RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT, Respondents. G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015 (Digested)

RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, Petitioner v. EDNA G. SIASAT, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200169, January 28, 2015DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar died, intestate and without debt included in their estate are two parcels of land

In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod City (Bacolod RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against respondent Edna G. Siasat. alleged that petitioner is the only son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he (petitioner) discovered that the subject titles were missing, and thus he suspected that someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen the same

In her Answer, respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised by the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is not a natural or adopted child of the Aguilar spouses; that since Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, the latter 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; and that the subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted to her for safekeeping by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt.  By way of counterclaim, respondent prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

RTC dismissed the case.

CA denied the appeal of the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner can prove his filiation to the spouse Aguilar using SSS E-1 (acknowledged and notarized before a notary public, executed by Alfredo Aguilar, recognizing the petitioner as his son) mere proof of open and continuous possession.

RULING:

The Court grants the Petition.

This Court, speaking in De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon,has held that –

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.

To repeat what was stated in De Jesus, 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.