Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
371,DECEMBER10,2001
711
G.R.No.146737.December10,2001.
712
712
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
proceedings,isonewhowouldbebenefitedintheestate,suchasan
heir,oronewhohasaclaimagainsttheestate,suchasacreditor.
Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase next of kin refers to those
whoserelationshipwiththedecedentissuchthattheyareentitled
toshareintheestateasdistributees.InGabriel v. Court of Appeals,
thisCourtheldthatintheappointmentoftheadministratorofthe
estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned
with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed
administrator.
Civil Registry; Birth Certificates; It is highly unlikely that any
of the employees of the Civil Registry General in Metro Manila
would have reason to falsify a particular 1957 birth record
originating from the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo City, while with
respect to Local Civil Registries, access thereto by interested parties
is obviously easier.PursuanttoSection12ofAct3753(AnActto
Establish a Civil Register), the records of births from all cities and
municipalities in the Philippines are officially and regularly
forwarded to the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila by the
Local Civil Registrars. Since the records of births cover several
decades and come from all parts of the country, to merely access
themintheCivilRegistryGeneralrequiresexpertise.Tolocateone
single birth record from the mass, a regular employee, if not more,
hastobeengaged.Itishighlyunlikelythatanyoftheseemployees
in Metro Manila would have reason to falsify a particular 1957
birth record originating from the Local Civil Registry of Iloilo City.
With respect to Local Civil Registries, access thereto by interested
parties is obviously easier. Thus, in proving the authenticity of
ExhibitD,moreconvincingevidencethanthoseconsideredbythe
trialcourtshouldhavebeenpresentedbyrespondent.
713
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
713
714
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
istry.WhatisauthenticisExhibit8recordedintheCivilRegistry
General.
Same; Filiation; Photographs; A persons photograph with his
mother near the coffin of the alleged father cannot and will not
constitute proof of filiation, lest the Court recklessly sets a very
dangerous precedent that would encourage and sanction fraudulent
claims.Incidentally, respondents photograph with his mother
near the coffin of the late Juan C. Locsin cannot and will not
constitute proof of filiation, lest we recklessly set a very dangerous
precedent that would encourage and sanction fraudulent claims.
Anybody can have a picture taken while standing before a coffin
with others and thereafter utilize it in claiming the estate of the
deceased.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Quisumbing, Torresforpetitioners.
Justiniani & Associatesforprivaterespondent.
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
ACertificateofLiveBirthdulyrecordedintheLocalCivil
Registry,acopyofwhichistransmittedtotheCivilRegistry
GeneralpursuanttotheCivilRegistryLaw,isprima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. However, if there are
materialdiscrepanciesbetweenthem,theoneenteredinthe
CivilRegistryGeneralprevails.
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45of
the1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,seekingthe
reversaloftheSeptember13,2000DecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.57708whichaffirmedin totothe
September 13, 1996 order of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 30, of Iloilo City in Special Proceeding No. 4742.
TheSeptember13orderofthetrialcourtappointedJuanE.
Locsin, Jr., respondent, as the sole administrator of the
IntestateEstateofthelateJuanJhonnyLocsin,Sr.
715
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
715
716
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
717
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
717
718
718
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
Therulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,adoptedand
confirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,arefinalandconclusive
7
and may not be reviewed on appeal does not apply when
there appears in the record of the case some facts or
circumstances of weight and influence which have been
Upontheotherhand,Section2ofRule79providesthata
petition for letters of administration must be filed by an
interestedperson,thus:
_______________
7GSIS
8 Lee
v. Court of Appeals,287SCRA204(1998).
Appeals,258SCRA651(1996).
719
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
719
v. Del Val,13SCRA406
(1965).
10Tavera
11212SCRA413,G.R.No.101512,August7,1992.
720
720
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
Here,respondent,inordertoestablishhisfiliationwiththe
deceased,presentedtothetrialcourthisCertificateofLive
BirthNo.477(ExhibitD)andaphotograph(ExhibitC)
takenduringtheburialofthedeceased.
Regarding the genuineness and probative value of
Exhibit D, the trial court made the following findings,
affirmedbytheAppellateCourt:
It was duly established in Court that the Certificate of Live Birth
No. 477 in the name of Juan E. Locsin, Jr., the original having
been testified to by Rosita Vencer, exists in the files of the Local
CivilRegistrarofIloilo.Petitionersincebirthenjoyedtheopenand
continuous status of an acknowledged natural child of Juan C.
Locsin,Sr.,hetogetherwithhismotherwassummonedtoattendto
theburialasevidencedbyapictureofrelativesfacingthecoffinof
thedeceasedwithpetitionerandhismotherinthepicture.xxx.It
wasdulyprovenatthetrialthatthestandardsignaturespresented
Gamba Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 142877, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 499
citing Article 172, Family Code; GonoJavier vs. Court of Appeals, 239
SCRA593(1994);andDivinagracia vs. Bellosillo,143SCRA356(1986).
721
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
721
WhenentriesintheCertificateofLiveBirthrecordedin
the Local Civil Registry vary from those appearing in the
copytransmittedtotheCivilRegistryGeneral,pursuantto
the Civil Registry Law, the variance has to be clarified in
more persuasive and rational manner. In this regard, we
findVencersexplanationnotconvincing.
Respondents Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 (Exhibit
D)wasrecordedinaDecember1,1958revisedform.Asked
howa1958 formcouldbeusedin1957whenrespondents
birthwasrecorded,Venceransweredthatxxxduringthat
time,maybe the forms in 1956 were already exhausted so
theformerCivilRegistrarhad
722
722
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
requestedforanewformandtheysentusthe1958Revised
13
Form.
Theanswerisamaybe,ameresuppositionofanevent.
ItdoesnotsatisfactorilyexplainhowaRevised Form dated
December 1, 1958couldhavebeenusedon January 30, 1957
or almost (2) years earlier.
Upontheotherhand,Exhibit8ofthepetitionersfound
in the Civil Registrar General in Metro Manila is on
MunicipalFormNo.102,revised in July, 1956.Wefindno
irregularity here. Indeed, it is logical to assume that the
1956 forms would continue to be used several years
thereafter. But for a 1958 form to be used in 1957 is
unlikely.
There are other indications of irregularity relative to
ExhibitD.Thebackcoverofthe1957boundvolumeinthe
Local Civil Registry of Iloilo is torn. Exhibit D is merely
pasted with the bound volume, not sewn like the other
entries.
The documents bound into one volume are original
copies. Exhibit D is a carbon copy of the alleged original
andsticksoutlikeasorethumbbecausetheentriestherein
aretypewritten,whiletherecordsofallothercertificatesare
handwritten.Unlikethecontentsofthoseothercertificates,
ExhibitDdoesnotindicateimportantparticulars,suchas
the alleged fathers religion, race, occupation, address and
business. The space which calls for an entry of the
legitimacyofthechildisblank.OnthebackpageofExhibit
D,thereisapurportedsignatureoftheallegedfather,but
the blanks calling for the date and other details of his
ResidenceCertificatewerenotfilledup.
Whenaskedtoexplainthetornbackcoverofthebound
volume, Vencer had no answer except to state, I am not
aware of this because I am not a bookbinder. As to why
Exhibit D was not sewn or bound into the volume, she
explainedasfollows:
_______________
13
Commentatpp.11to14.
723
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
723
Iwillbuttin.Aretheseinstanceswhereyouremployees
wouldonlypasteadocumentlikethisCertificateofLive
Birth?
WITNESS:
Yes,YourHonor,wearepastingsomeoftheleavesjust
toreplacetherecord.Sometimeswejusthaveitpasted
intherecordwhentheleavesweretaken.
ATTY.TIROL:
Youmeantosayyouallowtheleavesofthebound
volumetobetakenout?
724
724
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
informationisrequired;and(g)administeroaths,freeofcharge,for
15
civilregisterpurposes (Emphasisours)
Inlightoftheaboveprovisions,acopyofthedocumentsent
bytheLocalCivilRegistrartotheCivilRegistrarGeneral
shouldbeidenticalinformandinsubstancewiththecopy
beingkeptbythelatter.Intheinstantcase,Exhibit8,as
transmitted to the Civil Registrar General is not identical
with Exhibit D as appearing in the records of the Local
Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. Such circumstance should
have aroused the suspicion of both the trial court and the
CourtofAppealsandshouldhaveimpelledthemtodeclare
ExhibitDaspuriousdocument.
Exhibit 8 shows that respondents record of birth was
madebyhismother.InthesameExhibit8,thesignature
and name of Juan C. Locsin listed as respondents father
andtheentrythatheandAmparoEscamillaweremarried
inOton,IloiloonNovember28,1954donotappear.
In this connection, we echo this
Courts pronouncement
16
inRoces vs. Local Civil Registrar that:
Section 5 of Act No. 3753 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines x x x explicitly prohibit, not only the naming of the
fatherofthechildbornoutofwedlock,when the birth certificate, or
the recognition, is not filed or made by him,butalso,thestatement
ofanyinformationorcircumstancesbywhichhecouldbeidentified.
Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or
recordthepaternityofanillegitimatechildupontheinformationof
a third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child,
when signed only by the mother of the latter, is incompetent
evidence of fathership of said child.(Emphasisours)
Insurance System,128SCRA53(1984).
725
VOL.371,DECEMBER10,2001
725
v. Court of Appeals,205SCRA321(1992).
v. Government Service Insurance System,supra.
726
726
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Solinap vs. Locsin, Jr.
settlementproceedingswhothelawfulheirsare,thereisno
needforaseparate,independentactiontoresolvetheclaims
of legitimate children of the deceased. (Chan Sui Bi vs.
Court of Appeals,341SCRA364[2000])
o0o