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 propert- in 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 necessar- repairs 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 bpetitioners to substantiate this clai). 12 Rosario also disclosed that !hen ,ourdes died her re)ains !ere ta"en bher.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 )an- relatives !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 bpreponderance 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 b- co)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 anaction 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 propert- o!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 the- inheritedH 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 bpetitioners. 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, b- preponderance 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 )erel- narrated 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)l- sho! 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 onlsiblin+ 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 properl- discarded 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, clearlpreponderate 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. (/ %$$ Phil. 4' C%&/4D. (4 See Note (#, p. #%. (2 *rt. 222. he ri+hts to the succession are trans)itted fro) the )o)ent of the death of the decedent. (3 %2 Phil. #(% C%&%$DH See Note (# p. #(. (& Resolution pennen b- 5ustice Guirino *bad Santos, 5r. !ith the concurrence of 5ustices E)eterio C. Cui and Serafin V. C. 9uin+onaH !ollo, pp. #/.#2. #$ Petition, pp. 2.&H !ollo, pp. %'.%4. #% %( Phil. %$&, %%#.%%' C%&$3D. #( *rt. '&'. No co.o!ner shall be obli+ed to re)ain in the co.o!nership. Each co.o!ner )ade)and at an- ti)e the partition of the thin+ o!ned in co))on, insofar as his share is concerned. ## Secs. % and (, Rule 2', Rules of Court. #' !o$ue v. I*C, 9.R. No. 2/334, #$ *u+ust %&33, %4/ SCR* %%3, %(/.%(4. #/ Me)orandu) for the PetitionersH !ollo& pp. 3#.3&. #4 *rt. 22', Ne! Civil Code. #2 *rt. &4$, par. >%A, id. #3 *rt. %$$#, id. #& *rt. (/' of the ;a)il- Code of the Philippines, !hich too" effect on # *u+ust %&33, e?presslrepealed 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#.