RESPONDENT, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Position Paper and avers the following:
PREFATORY STATEMENT The protection of legitimate expectation is required by the principles of fairness and justice -- as it shed light to citizen whose legitimate right must be protected over anyone whose right is attained through estoppel. If the legitimation is irregular, the rights of the compulsory heir will necessary be prejudiced. Harsh as it is, however, it is still the law and the quintessence of what the iron barrier is all about.
PARTIES 1. Respondent, RODOLFO C. LOPEZ is a Filipino citizen and of legal age. He is a legitimate son of Miguel V. Lopez who died without leaving a will.
2. Petitioner, LIZELLE STEPHANIE LOPEZ, is the child of Arturo Lopez and Beatriz Kuan out of wedlock. Arturo and Rodolfo are brothers.
NATURE OF THE CASE 3. This position paper is a response to the Petition of Lizelle Stephanie Lopez regarding her inclusion in the Distribution and Partition of the Estate of Miguel Lopez.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. Miguel V. Lopez (Miguel) has four children namely: Rodolfo C. Lopez (Rodolfo), Jemina Lopez-Syquico (Jemina), Alhambra Lopez (Alhambra) and Joseph Lopez (Joseph). He also has a son, named Arturo Lopez (Arturo), with his first wife. Arturo predeceased Miguel in January 1978.
5. Miguel died in July 1999 in Davao City without leaving a will. Respondent Rodolfo subsequently filed a petition for letters of administration of the intestate estate of Miguel, The RTC, however, appointed Jemina as Administrator of the estate and was issued Letters of Administration.
2
6. On July 2, 2003 petitioner Lizelle Stephanie Lopez (Lizelle) filed a Motion to be Included in the Distribution and Partition of the Estate of Miguel. She was the daughter of Arturo and Beatriz Kuan, out of wedlock. She claimed that she was treated like a(n) (estopped) legitimate child despite not having been formally acknowledged through any of the modes allowed by law. She claimed further that they were allowed to live with the Lopez family and that Miguel also provided for her educational and material needs.
7. The RTC, in its April 22, 2005 Order, declared Lizelle as the acknowledged natural child or legitimated child of Arturo, for purposes of determining her share in the estate of Miguel.
8. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Rodolfo, but the RTC denied it in its March 6, 2008 Order. Rodolfo then elevated the case before the CA through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
9. On January 21, 2013 the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing and setting aside the Order of the RTC, stating that RTC erred in declaring Lizelle as an acknowledged natural or legitimated child of Arturo.
10. Upset by the decision of the CA, the Petitioner went into this Honorable Court to seek reconsideration of her being legitimate heir, which the Respondent strongly disagreed. Hence this case. 1
ISSUE I. Whether or not Lizelle should be entitled to the Distribution and Partition of the Estate of Miguel.
II. Whether or not CA erred in deciding that Lizelle is an illegitimate child of Arturo.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
We respectfully adopt our arguments that the petitioner is not entitled to the Distribution and Partition of the Estate of Miguel.
Illegitimacy of the Petitioner
11. As a general rule, children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate (Art. 165, FC). The fact that the petitioner is clearly born out of wedlock is clear and uncontestable.
12. Discontent by the provisions of Art 165, the Petitioner raised the second paragraph of Art. 172 which states that:
1 Polished statement of facts of the case from Atty. Aguilar. 3
Art. 172. xxx In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (3) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (4) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
Although the Lizelle assumes herself to legitimate through the action and estoppel from the Respondents father, We the Respondent note Art. 175 which clearly bars her from establishing legitimacy, to wit:
Art. 175. xxx Except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Art. 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parents.
Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute the claim, considering that "illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. x x x The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the childs filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead."
13. The Petitioner based on her contention that she is a legitimate child of Arturo and Beatriz Kuan, considering that both her parents were not suffering from any impediment to marry each other at the time she was conceived.
The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. And when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation only for application. Art. 178, Chapter 4 of the Family Code cites that legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents, which in case of Lizelles parents, does not exist.
