De Alberto et al v. CA and Antonio Alberto Jr.

Facts:

Antonio Jr. (Junior) was the natural child of Antonio Sr (Senior) with Andrea Jongco before Antonio Sr. married Natividad and begot
two children. Now,Antonio Jr. (but is still a minor therefore assisted by his mother Andrea) filed a complaint for acknowledgement
and partition since the legal wife and children of his father excluded him from the partitioning of Antonio’s properties after the latter
died.

 Junior alleges that he was acknowledged as a natural child by his father and after the death of his father, he was never
informed of the intestate proceedings

Natividad et al contends that the complaint must be dismissed since the action is already barred by a previous judgment (the
intestate proceeding) and the action has long prescribed

RTC Ruling: Dismissed the complaint

CA Ruling: REVERSED RTC, declaring Junior to be the Natural Child of Senior and entitled to the portion of the latter’s properties

ISSUES:

1. WON Junior’s action was barred by previous judgment

2. WON his action has already prescribed
3. WON he is guilty of laches
4. WON Andrea’s testimonies and other witnesses should be given credence

1. Prior judgment in insolvency proceedings are in rem and binding to the whole world, even upon Junior who was not
informed
 All persons having interest in the subject matter, notified or not are bound by the proceedings
 Only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is
left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to
negligence
 Junior should have had the case reopened within the proper reglementary period instead of filing this action

2. Junior’s action has already been barred by prescription

 An action to rescind a partition on account of lesion (as per Article 1100 of CC) or an action to rescind a partition
with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs (as per Article 1104) both have a prescriptive period of 4 years after
the approval of the agreement of the partition
o Junior only initiated this action in 1960, 7 years after the intestate proceeding
 General rule is that the action for partition among co-owners does not prescribe UNLESS the other co-owners
never recognized the one filing the action as a co-owner
o Imprescriptibility of the action to partition by a co-owner only applies if the co-ownership is expressly or
impliedly recognized (this is the principle Bathan is looking for)
 The action for recognition as a natural child may only be brought within the lifetime of the father or when the
father dies while the child is still a minor, 4 years after the child has attained majority.
o But prescription runs against the child if the child has a guardian, therefore he may have still brought the
action within 4 years after the death of the father

3. Junior is guilty of laches

 Andrea never took steps to protect her child’s (Junior) interest when Senior left her to marry another woman
 It took her about 16 years after Senior married Natividad and 11 years after the death of Senior to file this action
and she CANNOT EXPLAIN THE LONG DELAY to file the action

4. Andrea and other witnesses’ testimonies should not be given credence

 Andrea’s testimonies contradicted by the testimonies of Senior’s siblings who claimed that senior was living with
his mother during the period Senior was alleged to be with Andrea
 Andrea has had 5 other children with 4 different men