Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 118464 December 21, 1998 HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI !" ROSARIO CUARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEA#S !" #$DIA S. RE$ES % A&&or!e'()!(F c& o* +OSEFINA S. RE$ES, ,ERNARDITA S. PA#I#IO, HERMINIA S. PA#I#IO, REMEDIOS A. SAMPA$O, I#UMINADA A. SAMPA$O, ENRICO A. SAMPA$O CAR#OS A. SAMPA$O, GENEROSO C. SAMPA$O, M$RNA C. SAMPA$O, ROSA#INO C. SAMPA$O, MANUE# C. SAMPA$O, DE#IA A. SAMPA$O, CORA-ON C. SAMPA$O, NI#O C. SAMPA$O, !" #O#ITA A. SAMPA$O )! .er o/! be. 0* !" % A&&or!e'()!(F c& o* NORMA A. SAMPA$O, respondents.

,E##OSI##O, J.: his petition for revie! on certiorari see"s to reverse the #$ March %&&'. Decision and (% Dece)ber %&&' Resolution of respondent Court of *ppeals !hich upheld the ri+ht of private respondents as heirs of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o to de)and partition under *rt. '&' of the Civil Code. ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and I+nacio Conti, )arried to Rosario Cuado, !ere the co.o!ners of the propertin liti+ation consistin+ of a /#&.s0uare )eter lot at the corner of 1a)ora and *bellanosa Streets, ,ucena Cit-, covered b- C No. .%/#2', !ith a house erected thereon. 1 On %2 March %&34 ,ourdes Sa)pa-o died intestate !ithout issue. 2 Subse0uentl-, on % *pril %&32 private respondents 5osefina S. Re-es, 6ernardita S. Palilio, 7er)inia S. Palilio, Re)edios *. Sa)pa-o, Ilu)inada *. Sa)pa-o, Enrico *. S*MP*8O, Carlos *. Sa)pa-o, 9elleroso C. Sa)pa-o, M-rna C. Sa)pa-o, Rosalina C. Sa)pa-o, Manuel C. Sa)pa-o, Delia. *. Sa)pa-o, Cora:on C. Sa)pa-o, Nilo C. Sa)pa-o, ,olita *. Sa)pa-o and Nor)a *. Sa)pa-o, all represented b- their *ttorne-.in.;act ,-dia S. Re-es, !ith ,olita *. Sa)pa-o actin+ also in her o!n behalf and as *ttorne-.in.;act of Nor)a *. Sa)pa-o, all clai)in+ to be collateral relatives of the deceased ,ourdes Sa)pa-o, filed an action for partition and da)a+es before R C.6r. /', ,ucena Cit-. 1 he spouses I+nacio Conti and Rosario Cuario refused the partition on the +round that private respondents failed to produce an- docu)ent to produce that the- !ere the ri+htful heirs of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o. 4 On #$ *u+ust %&32 I+nacio Conti died and !as substituted as part-.defendant b- his children *suncion, ;rancisco, Mila+ros, 5oselito, ,uisito, Die+o and eresita, all surna)ed Conti. 2 *t the trial, private respondents presented ,-dia Sa)pa-o Re-es and *delaida Sa)pa-o to prove that the- !ere the collateral heirs of the deceased ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and therefore entitled to her ri+hts as co.o!ner of the sub<ect lot. 6rin+in+ !ith her the ori+inal cop- of her certificate of live birth sho!in+ that her father !as Inocentes Re-es and her )other !as 5osefina Sa)pa-o, 6 ,-dia Sa)pa-o Re-es testified that she !as one of the nieces of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o, bein+ the dau+hter of 5osefina Sa)pa-o, the onl- livin+ siblin+ of ,ourdes. ,-dia also testified that ,ourdes had another sister na)ed Re)edios 5. Sa)pa-o !ho died in %&'3, and t!o brothers, Manuel 5. Sa)pa-o and

,uis 5. Sa)pa-o !ho died in %&3# and %&4$, respectivel-. o prove that 5osefina, Re)edios, ,uis and Manuel !ere siblin+s of ,ourdes, their baptis)al certificates to+ether !ith a photocop- of the birth certificate of Manuel Sa)pa-o !ere offered in evidence. hese docu)ents sho!ed that their father and )other, li"e ,ourdes Sa)pa-o, !ere *ntonio Sa)pavo and 6ri+ida 5ara:a. he certificates of baptis) presented as part of the testi)on- of ,-dia Sa)pa-o Re-es !ere prepared b- Rev. ;ran"lin C. Rivero !ho dul- certified that all data therein !ritten !ere in accordance !ith the church records, hence, the lo!er left portion of the docu)ents bearin+ the seal of the church !ith the notation as to !here the docu)ents !ere lo++ed in particular. 3 he baptis)al certificates !ere presented in lieu of the birth certificates because the repositor- of those docu)ents, the Office of the Civil Re+istrar of ,ucena Cit-, had been ra:ed b- fire On t!o separate occasions, (2 Nove)ber %&2' and #$ *u+ust %&3#, thus all civil re+istration records !ere totallburned. 8 On the other hand, a photocop- of Manuel=s birth certificate dated (/ October %&%& >E?h. @I@A 9 sho!ed that it !as issued b- the ,ocal Civil Re+istrar of ,ucena, a-abas >no! ,ucena Cit-A. *delaida Sa)pa-o, !ido! of Manuel Sa)pa-o, testified that her husband Manuel !as the brother of the deceased ,ourdes, and !ith the death of Manuel, ,uis and Re)edios, the onl- livin+ siblin+ of ,ourdes !as 5osefina. 14 o rebut !hatever ri+hts the alle+ed heirs of ,ourdes had over the sub<ect lot, petitioners presented Rosario Cuario Conti, Rosal ,adines Malundas and Rodolfo Espineli. Rosario testified that the sub<ect propert- !as co.o!ned in e0ual shares b- her husband I+nacio Conti and ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and that her fa)il- >RosarioA had been sta-in+ in the sub<ect propert- since %&#2. 11 In fact, she said that her late husband I+nacio Conti paid for the real estate ta?es 12 and spent for the necessarrepairs and i)prove)ents thereon 11 because b- a+ree)ent ,ourdes !ould leave her share of the propert- to the). 14 7o!ever, as correctl- found b- the trial court, no !ill, either testa)entar- or holo+raphic, !as presented b- petitioners to substantiate this clai). 12 Rosario also disclosed that !hen ,ourdes died her re)ains !ere ta"en b- her.relatives fro) their house. 16 Bhen cross e?a)ined on !ho those relatives !ere, she replied that the onl- one she re)e)bered !as 5osefina since there !ere )anrelatives !ho ca)e. Bhen as"ed !ho 5osefina=s parents !ere, she said she could not recall. ,i"e!ise, !hen as"ed !ho the parents of ,ourdes !ere, Rosario denied havin+ ever "no!n the). 13 *nother !itness, Rosa ,adines Malundas, narrated that she used to be the nei+hbor and hairdresser of the deceased ,ourdes Sa)pa-o !ho told her that upon her death her share !ould +o to I+nacio Conti !ho) she considered as her brother since both of the) !ere @adopted@ b- their foster parents 9abriel Cord and *nastacia *llare- Cord, 18 althou+h she ad)itted that she did not "no! !hether ,ourdes had other relatives. 19 *ccordin+ to another !itness, Rodolfo Espineli, he too" pictures of the to)bs bearin+ the to)bstones of 9abriel Cord and *nastacia *llare- Cord and I+nacio Conti as !ell as that of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o !ho !as supposed to have been interred beside her @adoptive@ parents. 7o!ever, as revealed b- Rosario durin+ her direct e?a)ination, ,ourdes !as not in fact interred there because her relatives too" her re)ains. 24 On ' *pril %&&% the trial court declared private respodents as the ri+htful heirs of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o. It further ordered private respondents and petitioners to sub)it a pro<ect of partition of the residential house and lot for confir)ation b- the court. 21

Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of *ppeals contendin+ that the trial court erred in findin+ that private respondents !ere the heirs of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and that the- !ere entitled to the partition of the lot and the i)prove)ents thereon. 22 On #$ March %&&' the Court of *ppeals affir)ed the assailed R C decision and held
21

In the instant case, plaintiffs Cno! private respondentsD !ere able to prove and establish b- preponderance of evidence that the- are the collateral heirs of deceased ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and therefore the lo!er court did not err in orderin+ herein plaintiffs Cno! private respondentsD and defendants Cno! petitionersD to sub)it a pro<ect of partition of the residential house and lot o!ned in co))on b- the deceased ,ourdes Sa)pa-o and defendant spouses Conti for confir)ation b- the court . . . . Considerin+ our earlier findin+ that the lo!er court did not err in declarin+ herein plaintiffs Cno! private respondentsD as heirs of deceased Sa)pa-o and therefore entitled to inherit her propert-, the ar+u)ent of the appellants Cno! petitionersD that the plaintiffs Cno! private respondentsD are not entitled, to partition is devoid of )erit >insertions in 11 suppliedA. Respondent court also ruled, citing Hernandez v. Padua 24 and Marabilles v. Quito, 22 that a prior and separate <udicial declaration of heirship !as not necessar- 26 and that private respondents beca)e the co.o!ners of the portion of the propert- o!ned and re+istered in the na)e of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o upon her death and, conse0uentl-, entitled to the i))ediate possession thereof and all other incidentsEri+hts of o!nership as provided for b- la!, includin+ the ri+ht to de)and partition under *rt. 222 of the Civil Code, 23 and Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa 28holdin+ that the propert- belon+s to the heirs at the )o)ent of death of the decedent, as co)pletel- as if he had e?ecuted and delivered to the) a deed for the sa)e before his death. he appellate court subse0uentl- den-in+ a )otion for reconsideration upheld the probative value of the docu)entar- and testi)onial evidence of private respondents and faulted petitioners for not havin+ subpoenaed 5osefina if the- believed that she !as a vital !itness in the case. 29 7ence, petitioners pursued this case ar+uin+ that a co)plaint for partition to clai) a supposed share of the deceased co.o!ner cannot prosper !ithout prior settle)ent of the latter=s estate and co)pliance !ith all le+al re0uire)ents especiall- publication, and private respondents !ere not able to prove bco)petent evidence their relationship !ith the deceased. 14 here is no )erit in the petition. * prior settle)ent of the estate is not essential before the heirs can co))ence an- action ori+inall- pertainin+ to the deceased as !e e?plained in Quison v. Salud 11 F Claro Guison died in %&$(. It !as proven at the trial that the present plaintiffs are ne?t of "in and heirs, but it is said b- the appellants that the- are not entitled to )aintain this action because there is no evidence that an- proceedin+s have been ta"en in court for the settle)ent of the estate of Claro GuisonH and that !ithout such settle)ent, the heirs cannot )aintain this action. here is nothin+ in this point. *s !ell b- the Civil Code as b- the Code of Civil Procedure, the title to the properto!ned b- a person !ho dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such trans)ission is, under the present la!, sub<ect to the clai)s of ad)inistration and the propert)a- be ta"en fro) the heirs for the purpose of pa-in+ debts and e?penses, but this does not prevent an i))ediate passa+e of the title, upon the death of the intestate, fro) hi)self to his heirs. Bithout so)e sho!in+ that a <udicial ad)inistrator had been appointed in proceedin+s to settle the estate of Claro Guison, the ri+ht of theH plaintiffs to )aintain this action is established.

