Plaintiff-Appellant vs. vs. Defendant-Appellee L. F. Gabinete M. Timbang Jose W. Diokno

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20946. September 23, 1966.]
EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO , plaintiff-appellant, vs. AUREA S. SANTOS,

legal guardian of the minor JESUS SANTOS DEL PRADO , defendant-
appellee.
L. F. Gabinete and M. Timbang for plaintiff and appellant.

Jose W. Diokno for defendant and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. SUCCESSION; SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. — Where

as in this case, the deceased died intestate, without legitimate descendants or
ascendants, then his illegitimate child shall succeed to his entire estate (Article 988,
New Civil Code), to the exclusion of appellant (brother of the deceased) who is only a
collateral relative.
DECISION
MAKALINTAL , J : p
In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Eugenio C. del Prado led a complaint to
annul a deed executed by Aurea S. Santos, married to Deogracias Demetria,
adjudicating to the minor Jesus Santos del Prado, her son allegedly by plaintiff's
deceased brother Anastacio C. del Prado, a parcel of land left by the latter. Plaintiff
alleged that he was thus deprived of his rightful share in the estate of his brother.
Annulment of the transfer certi cate of title issued to the minor by virtue of said deed
of adjudication was also prayed for.
In defendant's answer she averred that her son Jesus Santos del Prado, being an
acknowledged natural child of the deceased, was entitled to the property left by the
latter; and on the ground that the action had been maliciously led, she interposed a
counterclaim for damages.
On July 3, 1959 the parties entered into the following stipulation of facts:
"Come now the parties in the above entitled case, assisted by their
respective counsel, and to the Honorable Court respectfully state that, for
purposes of this action only, and without in any way constituting an admission
for any other purpose and with the understanding that the same may not be used
against them in any other proceedings, as provided in Rule 23, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court, the parties admit that the following facts are true and may be
considered by the Court as proved without the need of the introduction of any
evidence thereon:
1. Anastacio C. del Prado, died intestate in the City of Manila on
August 11, 1958; at the time of his death, Anastacio C. del Prado was single;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
2. Plaintiff Eugenio C. del Prado is a legitimate brother of the late
Anastacio C. del Prado;
3. Defendant Aurea S. Santos was legally married to Deogracias
Demetria in 1945, but has been in fact separated from him;
4. The deceased Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S.

Santos cohabited with each other without the bene t of matrimony; as a result of
that cohabitation, the late Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos
had one son — the minor Jesus S. del Prado — who was born on December 19,
1957, and whom Anastacio C. del Prado admitted to be his son in the latter's birth
certificate;
5. After the death of Anastacio C. del Prado his estate consisting.
among others, of a parcel of land situated at Caloocan, Rizal, covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title No. 471848* of the Register of Deeds of Rizal in the name of
Anastacio C. del Prado with an assessed value of P750.00, was adjudicated to
the minor Jesus del Prado. True copy of the a davit of adjudication executed by
defendant Aurea S. Santos as mother and natural guardian of the said minor is
attached as Annex 'A' of the complaint, which the parties agree to mark as Exhibit
'A';
6. By reason of the aforesaid adjudication the Register of Deeds of

Rizal cancelled Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 47148 and issued Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 61671 in the name of the minor Jesus S. del Prado.
ISSUE
The foregoing facts raises one principal issue of law, namely: 'who has a
better right to the aforesaid parcel of land left by the late Anastacio C. del Prado,
plaintiff or the minor Jesus S. del Prado?
The parties hereby agree to present evidence to substantiate their sides on
the issue herein agreed upon."
Upon the foregoing stipulation, the parties submitted the case without further
evidence.
The lower court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff elevated the matter to the
Court of Appeals, which certi ed the case to this Court, the questions involved being
purely legal.
The lower court ruled — and this ruling is assigned as error — that since the
deceased Anastacio C. del Prado "left no legitimate descendants or ascendants the
minor Jesus S. del Prado shall succeed to the entire estate left by his supposed father
to the exclusion of the plaintiff who is only a collateral relative."
Appellant contends: Even if said minor is the illegitimate son of the deceased, the
latter never recognized him as such, no showing having been made that it was at the
instance or with the consent of the deceased that said minor was entered as his son in
the civil registry or that the birth certificate where the recognition appears is authentic.
Appellant's position is untenable. The facts stipulated by him and by appellee are
clear: "the deceased Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos cohabited
with each other without the bene t of matrimony; as a result of that cohabitation, the
late Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S. Santos had one son — the minor
Jesus S. del Prado — who was born on December 19, 1957, and whom Anastacio C. del
Prado admitted to be his son in the latter's birth certificate."
Since Anastacio C. del Prado died in 1958 the new Civil Code applies (Article
2263). Illegitimate children other than natural are entitled to successional rights (Article
287). Where, as in this case, the deceased died intestate, without legitimate
descendants or ascendants, then his illegitimate child shall succeed to his entire estate
(Article 988), to the exclusion of appellant who is only a collateral relative.
The decision appealed is affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and
Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., took no part.

Plaintiff-Appellant vs. vs. Defendant-Appellee L. F. Gabinete M. Timbang Jose W. Diokno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellant vs. vs. Defendant-Appellee L. F. Gabinete M. Timbang Jose W. Diokno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellant vs. vs. Defendant-Appellee L. F. Gabinete M. Timbang Jose W. Diokno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20946. September 23, 1966.]

EUGENIO C. DEL PRADO , plaintiff-appellant, vs. AUREA S. SANTOS,

L. F. Gabinete and M. Timbang for plaintiff and appellant.

1. SUCCESSION; SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. — Where

4. The deceased Anastacio C. del Prado and defendant Aurea S.

6. By reason of the aforesaid adjudication the Register of Deeds of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like