Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller

HEIRS OF PAULA C.
FABILLAR, as represented by AUREO FABILLAR,

petitioners, vs. MIGUEL M. PALLER, FLORENTINA P. ABAYAN, and DEMETRIA P.
SAGALES, respondents.
[Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller]

G.R. No. 231459
January 21, 2019
J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division
Topic: Proof of Filiation
1.Respondents claim that the subject land was a portion of a bigger land originally
owned by Marcelino Paller, their grandfather. His children, Ambrosio, Isidra and
Ignacia, all surnamed Paller inherited the land.
2. Through an oral partition, Respondents’ father, Ambrosio, was given 1 hectare,

Isidra 2 hectares. Isidra’s son sold the lot to Respondent’s mother after Isidra’s
death.
3. Demetria, Ambrocio’s daughter, mortgaged the subject land to Alde with the right
to repurchase. She redeemed the same but discovered that the Custodios took
possession of the land and refused to vacate the same despite demand.
4. Hence, she brought an action for recovery of ownership, possession and damages
against the Sps. Custodio.
5. In their answer, the Custodios claimed to be legitimate and compulsory heirs of

Marcelino who can validly and legally possess the subject land which has not been
partitioned, and thus, commonly owned by his heirs. They further averred that
Ambrosio is not a child of Marcelino and, as such, has no right to claim the subject
land.
6. Respondents presented a baptismal certificate indicating that Marcelino is the

father of Ambrocio and a certain Talampona Duevo was his mother. They also
present an unnotarized deed of sale purportedly covering the sale of the land to
respondents’ mother, Sabina who was described as married to Marcos Paller not
Ambrosio. Respondents explained that "Ambrosio" and "Talampona" are the real
names, and that "Marcos" and "Susana" were mere aliases.
7.MCTC Ruling: Respondents were declared as lawful owners of the land. The RTC
and CA affirmed the ruling on appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents’ predecessor, Ambrosio, is a child of

Marcelino and entitled to inherit the land. NO. The respondents were not able to
prove filiation with competent proof.
1. Although the principal action in this case was for the recovery of ownership and
possession of the subject land, it is necessary to pass upon the relationship of
Ambrosio to Marcelino for the purpose of determining what legal rights he may
have in the subject land which he can pass to his heirs, petitioners herein. Notably,
the issue of whether or not Ambrosio is one of the children of Marcelino was
squarely raised by both parties in their respective pre-trial briefs. Hence, insofar as
the parties in this case are concerned, the trial court is empowered to make a
declaration of heirship, if only to resolve the issue of ownership.
2. Ambrosio's baptismal certificate cannot be considered as competent proof

of the claimed filiation with Marcelino. In the absence of the record of birth and
admission of legitimate filiation, Article 172 of the Family Code (Code) provides that
filiation shall be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws. Such other proof of one's filiation may be a baptismal certificate, a
judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of
witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
(Rules). Article 175 of the same Code also allows illegitimate children to establish
their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate
children.
3. However, it is jurisprudentially settled that a baptismal certificate has evidentiary

value to prove filiation only if considered alongside other evidence of filiation.
Because the putative parent has no hand in the preparation of a baptismal
certificate, the same has scant evidentiary value if taken in isolation; while it may be
considered a public document, "it can only serve as evidence of the administration
of the sacrament on the date specified, but not the veracity of the entries with
respect to the child's paternity." As such, a baptismal certificate alone is not
sufficient to resolve a disputed filiation, and the courts must peruse other pieces of
evidence instead of relying only on a canonical record.
4. In this case, the MCTC, the RTC, and the CA did not appreciate any other material
proof related to the baptismal certificate of Ambrosio that would establish his
filiation with Marcelino, whether as a legitimate or an illegitimate son. Contrary to
the ruling of the said courts, the burden of proof is on respondents to establish their
afirmative allegation that Marcelino is Ambrosio's father, and not for petitioners to
disprove the same, because a baptismal certificate is neither conclusive proof of
filiation /parentage nor of the status of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person
baptized. Consequently, while petitioners have admitted that Marcelino's heirs had
partitioned Marcelino's properties among them, the Court finds respondents'
evidence to be inadequate to prove the claimed filiation with the property owner,
Marcelino, as to entitle Ambrosio and his successors-in-interest, herein
respondents, to share in the properties left by Marcelino. However, it is well to point
out that the portion of the property supposedly inherited by Ambrosio from
Marcelino involved only a one (1)- hectare portion of the subject land.

Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF PAULA C.

FABILLAR, as represented by AUREO FABILLAR,

[Heirs of Fabillar v. Paller]

2. Through an oral partition, Respondents’ father, Ambrosio, was given 1 hectare,

5. In their answer, the Custodios claimed to be legitimate and compulsory heirs of

6. Respondents presented a baptismal certificate indicating that Marcelino is the

Issue: Whether or not the respondents’ predecessor, Ambrosio, is a child of

2. Ambrosio's baptismal certificate cannot be considered as competent proof

3. However, it is jurisprudentially settled that a baptismal certificate has evidentiary

You might also like