Diaz v.

IAC (1987)
G.R. L-66574 – June 17, 1987
J. Paras

Topic: Intestate Succession – Representation

Doctrine: Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab
intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate
child. (Illegitimate grandchildren of legitimate children cannot inherit from their grandparents)

Petitioner: Anselma Diaz, guardian of Victor Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, Felixberta Pacursa,
guardian of Federico Santero, et. al.,
Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Felisa Pamuti Jardin

Case Summary: The petitioners are illegitimate children of Pablo, the only legitimate child of Simona. They claim that they
should be declared as heirs of Pablo, and therefore, eligible to succeed by representation to their grandmother’s intestate
estate. On the other hand, Felisa, a legitimate niece of Simona, claims that she is the only legitimate heir, and thereby the
sole heir who shall succeed to the estate of the deceased. The Court ruled that it is Felisa who is entitled to succeed as there
is a definite bar under Article 992 which provides that illegitimate children of a legitimate child of a mother or father cannot
succeed under a succession ab intestate.

Facts:
 January 23, 1976: Private respondent filed a Petition with the CFI of Cavite – “In the Matter of the Intestate Estate
of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. De Santero” praying among other things that the corresponding letters of
Administration be issued in her favor and that she be appointed as special administratrix of the properties of the
deceased Simeona
 The following are undisputed:
o Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona – who together with Felisa’s mother Juliana were the only
legitimate children of Sps. Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion
o That Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who
died during infancy
o That Simona is the widow of Pascual Santero and mother of Pablo Santero
o That Pablo was the only legitimate son of his parents
o That Pascual Santero died in 1970, Pablo in 1973, and Simona in 1976
o That Pablo, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona, and his six minor natural children:
four minor children with Anselma and two minor children with Felixberta (all illegitimate)
 December 1, 1976: Judge Raval of the CFI declared Felisa as the sole legitimate heir of Simona
 March 13, 1980: Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children, filed her “Opposition and Motion to exclude
Felisa from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona, well as the intestate
estate of Pascal and Pablo
o Felixberta, as guardian for her minor children, filed her Manifestation adopting the Opposition and Motion
filed by Anselma
 May 20, 1980: Judge Bleza issued an Order excluding Felisa from further taking part or intervening in the
settlement of the intestate estate and declared her to be not an heir of the deceased Simona
o Her MFR was denied by the trial court, so she filed an appeal to the IAC
o The IAC rendered a decision in her favor and stated that she was the sole heir of Simona and the
oppositors-appellees were asked to not interfere in the proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the
estate of Simona
 MFR of the petitioners was denied; hence the present petition to the Supreme Court

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Felisa Pamuti is the sole heir of Simona – YES
 The dispute in this case refers only to the intestate estate of Simona and the issue is whether the petitioners herein as
illegitimate children of Pablo could inherit from Simona, by right of representation of their father Pablo who is a
legitimate child of Simona
o What is the appropriate law on the matter?
o Petitioners: They contend that Article 990 of the NCC is the applicable law on the case
  That the provision modifies the rule in Article 941of the OCC and recognizes the right of
representation (Article 970) to descendants – whether legitimate or illegitimate
 In addition, they contend that Article 941 of the Spanish Civil Code denied illegitimate children
the right to represent their deceased parents and to inherit from their deceased grandparents, but
that Rule was expressly changed and/or amended by Article 990 of the NCC which expressly
grants the illegitimate children the right to represent their deceased father Pablo in the estate of
their grandmother
 The SC rules that the petitioners’ contention holds no water  the hereditary conflict refers solely to the intestate
estate of Simona, who is the legitimate mother of Pablo
o The applicable law in this situation is:
 Article 992, NCC. – An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother, nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the
same manner from the illegitimate child
o Pablo is a legitimate child, on the other hand, the petitioners herein, are his illegitimate children
 What Article 992 actually does is provide a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits
absolutely a succession ab intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children
and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child
 They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of
Article 992
o Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family, there is presumed to be an intervening
antagonism and incompatibility
 The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; in turn, the
family is hated by the illegitimate child 
 The family considers the privileged condition of the illegitimate child; that said child is nothing
but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than
recognize his truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment   
o Thus, the SC ruled that the petitioners cannot represent their father in the succession
 In answer to their erroneous contention that Article 941 of the Spanish Civil Code is changed by
Article 990 of the NCC, the reflections of the illustrious Hon. JBL Reyes is reproduced:
 “In the Spanish Civil Code… the right of representation was admitted only within the
legitimate family, so much so that Article 943 prescribed that an illegitimate child cannot
inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his father and mother. The
Civil Code of the Philippines adhered to this principle since it reproduced Article 943 of the
Spanish Code in its own Article 992, but with fine inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990,
995, 998), our Code allows the hereditary portion of the illegitimate child to pass to his own
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. So that while 992 prevents the illegitimate
issue of a legitimate child from representing him in the intestate succession of the
grandparent, the illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so…”
 It is clear that from Article 992, the phrase “legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother” includes Simona as the word “relative” includes all the kindred of the person spoken
of
 Since Petitioners are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent IAC did not
commit any error in holding that Felisa is the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the
late Simona Santero

Ruling: WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED.