Facts:
Lupo Mariategui died without a will in 1953. During his lifetime, Lupo contracted 3 marriages. The first wife died, so he contracted a second marriage. The second wife also died so he contracted a third marriage. The third wife also preceded Lupo in death in 1941.
At the time of his death, Lupo left certain properties which he acquired when he was still single. Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated unto themselves the lots left by Lupo. The lots were subdivided and separate certificate of titles were issued to the respective parties.
Now, the children of Lupo by his third marriage filed with the lower court an amended complaint for partition of the estate of their deceased father and annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition, claiming they were co-heirs deprived of their respective shares in the lot mentioned. The other party answered that the complaint was not really for annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition but for recognition of natural children.
The lower court ruled in favor of Lupo’s heirs from the first and second marriage. They Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. Hence, the appeal.
Issue
2. Whether or not the private respondents, who belatedly filed the action for recognition, were able to prove their successional rights over said estate
Just because there is no record of marriage, does not means there is no marriage. Whoever questions the fact of marriage,
Proof of Filiation
Under Title VI of the Family Code, there are only two classes of children — legitimate and illegitimate. Article 172 of the said Code provides that the filiation of legitimate children may be established by the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment or by the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child.
Evidence on record proves the legitimate filiation of the private respondents. Jacinto’s birth certificate is a record of birth referred to in the said article. Again, no evidence which tends to disprove facts contained therein was adduced before the lower court. In the case of the two other private respondents, Julian and Paulina, they may not have presented in evidence any of the documents required by Article 172 but they continuously enjoyed the status of children of Lupo Mariategui in the same manner as their brother Jacinto.
In view of the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion than that private respondents are legitimate children and heirs of Lupo Mariategui and therefore, the time limitation prescribed in Article 285 for filing an action for recognition is
English