded.
    7. Plaintiff used to kiss defendant's hand after the evening prayers and sat at the table with defendant and his family
    frequently.

    d2015member

    8.

    He was in constant company with defendant in the cockpit and was regarded as a brother by defendant's only legitimate
    son; and even the whole town knew the plaintiff as the natural son of the defendant.

    A perusal of the testimony for the defense is impressed with its inherent weakness, it being purely negative. It is a general rule of
    evidence that, all other things being equal, affirmative testimony is stronger than negative; in other words, that 'the testimony
    of a credible witness, that he saw or heard a particular thing at a particular time and place is more reliable than that of an equally
    credible witness who, with the same opportunities, testifies that he did not hear or see the same thing at the same time and place
    The fact that the defendant disowned the plaintiff during the trial of this cause, cannot divest the plaintiff of the right to recognition,
    which had theretofore been vested in him.
    Judgment of LC revoked.

    You might also like