1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noble vs. Noble

No. L-17742. December 17, 1966.

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON VICENTE NOBLE. JUAN NOBLE, petitioner-
appellee, vs. MARIA S. NOBLE, oppositor-appellant.

Succession;  Paternity and filiation;  Illegitimate children;Illegitimate children, other than natural,
should prove acknowledged filiation.—The filiation of illegitimate children, other than natural, must not
only be proven, but it must be shown that such filiation was acknowledged by the presumed parent. If
the mere fact of paternity is all that needs to be proven, that interpretation would pave the way to
unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the death of the presumed parent, who would no longer
be in a position to deny the allegation, to present even fictitious claims and expose the life of the
deceased to inquiries affecting his character. Under article 289 of the New Civil Code, the investigation
of paternity or maternity of illegitimate children, other than natural, is specifically permitted only in
the circumstances enumerated in articles 283 and 284 of the same Code, which refer to compulsory
recognition of acknowledged natural children. Since the proof of the f. iliation of said illegitimate
children necessarily involves the investigation mentioned in article 289 and such investigation in turn
refers to compulsory recognition, it follows that the filiation to be proven must be one that is
acknowledged.
Same;  Acknowledgment is the basis of the right of the spurious child to successional rights.—To
establish filiation, the illegitimate child other than natural should allege that his putative father had
acknowledged and recognized him as such. Such acknowledgment is essential and is the basis of his
right to inherit. Where no allegation of such voluntary acknowledgment was pleaded, the action
becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father.
Acknowledgment is the basis of the right of a spurious child to enjoy successional rights (Paulino vs.
Paulino, L-15091, December 28, 1961).

1105

VOL. 18, DECEMBER 17, 1966 1105

Noble vs. Noble

Same; When alleged illegitimate child of testator was not allowed to present evidence on her filiation.
—Where a person claiming to be the illegitimate child of the deceased testator sought to establish her
filiation in the testamentary proceeding by merely alleging in her motion that she enjoyed the status of
a child of the deceased and that she had evidence proving that the deceased was her father, her motion
was denied because she did not allege that her filiation was acknowledged by the deceased.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Vasquez, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Jesus N. Maravilla and Nicolas Belmonte, for petitioner-appellee.
     Farrera, Belmi & Associates for oppositor-appellant.

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal by Maria S. Noble from an order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas
(in Sp. Proc. No. 343), dismissing her opposition to the probate of the purported last will of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e114a8c250694203e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
 the late Don Vicente Noble, who died on April 25, 1959.
The proceedings for the probate of the last will of the deceased was instituted by Juan
Noble who was named executor therein and who had expressed willingness to assume the
trust. This was opposed by Maria S. Noble, "who claimed to be an illegitimate (spurious) child
of the deceased, born on July 22, 1923 out of an illicit relation between the latter and Lucia
Sinag. It was alleged that the will sought to be probated, dated August 25, 1957, was not the
last will and testament of the late Don Vicente Noble; that from all indications as shown by a
perusal of the alleged last will of the deceased, the same was not executed in accordance with
the law, and that the said will was executed through undue influence, mistake and Improper
pressure on the part of one or some of the beneficiaries, and that petitioner Juan Noble, as
then incumbent Assistant General Manager of the NAMARCO, a government corporation
could not properly execute the trust of his office in the estate of the deceased, which consists
of real and personal properties located in several provinces. Furthermore, oppositor
contended that petitioner has an adverse
1106

1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noble vs. Noble

interest against those immediately interested in the estate, like her. Thus, she prayed that
the purported last Will and Testament presented to the court be disallowed; that she be
declared the only surviving illegitimate daughter of the deceased; and in case the will sought
to be probated be allowed, the institution of heirs made therein be declared null and void; the
devises and legacies be declared ineffective for being inofficious; and oppositor be declared
entitled to one-half of the entire hereditary estate of the deceased; that instead of petitioner,
letters of administration be issued in favor of Mrs. Corazon Apacible de Cañiza of Taal,
Batangas. Simultaneously, she filed a motion asking for permission to present evidence of her
alleged filiation with the deceased. This motion was opposed by petitioner Juan Noble, on the
ground that the claim was in effect an action for compulsory recognition, and since it was
brought after the death of the putative father and when claimant was already of majority age,
the right
1
to bring the same has already prescribed pursuant to Article 285 of the new Civil
Code.   This motion was not immediately resolved. Instead, the court proceeded with the
reception of the evidence for the petitioner, during which proceeding, the oppositor was
allowed to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses.
Finding, on the basis of the evidence presented by the petitioner, that the document,
Exhibit "D", and its copies, Exhibits “D-1" to "D-12", constitute the last will and testament of
the deceased Vicente Noble, and it was executed with all the formal requirements of the law,
the aforesaid will was admitted to probate, and Juan Noble was

_______________
1 "ART. 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the
presumed parents, except in the following cases:
(1) If the father or mother died during the' minority of the child, in which case the latter may file the action before
the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority;
(2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which nothing had been heard and
in which either or both parents recognize the child.
In this case, the action must be commenced within four years from the finding" of the document/'

1107

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e114a8c250694203e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
 VOL. 18, DECEMBER 17, 1966 1107
Noble vs. Noble

appointed administrator of the estate upon a bond of P30,000.00. It was also ruled that the
petition of Maria S. Noble to present proof for the purpose of establishing her filiation, filed
after the death of the presumed father, had been barred by prescription. Consequently, the
motion to dismiss the petition of Maria S. Noble was granted. Oppositor appealed.
The main issue presented in this case requiring resolution by this Court is: what is
necessary to be established by-an illegitimate not natural child in order that he may be
entitled to successional rights under Article 887 of the new Civil Code, the fact of his bare
filiation, or a filiation acknowledged by the putative parent?
While the Civil Code merely provides that "in all cases of illegitimate children, their
filiation must be duly proved" (Art. 887), there are cogent 'reasons, both legal and moral,
which require that such filiation must be acknowledged by the presumed parent. For, if the
mere fact of the paternity of the supposed father is all that need be proved, that construction
of the law would pave the way to unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the death of
the presumed parent who would no longer be in a position to deny the allegations, to present
even fictitious claims and expose the life of the deceased to inquiries affecting his character.
But more important than this, the law could not have demanded anything less than proof
of an  acknowledgedfiliation. Precisely, under Article 289 of the new Civil Code, the
investigation of the paternity or maternity of children mentioned in the two preceding articles
(referring to illegitimate not natural children) is specifically permitted only in the
circumstances enumerated in Articles 283 and 284 of the same code. It must be noted that
these two articles refer to compulsory recognition or acknowledgment. Hence, since the proof
of filiation required in Article 887, necessarily involves the investigation mentioned in Article
289, and this investigation in turn refers to recognition by the putative parent, it? follows;
that the filiation to be proven must be one that is recognized.
In the present case, what is intended to be proved by appellant is simply the supposed
naked paternity of the
1108

1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noble vs. Noble

deceased. This is evident from the pertinent allegations of her opposition to the probate of the
will, which state:
"2. That the oppositor is in continuous possession of status of a child of the late Don Vicente Noble by
the direct acts of the latter. and/or his family; and, that the oppositor has in her favor evidence and/or
proof that the late Don Vicente Noble is her father."

It may be pointed out that the first sentence does not state that the supposed father had
recognized or acknowledged the oppositor as his child. It is merely claimed that she was in
continuous possession of the status of a child, an allegation which is a ground for compelling
recognition under Article 283 of the new Civil Code and, therefore, presupposes no previous
recognition. The last sentence alleges that oppositor has in her favor evidence and/or proof
that the late Don Vicente Noble is her father. Again, there is no assertion that she has
evidence that the deceased had recognized or acknowledged her as such a child.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e114a8c250694203e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
 In a unanimous decision, in the case of Paulino v. Paulino (G.R. No. L-15091, Dec. 28, 1961), this Court
held: "It is true that by their motion to dismiss the appellees are deemed to have admitted that the
appellant is the illegitimate spurious, not natural, child of the deceased Marcos Paulino. Such an
admission, however, does not entitle her to inherit from her alleged putative father. It is necessary to
allege that her putative father had acknowledged and recognized her as such. Such acknowledgment is
essential and is the basis of her right to inherit. There being no allegation of such acknowledgment the
action becomes one to compel recognition which can not be brought after the death of the putative
father" (Italics supplied.)

This is authority to the declaration that acknowledgment is the basis of the right of a
spurious child to enjoy the successional rights mentioned in Articles 287 and 887 of the new
Civil Code. There being no allegation of her recognition or acknowledgment by the alleged
father in the petition to establish her filiation, the same, therefore, states no cause of action
and the dismissal thereof by the lower court was proper.
Incidentally, the last sentence of the above-quoted portion of the decision in
the Paulino case constitutes a re-
1109

VOL. 18, DECEMBER 17, 1966 1109

Noble vs. Noble

versal of the ruling contained in the majority opinion in the case of  Zuzuarregui v.
Zuzuarregui (G.R. No. L-10010, Oct. 31, 1957) relied upon by the appellant.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.
So ordered.

          Concepcion, C.J.,  Reyes, J.B.L.,  Dizon,  Regala,  Makalintal,  Bengzon,

J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ.,concur.

Order affirmed.

Notes.—The rule in the Noble case, that illegitimate children, other than natural, should
be acknowledged in the same manner as natural children, was advocated by Justice J.B.L.
Reyes in his concurring opinion in  Reyes  vs.  Zuazuarregui,  102 Phil. 346, 354, wherein he
opined that "between the action for compulsory recognition of natural children under article
285 and the action for investigation of paternity or maternity of illegitimate children not
natural, authorized by article 289, there is no substantial difference. Both are actions
whereby the child may prove that the defendant is in fact the father or mother of the plaintiff,
notwithstanding the refusal of the parent to admit the generative link. The grounds upon
which either action must be premised are the same, as is apparent from the text of article
289." Justice J.B.L. Reyes concluded that "Article 285 limits not only the socalled actions for
recognition by natural children but also actions for investigation of paternity by illegitimate
children not natural."
That concurring opinion became the majority opinion in Paulino vs. Paulino, L-15091, Dec.
28, 1961.
The  ratio decidendi  of the  Noble  case is not the failure of the petitioner to allege
acknowledgment in her petition but the prescription of the action. The action should have
been brought during the putative father's, lifetime  (Narag  vs.  Cecilio,  L-13353, Aug. 31,
1960).
In Pactor vs. Pestaño, 57 O.G. 7709, the Supreme Court reversed an order of the probate
court, which denied an illegitimate child, other than natural, the right to prove that he was
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e114a8c250694203e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
 the child of the decedent whose estate was under administration.
1110

1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Casino Español de Manila vs. Court of Industrial
Relations

In  Barles vs. Ponce Enrile,  L-12894, Sept. 30, 1960, 60 O.G. 4258, the time limitation in
article 285 of the New Civil Code, for the action for' compulsory recognition of natural
children, was held to be applicable to the action of the illegitimate children, other than
natural, to establish their acknowledged filiation. (Reaffirmed in resolution of Jan. 28, 1961).
The right of illegitimate children not natural (spurious) to establish their filiation is
provided for in article 289 of the New Civil Code (Edades vs. Edades, 99 Phil. 675;  Sotto vs.
Sotto, L-20921, May 24, 1966, 17 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 243).
In other words, the illegitimate spurious child, to be entitled to support and successional
rights, must. establish his filiation, through voluntary or compulsory recognition. For this
purpose the provisions concerning natural children are applicable  (Republic vs. Workmen's
Compensation Commission, L-19946, Feb. 28, 1965).
Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove illegitimate filiation (Tan vs. Court of
Appeals, L-22793, May 16, 1967, 20 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 54).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e114a8c250694203e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5