JOAQUINO v. REYES

[G.R. NO.
154645 July 13, 2004]
MILAGROS JOAQUINO a.k.a. MILAGROS J. REYES, Petitioner, v. LOURDES REYES, MERCEDES, MANUEL,

MIRIAM and RODOLFO JR. -- all surnamed REYES, Respondents.
FACTS:
Respondents filed a Complaint for reconveyance and damages alleging that [respondent] Lourdes P. Reyes is the widow of Rodolfo A.
Reyes who died on September 12, 1981; that [respondents] Mercedes, Manuel, Miriam and Rodolfo, Jr. are the legitimate children of
[respondent] Lourdes P. Reyes and the deceased Rodolfo A. Reyes; that for years before his death, Rodolfo A. Reyes had illicit
relations with [petitioner] Milagros B. Joaquino; that before his death, x x x Rodolfo A. Reyes was Vice President and Comptroller of
Warner Barnes and Company, after retirement, received from said company benefits and emoluments; that [respondent] wife was not
the recipient of any portion of the said amount.
The complaint further alleges that a Deed of Sale of a property consisting of a house and lot at BF Homes, Paranaque, Metro Manila
was executed by the spouses Ramiro Golez and Corazon Golez in favor of [petitioner] Milagros B. Joaquino; that the funds used to
purchase this property were conjugal funds and earnings of the deceased Rodolfo A. Reyes. The complaint finally alleges that the
deceased had two cars in [petitioners] possession and that the real and personal properties in [petitioners] possession are conjugal
partnership properties of the spouses Lourdes P. Reyes and Rodolfo A. Reyes and one-half belongs exclusively to [respondent]
Lourdes P. Reyes and the other half to the estate of Rodolfo A. Reyes to be apportioned among the [other respondents] as his forced
heirs.
In her Answer, [petitioner] Milagros B. Joaquino alleges that she purchased the real property in question with her own exclusive
funds; that during all the nineteen (19) years that [she] lived with Rodolfo Reyes, she never had knowledge whatsoever that he was
married to someone else; that [petitioner] was never the beneficiary of the emoluments or other pecuniary benefits of the late Rodolfo
Reyes because [she] had the financial capacity to support herself and her children begotten with the late Rodolfo Reyes.
On February 2, 1993, [respondent] Lourdes Reyes died.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Respondents and it also held that Petitioner’s children are the illegitimate children of Rodolfo.
Affirming the RTC, the CA held that the property had been paid out of the conjugal funds of Rodolfo and Lourdes because the
monthly amortizations for the loan, as well as the premiums for the life insurance policy that paid for the balance thereof, came from
his salaries and earnings.
The appellate court, however, held that the trial court should not have resolved the issue of the filiation and the successional rights of
petitioner’s children. Such issues, it said, were not properly cognizable in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance and damages and
were better ventilated in a probate or special proceeding instituted for the purpose.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court was correct in ruling on the filiation and the successional rights of petitioners children
RULING: NO.
Indeed, it has been ruled that matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a
special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. Sustaining the appellate court in Agapay v.
Palang, this Court held that the status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a decedent’s estate could not be adjudicated
in an ordinary civil action which, as in this case, was for the recovery of property.
Considerations of due process should have likewise deterred the RTC from ruling on the status of petitioner’s children. It is evident
from the pleadings of the parties that this issue was not presented in either the original or the Supplemental Complaint for
reconveyance of property and damages; that it was not pleaded and specifically prayed for by petitioner in her Answers44 thereto; and
that it was not traversed by respondents Reply to the Supplemental Complaint.45 Neither did petitioners Memorandum,46 which was
submitted to the trial court, raise and discuss this issue. In view thereof, the illegitimate filiation of her children could not have been
duly established by the proceedings as required by Article 887 of the Civil Code.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the CA cannot be faulted for tackling the propriety of the RTCs ruling on the status of the children of
petitioner, though she did not assign this matter as an error. The general rule -- that only errors assigned may be passed upon by an
appellate court admits of exceptions. Even unassigned errors may be taken up by such court if the consideration of those errors would
be necessary for arriving at a just decision or for serving the interest of justice.
The invocation by petitioner of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code is also unmeritorious. Clearly, the illegitimate filiation of her
children was not the subject of inquiry and was in fact not duly established in this case. Thus, she could not have shown that
respondents had acted in bad faith or with intent to prejudice her children. These are conditions necessary to show that an act
constitutes an abuse of rights under Article 19. She also failed to show that respondents -- in violation of the provisions of Article 21
of the Civil Code -- had acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Moreover, we note that the issue concerning the applicability of Articles 19 and 21 was not raised by petitioner in the trial court or
even in the CA. Hence, she should not be permitted to raise it now. Basic is the rule that parties may not bring up on appeal issues that
have not been raised on trial.

JOAQUINO v. REYES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOAQUINO v. REYES

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

JOAQUINO v. REYES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. NO.

154645 July 13, 2004]

MILAGROS JOAQUINO a.k.a. MILAGROS J. REYES, Petitioner, v. LOURDES REYES, MERCEDES, MANUEL,

On February 2, 1993, [respondent] Lourdes Reyes died.

You might also like