Confor)abl- !ith the fore+oin+ and ta"en in con<unction !ith *rts. 222 and '&' 12 of the Civil Code, fro) the death of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o her ri+hts as a co.o!ner, incidental to !hich is the ri+ht to as" for partition at an- ti)e or to ter)inate the co.o!nership, !ere trans)itted to her ri+htful heirs. In so de)andin+ partition private respondents )erel- e?ercised the ri+ht ori+inall- pertainin+ to the decedent, their predecessor.in.interest. Petitioners= theor- as to the re0uire)ent of publication !ould have been correct had the action been for the partition of the estate of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o, or if !e !ere dealin+ !ith e?tra<udicial settle)ent b- a+ree)ent bet!een heirs and the su))ar- settle)ent of estates of s)all value. 11 6ut !hat private respondents are pursuin+ is the )ere se+re+ation of ,ourdes= one.half share !hich theinheritedH fro) her throu+h intestate succession. his is a si)ple case of ordinar- partition bet!een co.o!ners. he applicable la! in point is Sec. % of Rules 4& of the Rules of Court F Sec. %. Complaint in an action for partition of real estate. F * person havin+ the ri+ht to co)pel the partition of real estate )a- do so as in this rule prescribed, settin+ forth in his co)plaint the nature and e?tent of his title and an ade0uate description of the real estate of !hich partition is de)anded and <oinin+ as defendants all the other persons interested in the propert-. * cursor- readin+ of the aforecited rule sho!s that publication is not re0uired as erroneousl)aintained b- petitioners. here are t!o >(A si)ultaneous issues in an action for partition. ;irst, !hether the plaintiff is indeed a co.o!ner of the propert- sou+ht to be partitioned, and second, if ans!ered in the affir)ative, the )anner of the division of the propert-, i.e., !hat portion should +o to !hich co.o!ner. 14 hus, in this case, !e )ust deter)ine !hether private respondents, bpreponderance of evidence, have been able to establish that the- are co.o!ners b- !a- of succession as collateral heirs of the late ,ourdes Sa)pa-o as the- clai) to be, either a sister, a nephe! or a niece. hese, private respondents !ere able to prove in the trial court as !ell as before respondent Court of *ppeals. Petitioners ho!ever insist that there !as no such proof of filiation becauseI >aA )ere photocopies of birth certificates do not prove filiationH >bA certifications on non.availabilit- of records of birth do not prove filiationH >cA baptis)al certificates do not prove filiation of alle+ed collateral relatives of the deceasedH and, >dA the testi)onies of ,-dia S. Re-es, alle+ed dau+hter of 5osefina Re-es, and *delaida Sa)pa-o, alle+ed sister.in.la! of 5osefina and ,ourdes, !ere inco)petent as ,-dia !as )ade to testif- on events !hich happened before her birth !hile *delaida testified on )atters )erelnarrated to her. 12 Be are not persuaded. *lto+ether, the docu)entar- and testi)onial evidence sub)itted that private respondents are co)petent and ade0uate proofs that private respondents are collateral heirs of ,ourdes Sa)pa-o. Private respondents assert that the- are co.o!ners of one.half >%E(A pro indiviso share of the sub<ect propert- b- !a- of le+al or intestate succession. Succession is a )ode of ac0uisition b- vietue of !hich the propert-, ri+hts and obli+ations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance of a person are trans)itted throu+h his death to another or others either b- his !ill or b- operation of la!. 16 ,e+al or intestate succession ta"es place if a person dies !ithout a !ill, or !ith a void !ill, or one !hich has subse0uentl- lost its validit-. 13 If there are no descendants, ascendants, ille+iti)ate children, or a survivin+ spuoses, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. 18 It !as established durin+ the trial that ,ourdes died intestate and !ithout issues. Private respondents as sister, nephe!s and nieces no! clai) to be the collateral relatives of ,ourdes.

