UYGUANGCO v.

CA
G.R. No. 76873; October 26, 1989
Cruz, J.
Topic: Admission by Silence

Case Doctrine/s:
The illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws," like his 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.
Recit Ready:
Facts:
Respondent Graciano Bacjao Apolinario, claiming to be an illegitimate son of the deceased Apolinario
Uyguangco, filed a complaint for partition against the petitioners.

Respondent alleged that he was born in 1952 to Apolinario Uyguangco and Anastacia Bacjao and that at the
age of 15 he moved to his father's hometown at Medina, Misamis Oriental, at the latter's urging and also of
Dorotea and his half-brothers. Here he received support from his father while he was studying at the Medina
High School, where he eventually graduated. He was also assigned by his father, without objection from the rest
of the family, as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store in Mananom from 1967 to 1973.

In the course of his presentation of evidence at the trial, the petitioners elicited an admission from respondent
Graciano that he had none of the documents mentioned in Art. 278 to show that he was the illegitimate son of
the deceased Uyguango. On the basis of this admission, petitioners moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that he could no longer prove his filiation under the civil code. On the other hand, the respondent insists that that
he has a right to show under Article 283 that he is "in continuous possession of the status of a child of his alleged
father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family."

Issue:
WoN respondent can prove his filiation as an illegitimate child by showing that he is "in continuous possession
of the status of a child of his alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family."

Held:
NO. The Court held that while it is true that the illegitimate child is now allowed to establish his claimed
filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his 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, respondent (seeks to prove his filiation under the second
paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code) can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his
open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of
the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is
already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.
Facts:
Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his wife, Dorotea, four legitimate children (her co-
petitioners herein), and considerable properties which they divided among themselves. Claiming to be an
illegitimate son of the deceased Apolinario, and having been left out in the extrajudicial settlement of his
estate, Graciano Bacjao Uyguangco filed a complaint for partition against all the petitioners.

Graciano alleged that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, receiving support from him during that time;
that he has been using the surname Uyguangco without objection from his father and the petitioners as shown
in his high school diploma, a special power of attorney executed in his favor by Dorotea Uyguangco, and
another one by Sulpicio Uyguangco; that he has shared in the profits of the copra business of the Uyguangcos,

This study source was downloaded by 100000855992227 from CourseHero.com on 12-11-2022 08:19:18 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83020125/Uyguangco-v-CApdf/
 which is a strictly family business; that he was a director, together with the petitioners, of the Alu and Sons
Development Corporation, a family corporation; and that in the addendum to the original extrajudicial
settlement concluded by the petitioners he was given a share in his deceased father's estate.

In the course of his presentation of evidence at the trial, the petitioners elicited an admission from Graciano
that he had none of the documents mentioned in Article 278 to show that he was the illegitimate son of
Apolinario Uyguangco (A record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or (in) any authentic
writing.)

The petitioners thereupon moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the private respondent could
no longer prove his alleged filiation under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code. Specifically, the
petitioners argued that the only evidence allowed under Article 278 to prove the private respondent's claim was
not available to him as he himself had admitted. The motion to dismiss was denied.

In the instant petition, petitioners argue that the complaint for partition is actually an action for recognition as an
illegitimate child, which, being already barred, is a clear attempt to circumvent the said provisions. The private
respondent insists, on the other hand, that he has a right to show under Article 283 that he is "in continuous
possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family."

Issue/s:
WoN respondent can prove his filiation by introducing evidence of his continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules
of Court or special laws despite the lack of documentary evidence mentioned in Art. 278
SC Ruling/s:
NO. While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of the documents mentioned in the first
paragraph (which are practically the same documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil Code except for the
"private handwritten instrument signed by the parent himself'''), he insists that he has nevertheless been "in
open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child," which is now also admissible as
evidence of filiation.

It must be added that the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any
other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his 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.

The problem of the private respondent, however, is that, since he seeks to prove his filiation under the second
paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, his action is now barred because of his alleged father's death in
1975. The second paragraph of this Article 175 reads as follows:
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on
the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged
parent. (Italics supplied.)

It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his open
and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the
means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is
already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.

This study source was downloaded by 100000855992227 from CourseHero.com on 12-11-2022 08:19:18 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83020125/Uyguangco-v-CApdf/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)