B.

FAMILY HOME

#5 CABANG v. BASAY
G.R. No. 180587, 20 March 2009

FACTS:

On June 16, 1987, Basay bought Lot No. 7777 for P8,000.00. However, they did not occupy
the said property. Cabang, on the other hand, had been in continuous, open, peaceful and adverse
possession of the same parcel of land since 1956 up to the present believing that they are occupying
Lot No. 7778 (They did not know that Lot No. 7778 was utilized by government for road
construction).

On June 23, 1992, Basay filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Recovery
of Property against petitioner. RTC in favor of the Cabang.
RTC held that Basays rights to recover the land registered in their names, have been
effectively barred by laches.
Court of Appeals (CA) reversed RTC decision on December 23, 1998. Basay is entitled to
the possession of Lot No. 7777, subject to the rights of Cabang under Articles 448, 546, 547 and
548 of the New Civil Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate tribunal erred in reversing the judgment of the trial
court.

RULING:

NO. The CA did not err in reversing RTCs dismissal of the Motion for Execution.

Under Article 153 of the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house and
a lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same
judicially or extra-judicially. There can be no question that a family home is generally exempt from
execution, provided it was duly constituted as such.

However, a family home cannot be established on property held in co-ownership with third
persons. The family home must be established on the properties of (a) the absolute community, or
(b) the conjugal partnership, or (c) the exclusive property of either spouse with the consent of the
other. In this case, the said property on which their alleged family home stands is owned by
respondents. Therefore, it cannot be considered a family home but merely residential.

Petition denied, CA judgment AFFIRMED.

The family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories that
last during ones lifetime. It is the dwelling house where the husband and wife, or an unmarried head
of a family reside, including the land on which it is situated. It is constituted jointly by the husband
and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family.
 #6 ARRIOLA v. ARRIOLA
G.R. No. 177703, 28 January 2008

FACTS:

Fidel Arriola died and survived by his legal heirs; John Nabor Arriola (respondent), his son
and his first wife, and Vilma G. Arriola, his second wife and his other son, Anthony Ronald Arriola
(petitioners).

On 16 February 2004, the RTC rendered a decision ordering the partition of the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 383714 (84191) left by the decedent Fidel S. Arriola and by among his heirs
John Nabor C. Arriola, Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola in equal shares of one
third (1/3) each without prejudice to the rights of creditors or mortgagees thereon, if any.

However, the parties failed to agree on how to divide the above mentioned property and so
the respondent proposed to sell it through public auction. The petitioners initially agreed but later
on refused to include the auction in the house standing on the subject land. The respondent then
filed a Manifestation and Motion for Contempt of Court.

Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the said motion and manifestation due to lack of merit.

The respondent elevated the case to Court of Appeals (CA) with a petition for Certiorari and
prayed that he be allowed to push through with the auction of the subject land including the house
built on it. The CA granted the petition and ordered the public auction sale of the subject lot
including the house built on it. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the
said motion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject house is covered in the judgment of partition.

RULING:

YES. The Supreme Court (SC) agree that the subject house is covered by the judgment
partition but in view of the suspended prescription imposed under Article 159 of the Family Code,
the subject house immediately partitioned to the heirs.
Art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife, or by an
unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on
which it is situated.
Art. 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a
family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law.
Thus, applying these concepts, the subject house as well as the specific portion of the subject
land on which it stands are deemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and petitioner
Vilma from the moment they began occupying the same as a family residence 20 years back.
 Art. 159. The family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the
unmarried head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary,
and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons thereof. This rule
shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home.

VII. PATERNITY AND FILIATION

#1 CALIMAG v. HEIRS OF MACAPAZ
GR No. 191936, 1 June 2016
FACTS:
Virginia D. Calimag (petitioner) co-owned the property, the subject matter of this case, with
Silvestra N. Macapaz (Silvestra). On the other hand, Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. (Anastacio, Jr.) and
Alicia Macapaz-Ritua (Alicia) (respondents) are the children of Silvestra's brother, Anastacio
Macapaz, Sr. (Anastacio, Sr.) and Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz (Fidela).

The subject property, with a total area of 299 square meters, was also duly registered in the
names of the petitioner (married to Demetrio Calimag) and Silvestra.

On November 11, 2002, Silvestra died without issue. On July 7, 2005, TCT No. 183088 was
cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 221466, was issued in the name of the petitioner by
virtue of a Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 whereby Silvestra allegedly sold her 99-sq-m portion
to the petitioner for P300,000.00. Included among the documents submitted for the purpose of
cancelling TCT No. 183088 was an Affidavit] dated July 12, 2005 purportedly executed by both the
petitioner and Silvestra. It was stated therein that the affidavit of adverse claim filed by Fidela was
not signed by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Makati City, making the same legally ineffective. On
September 16, 2005, Fidela passed away.

On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting that they are the heirs of Silvestra, instituted
the action for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 221466 with Damages against the
petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Makati City.

In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the petitioner averred that the respondents have
no legal capacity to institute said civil action on the ground that they are illegitimate children of
Anastacio, Sr. As such, they have no right over Silvestra's estate pursuant to Article 992 of the Civil
Code which prohibits illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate children and
relatives of their father and mother.

