Tongoy v.

CA
G.R. No. L-45645 June 28, 1983
Facts:
Petitioners maintain that since the said respondents were never acknowledged
by their father, they could not have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of
their parents, much less could they inherit from the estate of their father, the
predecessor-in-interest of Luis D !ongoy, who is admittedly the half brother of the
said respondents
"mado P !ongoy, #icardo P !ongoy, $resenciano P !ongoy and %orberto P
!ongoy were born illegitimate to "ntonina Pabello on "ugust &', &'&(, "ugust &),
&'&*, December &, &'&+ and "ugust *, &')), respectively, that Francisco !ongoy was
their father, that said Francisco !ongoy had before them two legitimate children by
his first wife, namely, Luis D !ongoy and Patricio D !ongoy, that Francisco !ongoy
and "ntonina Pabello were married sometime before his death on -eptember &+,
&')., that shortly thereafter, Luis D !ongoy and Patricio D !ongoy e/ecuted an
0/tra-1udicial Declaration of 2eirs, leaving out their half-brothers "mado, #icardo,
$resenciano, and %orberto, who were then still minors, that respondents "mado,
#icardo, $resenciano and %orberto were known and accepted by the whole clan as
children of Francisco, that they had lived in 2acienda Pulo with their parents, but
when they went to school, they stayed in the old family home at 3ashington -treet,
4acolod, together with their grandmother, "gatona !ongoy, as well as with the
-onoras and with Luis and Patricio !ongoy, that everybody in 4acolod knew them to
be part of the !ongoy--onora clan, and that Luis D !ongoy as administrator of
2acienda Pulo, also spent for the education of #icardo !ongoy until he became a
lawyer, and that even petitioners admit the fact that they were half-brothers of the late
Luis D !ongoy
5ssue:
3hether or not respondents "mado, #icardo, $resenciano and %orberto, all
surnamed !ongoy, may be considered legitimated by virtue of the marriage of their
parents, Francisco !ongoy and "ntonina Pabello6
2eld:
!he bone of contention, however, hinges on the absence of an
acknowledgment through any of the modes recogni7ed by the 8ld $ivil $ode 9please
see "rticles &:& and &:+ of the 8ld $ivil $ode;, such that legitimation could not have
taken place in view of the provisions of "rt &)& of the same $ode which states that
<children shall be considered legitimated by a subsequent marriage only when they
have been acknowledged by the parents before or after the celebration thereof<
8f course, the overwhelming evidence found by respondent $ourt of "ppeals
conclusively shows that respondents "mado, #icardo, $resenciano and %orberto have
been in continuous possession of the status of natural, or even legitimated, children
-till, it recogni7es the fact that such continuous possession of status is not, per se, a
sufficient acknowledgment but only a ground to compel recognition 9"labat vs
"labat, )& -$#" &*=', Pua vs $han, )& -$#" =+:, Larena vs #ubio, *: Phil
&(&=;
5t is time that 30, too, take a liberal view in favor of natural children who,
because they en>oy the blessings and privileges of an acknowledged natural child and
even of a legitimated child, found it rather awkward, if not unnecessary, to institute an
action for recognition against their natural parents, who, without their asking, have
been showering them with the same love, care and material support as are accorded to
legitimate children !he right to participate in their father?s inheritance should
necessarily follow
Lita Ente!i"e", #n$. v. %e$on& Civi' Ca"e" (ivi"ion, #AC, Ni$a"io )$a*!o
an&+an$i"$a Ga$ia
@# %o L-.*.': "pril )=, &'A*
0scolin, 1
F"$!-:
8campo and @arcia B purchased in installment from the Delta Cotor -ales
$orporation + !oyota $orona -tandard cars to be used as ta/icabs, they had
no franchise to operateta/icabs, so they contracted with Lita 0nterprises for the
use of the latterDs certificate of public convenience in consideration of an initial
payment of &,((((( and a monthly rentalof )(((( per ta/icab unit, the
aforesaid cars were then registered in the name of Lita0nterprises
one of the ta/icabs driven by 8campo and @arciaDs employee, 0meterio Cartin,
collidedwith a motorcycle whose driver, Florante @alve7, died from the
head in>uries sustainedtherefrom a criminal case was filed against the driver
Cartin, while a civil case for damages was instituted by heir of the victim
against Lita 0nterprises
5--E0:
38% Lita 0nterprises is liable to the heir of the victim who died as a