Jnder *rt. %2( of the ;a)il- Code, 19 the filiation of li+iti)ate children shall be proved b- an- other )eans allo!ed b- the Rules of Court and special la!s, in the absence of a record of birth or a parent=s ad)ission of such le+iti)ate filiation in a public or private docu)ent dul- si+ned b- the parent. Such other proof of one=s filiation )a- be a baptis)al certificate, a <udicial ad)ission, a fa)il- 6ible in !hich his na)e has been entered, co))on reputation respectin+ his pedi+ree, ad)ission b- silence, the testi)onies of !itnesses and other "inds of proof ad)issible under Rule %#$ of the Rules of Court. 44 6- analo+-, this )ethod of provin+ filiation )a- also be utili:ed in the instant case. Public docu)ents are the !ritten official acts, or records of the official act of the soverei+n authorit-, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, !hether of the Philippines, or of a forei+n countr-. 41 he baptis)al certificates presented in evidence b- private respondents are public docu)ents. Parish priests continue to be the le+al custodians of the parish records and are authori:ed to issue true copies, in the for) of certificates, of the entries contained therein. 42 he ad)issibilit- of baptis)al certificates offered b- ,-dia S. Re-es, absent the testi)on- of the officiatin+ priest or the official recorder, !as settled in People v. !itter, citin+ ".S. v. de #era >(3 Phil.%$/ C%&%'D, 41 thus. . . . the entries )ade in the Re+istr- 6oo" )a- be considered as entries )ade in the course of the business under Section '# of Rule %#$, !hich is an e?ception to the hearsa- rule. he baptis)s ad)inistered b- the church are one of its transactions in the e?ercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the boo" of the church durin+ this course of its business. It )a- be ar+ued that baptis)al certificates are evidence onl- of the ad)inistration of the sacra)ent, but in this case, there !ere four >'A baptis)al certificates !hich, !hen ta"en to+ether, unifor)lsho! that ,ourdes, 5osefina, Re)edios and ,uis had the sa)e set of parents, as indicated therein. Corroborated b- the undisputed testi)on- of *delaida Sa)pa-o that !ith the de)ise of ,ourdes and her brothers Manuel, ,uis and sister Re)edios, the onl- siblin+ left !as 5osefina Sa)pa-o Re-es, such baptis)al certificates have ac0uired evidentiar- !ei+ht to prove filiation. Petitioners= ob<ection to the photocop- of the certificate of birth of Manuel Sa)pa-o !as properldiscarded b- the court a $uo and respondent Court of *ppeals. *ccordin+ to Sec. #, par. >%A, Rule %#$, of the Rules of Court, !hen the sub<ect of in0uir- is the contents of a docu)ent, no evidence shall be ad)issible other than the ori+inal docu)ent itself e?cept !hen the ori+inal has been lost or destro-ed or cannot be produced in court, !ithout bad faith on the part of the offeror. he loss or destruction of the ori+inal certificate of birth of Manuel . Sa)pa-o !as dul- established b- the certification issued b- the Office of the ,ocal Civil Re+istrar of ,ucena Cit- to the effect that its office !as co)pletel- destro-ed b- fire on (2 Nove)ber %&2' and #$ *u+ust %&3#, respectivel-, and as a conse0uence thereof, all civil re+istration records !ere totall- burned. *pparentl-, there see)s to be so)e )erit in petitioners= contention that the testi)on- of *delaida Sa)pa-o cannot prove filiation for bein+ hearsa- considerin+ that there !as no declaration ante litem motam as re0uired b- the rules, i.e., that the declaration relatin+ to pedi+ree !as )ade before the controvers- occurred. Nonetheless, petitioners )ade no )ove to dispute her testi)on- in open court !hen she !as )entionin+ !ho the brothers and sisters of ,ourdes !ere. *s correctl- observed b- the trial court in e?plicit ter)s, @the docu)entar- and testi)onial evidence not !ere not disputed b- defendants@ >no! petitionersA. 44 Notabl-, !hen Rosario Cuario Conti too" the !itness stand, she ad)itted that she !as not a!are of the identities of the parents of the deceased. Clearl-, this runs, counter to the relationship a"in to filial bondin+ !hich she professed she had en<o-ed !ith the decedent. *s !ife of I+nacio Contil, she !as supposedl- a @sister.in.la!@ of the deceased ,ourdes

Sa)pa-o !ho re+arded I+nacio as a brother. 7o!ever, in su), !e rule that all the pieces of evidence adduced, ta"en to+ether, clearl- preponderate to the ri+ht of private respondents to )aintain the action for partition. *bsent an- reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of *ppeals, this petition for revie! on certiorari !ill not lie. B7ERE;ORE, the petition is DENIED. he assailed Decision dated #$ March %&&' and Resolution dated (% Dece)ber %&&' of the Court of *ppeals are *;;IRMED. Costs a+ainst petitioners. SO ORDERED. %ellosillo& Puno& Mendoza& Martinez.& ''. concur. Foo&!o&e% % Decision penned b- 5ud+e 5ai)e D. Disca-a, R C. 6r. /', ,ucena Cit-, Ori+inal Records, pp. %3$.%3%. ( Id., p. %3$. # Co)plaint doc"eted as Civil Case No. 32.#2H id., pp. %.4. ' *ns!er filed %$ 5une %&32H id., p. (4. / Order dated 3 Dece)ber %&32 b- then Presidin+ 5ud+e Rodolfo 9. PalattaoH id., pp. /2./3. 4 E?h. @*@, ;older of E?hibits, p. %. 2 E?hs. @C@, @E@, ==C@, and @I@, Id., pp. #, /, 2, and %%. 3 E?hs. @6,@ @D,@ @;,@ @7,@ and @K,@ Id., pp. (, ', 4, 3, and %$. & Id., p. &. %$ SN, %# Septe)ber %&&$, pp. (.'. %% SN, %/ Nove)ber %&&$, p. #.*. %( Id., p. 2. %# Id., p. %$. %' Id., p. /. %/ See Note %, p. %3#. %4 See Note %%, pp. %$.%%. %2 Id., pp. %4.%&.