RTC declared the Deed of Sale purportedly executed by [Silvestra] in favor of [the
petitioner] on January 18, 2005 over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 183088 of the Registry of
Deeds of Makati City, as Null and Void and ordered the RD of Makati City to cancel TCT No.
221466 issued in the name of [the petitioner], the same having been issued on the basis of a
fraudulent/falsified Deed of Sale, and thereafter to reinstate TCT No. 183088 issued in the name of
[the petitioner] and [Silvestra] with all the liens and encumbrances annotated thereon, including the
The RTC found that the Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 presented for the cancellation of TCT
No. 183088 was a forgery considering that Silvestra, who purportedly executed said deed of sale died
on November 11, 2002, about three years before the execution of the said Deed of Sale. Respecting
the respondents' legal capacity to sue, the RTC favorably ruled in this wise:

Demetrio Calimag, Jr. sought, but failed, to impugn the personality of the [respondents] to
initiate this action as the alleged heirs of [Silvestra]. The marriage between [Anastacio Sr.J and
[FidclaJ is evidenced by the Certificate of (canonical) Marriage (Exh. "M"). The name
'Fidela Obera Poblete' is indicated in [the respondents'] respective birth certificates as the
mother's maiden name but Fidela signed the same as the informant as "Fidela P.
Macapaz". In both birth certificates, "Anastacio Nator Macapaz" is indicated as the name
of the father.

CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are legal heirs of Silvestra.

RULING:

YES. While it is true that a person's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, as held in Spouses Fidel v. Hon. CA, et al., this Court however
deems it necessary to pass upon the respondents' relationship to Silvestra so as to determine their
legal rights to the subject property. The question of whether the respondents have the legal capacity
to sue as alleged heirs of Silvestra was among the issues agreed upon by the parties in the pre-trial.
At first blush, the documents presented as proof of marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and
Fidela, viz: (1) fax or photo copy of the marriage contract, and (2) the canonical certificate of
marriage, cannot be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage without running afoul with
the Rules on Evidence of the Revised Rules of Court.
Notwithstanding, it is well settled that other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a
solemnized marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant
evidence other than the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be
recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.
Thus, in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the respondents presented their respective
Certificates of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office where Fidela signed as the
Informant in item no. 17 of both documents.
The petitioner asserts that said documents do not conclusively prove the respondents'
legitimate filiation, albeit, without offering any evidence to the contrary. The certificates of live birth
contain no entry stating whether the respondents are of legitimate or illegitimate filiation, making
said documents unreliable and unworthy of weight and value in the determination of the issue at
hand.
Moreover, the petitioner states that in the respondents' certificates of live birth, only the
signature of Fidela appears, and that they were not signed by Anastacio, Sr. She argues that the birth
certificate must be signed by the father in order to be competent evidence to establish filiation,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, invoking Roces v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila where it was held
that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father is not competent evidence of paternity.
Under Section 5 of Act No. 3753, the declaration of either parent of the new-born legitimate
child shall be sufficient for the registration of his birth in the civil register, and only in the
registration of birth of an illegitimate child does the law require that the birth certificate be signed
and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant, or only by the mother if the father refuses to
acknowledge the child.
The pertinent portion of Section 5 of Act No. 3753 reads:
Sec. 5. Registration and Certification of Birth. - The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance
at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of cither parent of the newborn child, shall be
sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt
from the documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days
after the birth, by the physician, or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the
newly born child.

In such declaration, the persons above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a) date and
hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship, and religion of parents or, in
case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the
infant was born; if) and such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.

In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn to
jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if the father refuses. In the latter case, it
shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of the father who refuses to
acknowledge the child, or to give therein any information by which such father could be identified.

Nonetheless, the respondents' certificates of live birth also intimate that Anastacio, Sr. and
Fidela had openly cohabited as husband and wife for a number of years, as a result of which they
had two childrenthe second child, Anastacio, Jr. being born more than three years after their first
child, Alicia. Verily, such fact is admissible proof to establish the validity of marriage.
Sarmiento v. CA is instructive anent the question of what other proofs can be offered to establish the
fact of a solemnized marriage, viz:

Furthermore, as the established period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela

transpired way before the effectivity of the Family Code, the strong presumption accorded by then
Article 220 of the Civil Code in favor of the validity of marriage cannot be disregarded.
 #2 ARADO v. ALCORAN
GR No. 163362, 8 July 2015

FACTS:

Raymundo Alcoran was married to Joaquina Arado, and their marriage produced a son
named Nicolas Alcoran. In turn, Nicolas married Florencia, but their union had no offspring.
Nicolas had an extramarital affair with Francisca Sarita, who gave birth to respondent Anacleto
Alcoran on July 13, 1951 during the subsistence of Nicolas marriage to Florencia.

Raymundo died leaving properties to Nicolas and his wife. Nicolas died subsequently leaving
the properties to his illegitimate son. Joaquina died shortly thereafter with a will. Anacleto claims
entitlement to the properties as the heir of Nicolas and by virtue of the will executed by Joaquina

ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate child has a right to inherit from his father.

RULING:

NO. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father or mother, as provided for under Article 992 of the Civil Code; in the
same manner, such children or relatives shall not inherit from the illegitimate child.

As certified in Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the right of representation is not available to
illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent.
Anacleto could not inherit from the estate of Joaquina by virtue of the latters last will and
testament. Article 838 of the Civil Code dictates that no will shall pass either real or personal
property unless the same is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.

In Gallanosa v. Arcangel that in order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated,
legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory.

REYES v. MAURICIO
GR No. 175080, 24 November, 2010

FACTS: