containing 2,799 square meters and 2,992 square meters,

Case Name ELIAS S. MENDOZA and EUSTIQUIA S. MENDOZA, respectively.

petitioners,  Atty. Elias S. Mendoza and Modesta Gabuya respectively asked from
vs. Buenaventura Gabuya the partition of the lots which they are co-
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, owners of the undivided one-half [1/2] portions; and that
BUENAVENTURA GABUYA and SEVERA Buenaventura refused to do so claiming that Modesta Gabuya is not
FERNANDEZ, respondents. entitled to inherit from the estate of his late father Evaristo Gabuya.
Case No. G.R. No. L-63132  Original petitioners Buenaventura Gabuya and Severa Fernandez
Date of July 30, 1987 died October 21, 1981 and October 14, 1983 respectively.
Promulgation  Based on the notice of death filed on July 19, 1985, they left no legal
Ponente FERNAN, J. heirs except Modesta Gabuya.
Topic Proof of Filiation – Record of birth
RATIO DECIDENDI
NATURE OF THE ACTION
ISSUE RATIO
 SC: On July 1985 a Notice of Death was filed informing this Court Whether or not under NO
that respondent Buenaventura Gabuya died on October 21, 1981 the Civil Code of Spain,
and that Severa Fernandez likewise died on October 14, 1983. a natural child without Under Art. 114 and 122 of the Civil Code of Spain,
any judicial decree or the law in force at the time of the death in 1943
ISSUES deed of of Nicolasa Gabuya, the mother of Modesta, full
acknowledgment in successional rights were granted only to
 Whether or not under the Civil Code of Spain, a natural child his favor by his natural legitimate and legitimated children. Art. 134
without any judicial decree or deed of acknowledgment in his favor parent may succeed states that acknowledged natural children were
by his natural parent may succeed said natural parent under certain said natural parent given limited successional rights in that they were
circumstances. under certain entitled to inherit only from the acknowledging
RELEVANT FACTS OF ISSUE circumstances. parent, while illegitimate children who did not
possess the status of natural children had no
 Buenaventura, Nicolasa and Teresa, all surnamed Gabuya, are the successional rights whatsoever. The latter were
legitimate children of the spouses Evaristo Gabuya and Susana only entitled to support. Adopted children
Sabandija, who died intestate many years ago, the first in 1926 and become heirs of the adopting parents only if the
the second in 1912. adopting parents had agreed to confer the
 Both Nicolasa and Teresa died single, the first in 1943 and the adopted children such rights in the deed of
second in 1964. adoption, or had instituted them as heirs in a will.
 Modesta Gabuya is the illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa.
 Lot Nos. 3506 and 3597 of the Cebu Cadastre were some of the Recognition or acknowledgment of a natural child
original properties left by the late Evaristo Gabuya both located at under said Code must be made in a record of
Pardo, Cebu City, formerly covered by Original Certificate [sic] of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record,
Title Nos. 6353 and 6597 in the name of Evaristo Gabuya and or in some other public document. In the case at
bar, the only document presented by Modesta
Gabuya to prove that she was recognized by her RULING
mother was the certificate of birth and baptism WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby denied. The decision of the
signed by Rev. Fr. Filomeno Singson, Assistant appellate court in CA-G.R. Nos. 58815-5881617-R, is affirmed in toto. Costs
Parish Priest of Pardo, Cebu City, stating therein against petitioners.
that Modesta Gabuya is an illegitimate daughter
of Nicolasa Gabuya. However, Philippine SO ORDERED.
jurisprudence is consistent and uniform in ruling
that the canonical certificate of baptism is not
sufficient to prove recognition.

The rationale for this ruling, enunciated in the

case of Civ v. Burnaman, 24 SCRA 434, is that
while the baptismal certificate in the parish
records was a public document before the
effectivity of General Order No. 68 and Act 190,
this certificate did not constitute a sufficient act
of acknowledgment, since the latter must be
executed by the child's father or mother, and the
parish priest cannot acknowledge in their stead.

That this petition must fail is a foregone

conclusion. Modesta Gabuya, not having been
acknowledged in the manner provided by law by
her mother, Nicolasa, was not entitled to succeed
the latter. The extrajudicial settlement of the
estate of Evaristo Gabuya is, therefore, null and
void insofar as Modesta Gabuya is concerned per
Article 1105 of the New Civil Code which states:

A partition which includes a person

believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be
void only with respect to such person.

Since the ownership of the one-half [1/2] pro

indiviso portion of Lot No. 3597 never passed on
to Modesta Gabuya, it follows that the sale
thereof to petitioners-spouses Elias and Eustiquia
Mendoza is likewise null and void.