14. The State protects marriage as an inviolable social institution, which is the foundation of the family (Sec. 2 Art XV, Const). The sacredness of marriage cures any defect from illegitimacy. Lizelle, having been born out of wedlock, is barred from protection of the State in the case of Distribution and Partition of the said estate ab intestato.
Distribution of Estate Ab Intestato
15. While the law as it now stands gives illegitimate children certain successional rights, one provision continues to bar them from the full right to succeed. This is Article 992, which provides that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. Article 992 4
creates a so-called iron curtain between the legitimate and illegitimate families.
16. Article 992 prohibits succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. This means that Lizelle, clearly being illegitimate child cannot inherit by right of representation from the legitimate relatives of his illegitimate parent, and vice versa. Thus, an illegitimate child of one who is himself a legitimate child cannot represent the latter in the inheritance to his legitimate descendants (e.g. the illegitimate childs legitimate half-sister) or other legitimate relatives (e.g. grandparents). In the same manner, these legitimate relatives are prohibited from succeeding intestate the illegitimate child.
17. This principle of absolute separation between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family applies only ab intestato, that is, in intestate succession, where the decedent leaves no will. In the case at bar, it is very well noted that Miguel Lopez died without leaving a last will. In such a case, the law follows the presumed will of the decedent. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. III, Sixteenth Ed., 2008, pp. 456-457). Since the rule is predicated on the presumed will of the decedent, it has no application on testamentary dispositions, that is, where a person leaves a will.
18. The prohibition was applied in several cases, among them: Anuran vs. Aquino[1918], Grey vs. Fabie[1939], Reose vs. Rabe[1941], all holding that the illegitimate child cannot succeed to the estate of a legitimate relative of the illegitimate parent. In Cacho vs. Udan [1965] and Corpus vs. Corpus [1978], the reverse was true, that the legitimate relatives of the parent cannot succeed the illegitimate child. This ruling was applied even as to grandparents (Leonardo vs. CA, [1983],Diaz vs. IAC [1990])
19. Ironically, the illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is not so barred. In Diaz vs. IAC, it was clarified that the determining factor is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person to be represented. If the person to be represented is an illegitimate child, then his descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, may represent him; however, if the person to be represented is legitimate, his illegitimate descendants cannot represent him because the law provides that only his legitimate descendants may exercise the right of representation by reason of the barrier imposed in Article 992.
20. Rationale for the Rule of Iron Curtain was explained thus: They (the illegitimate child on the one hand), and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of the said illegitimate child on the other) may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged 5
condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further ground of resentment. (Diaz vs. AC, citing 7 Manresa 110).
Sentiment abounds that this prohibition is unfair to the illegitimate child, who is after all blameless for his status. Harsh as it is, however, it is still the law. Dura lexsedlex.
21. This same law was also cited by the Supreme Court in the case of Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 890, 1983, in ruling that an illegitimate child cannot inherit from his great grandparent for being an illegitimate child.
22. Petitioner may argue Art. 970 of the NCC which states that: . . . a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and degree of the person represented, and acquires the right, which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited.
However this rule applies only to legitimate children. And since it is established from the facts given that the Petitioner is an illegitimate child, the law prohibiting illegitimate children to represent their fathers share in the inheritance from his relatives shall apply.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the petitioner declaring the Petitioner as illegitimate child of Arturo and therefore should not be included in distribution and partition of the estate of Miguel Lopez.
Quezon City, Philippines. 15 August 2014.
6
New Era University JD Program I JD B Group I Diliman, Quezon City
By:
Florano, Rey Harold A. Torres, Mark Anthony A. Main, Jessa O. Presbitero Jr., Josue C. Tresmaria, Rosalie Francisco, Marissa Concha Jr., Romulo V. Dulay, Decky Joy M. Obnamia, Cithy Sarmiento, Elizabeth F. Bulayungan Jr., Robert Frederick Kin Fajiculay M. Baytic, Norie Sanchez, Gina C. Aspili, Nery B. Obinay, Muhammedan L. Dela Pea, Richard Gubalane Jr., Henry J. Manuel, Sarah V. Roldan, Roland Raymond Sabungan, Ryan
Copy Furnished: LIZELLE LOPEZS GROUP II COUNSEL ATTY. KATLYN ANNE C. AGUILLAR