%3 SN, (( Nove)ber %&&(, pp. /.4. %& Id., p. 2. ($ Id., p. %%. (% Decision penned b- 5ud+e 5ai)e D. Disca-a, R C . 6r. /', ,ucena Cit-H Ori+inal Records, pp. %3$.%3'. (( *ppellant=s 6rief, C* !ollo, p. ($. (# Decision penned b- 5ustice Guirino D. *bad Santos. 5r., !ith the concurrence of 5ustices E)eterio C. Cui and *lfredo 5. ,a+a)onH !ollo, pp. (&.#(. (' %' Phil. %&' C%&$&D. (/ %$$ Phil. 4' C%&/4D. (4 See Note (#, p. #%. (2 *rt. 222. he ri+hts to the succession are trans)itted fro) the )o)ent of the death of the decedent. (3 %2 Phil. #(% C%&%$DH See Note (# p. #(. (& Resolution pennen b- 5ustice Guirino *bad Santos, 5r. !ith the concurrence of 5ustices E)eterio C. Cui and Serafin V. C. 9uin+onaH !ollo, pp. #/.#2. #$ Petition, pp. 2.&H !ollo, pp. %'.%4. #% %( Phil. %$&, %%#.%%' C%&$3D. #( *rt. '&'. No co.o!ner shall be obli+ed to re)ain in the co.o!nership. Each co. o!ner )a- de)and at an- ti)e the partition of the thin+ o!ned in co))on, insofar as his share is concerned. ## Secs. % and (, Rule 2', Rules of Court. #' !o$ue v. I*C, 9.R. No. 2/334, #$ *u+ust %&33, %4/ SCR* %%3, %(/.%(4. #/ Me)orandu) for the PetitionersH !ollo& pp. 3#.3&. #4 *rt. 22', Ne! Civil Code. #2 *rt. &4$, par. >%A, id. #3 *rt. %$$#, id. #& *rt. (/' of the ;a)il- Code of the Philippines, !hich too" effect on # *u+ust %&33, e?pressl- repealed itle VIII on Paternit- and ;iliation >*rt. (//.(3&A of the

Ne! Civil Code. Bhile the co)plainant for partition !as filed in %&32, or prior to the ;a)il- Code, nonetheless the latter la! is applicable to the case at bar in vie! of *rt. (/4 !hich e?plicit- provides that @>tAhis code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not pre<udice or i)pair vested or ac0uired ri+hts in accordance !ith the Civil Code or other la!s.@ '$ J-+uan+co v. Court of *ppeals, 9.R. No. 2432#, (4 October %&3&, %23 SCR* 43', 43&H Mendo:a v. Court of *ppeals, 9.R. No. 34#$(, (' Septe)ber %&&%, ($% SCR* 42/, 43'. '% Sec. %&, par. >aA, Rule %#(, Rules of Court. '( Jnited States v. IbaLes, %# Phil. 433 >%&$&A. '# 9.R. No. 33/3(, / March %&&%, %&' SCR* 4&$, 2$/. '' See Note %, p. %3#.