FACTS: Spouses Alfredo and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar spouses) died, intestate and without debts. Included in their estate are two parcels of land (herein subject properties) covered by TCTs T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070 of the RD of Bago and Bacolod (the subject titles).
Petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against respondent Edna G. Siasat, claiming that (1) he is the only son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, (2) that respondent be ordered to surrender to him the owner’s duplicate copies of the subject titles in her possession.
However, respondent claimed that petitioner is neither the son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses nor a natural or adopted child. Petitioner is but a mere stranger who was raised by the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart. Thus, since Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria 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.
Petitioner proved filiation by presenting (1) school records stating that Alfredo Aguilar is petitioner’s parent; (2) ITR indicated that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar is his mother; (3) Alfredo Aguilar’s Information Sheet of Employment indicating that petitioner is his son; (4) Alfredo Aguilar’s Social Security System (SSS) Form E-1, a public instrument subscribed and made under oath by Alfredo Aguilar during his employment with BMMC, which bears his signature and thumb marks and indicates that petitioner, who was born on March 5, 1945, is his son and dependent; (5) Letter of the BMMC Secretary addressed to a BMMC supervisor introducing petitioner as Alfredo Aguilar’s son and recommending him for employment; and (6) Certification issued by the Bacolod City Civil Registry to the effect that the record of births during the period 1945 to 1946 were “all destroyed by nature,” hence no true copies of the Certificate of Live Birth of petitioner could be issued as requested.
The RTC dismissed the case holding that no solid evidence attesting to the fact that plaintiff herein is either a biological son or a legally adopted one was ever presented. Neither was a certificate of live birth of plaintiff ever introduced confirming his biological relationship as a son to the deceased spouses Alfredo and Candelaria S. Aguilar.
The CA affirmed the RTC holding that student record or other writing not signed by alleged father do not constitute evidence of filiation. Likewise, the Income Tax Return of plaintiff-appellant filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, cannot be considered as evidence of filiation. Certificate of Marriage does not prove filiation. The rest of the exhibits offered, except the Social Security Form E-1 and the Information Sheet of Employment of Alfredo Aguilar, allegedly tend to establish that plaintiff-appellant has been and is presently known as Rodolfo Siasat Aguilar and he has been bearing the surname of his alleged parents. Thus, he has no right to demand the delivery of the subject TCTs in his favor.
ISSUE: Whether Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 proves the legitimate filiation of petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar.
RULING: Yes. The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the child’s acknowledgment.
Stated differently, filiation may be proved by an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required.
In the present case, 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 – 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.
Thus, petitioner – who was born on March 5, 1945, or during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar and before their respective deaths – has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. As petitioner correctly argues, Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 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.”