resultofthegross negligence of 8campo and @arciaDs driver while driving o
ne private respondentsDta/icabs
20LD:
Feskabi t s ys t ems y s t e m wh e r e b y a p e r s o n wh o h a s b e e n g r a n t e
d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f convenience allows another person who owns
motors vehicles to operate under suchfranchise for a fee, contrary to
public policy and, therefore, void and ine/istent under "rticle &*(' of the
$ivil $ode, as a result, the court will not aid either party to enforce anillegal contract,
but will leave them both where it finds them 9pari delicto rule;
"rt &*&): G5f the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not
constitutea criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed, 9&; when the fault,
is on the
partof bot h cont r act i ng par t i es , nei t her ma y r ecover what he has
gi ven by vi r t ue of t hecontract, or demand the performance of the otherDs
undertakingH the defect of ine/istence of a contract is permanent and incurable, and
cannot be cured byratification or by prescription
(#RECT)R )+ LAN(% v". A,A,A
9AA -$#" +&:;, February )=, &'='
+ACT%: !he adverse claimant "tty Fernande7 was retained as counsel by petitioner
9"barque7; in a civil a case for the annulment of a contract of sale with right of
repurchase and for the recovery of the land which was the sub>ect matter thereof
Enable to compensate his lawyer whom he also retained for his appeal, the petitioner
e/ecuted a document whereby he obliged himself to give to his lawyer I of whatever
he might recover from Lots +.(( and +.() should the appeal prosper
!he real property sought to be recovered was actually the share of petitioner in
Lots +.(( and +.() which were part of the estate of his deceased parents and which
were partitioned among the heirs, which included petitioner and his sister
!he case having been resolved and title having been issued to petitioner,
adverse claimant waited for petitioner to comply with his obligation under the
document e/ecuted by him by delivering the I portion of the said parcels of land
Petitioner refused to comply with his obligation and instead offered to sell the whole
parcels of land to spouses Larra7abal !hen, adverse claimant immediately took steps
to protect his interest by filing a motion to annotate his attorneyDs lien and by
notifying the prospective buyers of his claim over the I portion of the parcels of land
!he motion was granted !he annotation of adverse claim appeared on the new
transfer certificate of title !his adverse claim became the sub>ect of cancellation
proceedings filed by petitioner-spouses !he trial court resolved the case in favor of
the adverse claimant 8n appeal, petitioners contended that a contract for a contingent
fee violates "rticle &*'& because it involves an assignment of a property sub>ect of
litigation
#%%-E: 38% the contract for a contingent fee as basis of the interest of "tty
Fernande7 is prohibited by "rticle &*'& of the $ivil $ode
R-L#NG: N). !he contention is without merit "rticle &*'& prohibits only the sale
or assignment between the lawyer and his client of property which is the sub>ect of
litigation +o t/e !o/i0ition to o!eate, t/e "a'e o a""ign*ent o1 t/e !o!ety
*u"t ta2e !'a$e &uing t/e !en&en$y o1 t/e 'itigation invo'ving t/e !o!ety.
Likewise, under "merican Law, the prohibition does not apply to Gcases where
after completion of litigation the lawyer accepts on account of his fee and interest in
the assets reali7ed by the litigation !here is clear distinction between such cases and
one in which the lawyer speculates on the outcome of the matter in which he is
employed
Further, a contract for a contingent fee is not covered by "rticle &*'& because
the transfer or assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only after the
finality of a favorable >udgment 5n the instant case, the attorneyDs fees of "tty
Fernande7, consisting of I of whatever the petitioner might recover from his share in
the lots in question is contingent upon the success of the appeal 2ence, the payment
of the attorneyDs fees, that is, the transfer or assignment of I of the property in
litigation will take place only if the appeal prospers !herefore, the transfer actually
takes effect after the finality of a favorable >udgment rendered on appeal and not
during the pendency of litigation involving the property in question $onsequently,
the contract for a contingent fee is not covered by "rticle &*'& of the $ivil $ode