Tabotabo v. Tabotabo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gaudencio Tabotabo died on September 2, 1908, leaving a will wherein he bequeathed his conjugal share to his wife, Rafaela Gallarde, and named her executrix. The will mentioned a natural son, Vicente, and a daughter, Juana, begotten with different women. In the probate of the will (Special Proceedings No. 256), the ten legitimate children of Vicente, then minors, sought to be declared sole heirs, claiming their father was acknowledged in the will. The court denied their claim on September 10, 1909, finding no solemn acknowledgment and, in fact, the testator's intent not to recognize Vicente. No appeal was taken, and the probate proceedings were closed in 1910. Rafaela took possession of the properties. Years later, Vicente's children (appellants) filed Civil Case No. 7990 for partition, accounting, and recovery of fruits, but the records were lost. After Rafaela's death in 1939, Daniel Tabotabo and other heirs distributed the properties. Daniel died in 1948. In 1954, Vicente's children initiated Special Proceedings No. 1323-R, an intestate estate of Gaudencio and Vicente, concealing the prior probate. The court dismissed this petition upon discovering the prior probate and disinheritance. In November 1955, the grandchildren of Gaudencio filed the present complaint, alleging their father Vicente was a duly acknowledged natural son and that Gaudencio acquired properties before his marriage to Rafaela, which were taken possession of by Rafaela and Daniel. They claimed they were entitled to inherit these properties and their fruits. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu granted the defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action, res judicata, and prescription. The plaintiffs-appellants appealed this order. The Petition: The plaintiffs-appellants, grandchildren of Gaudencio Tabotabo, sought to inherit properties they claimed Gaudencio acquired before his marriage to Rafaela Gallarde, alleging their father, Vicente Tabotabo, was a natural son duly acknowledged in Gaudencio's will. They claimed Rafaela and Daniel Tabotabo took possession of these properties and refused to deliver them and their fruits.
Issue(s)
Whether the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is barred by res judicata. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is barred by prescription. Whether Vicente Tabotabo was a duly acknowledged natural child of Gaudencio Tabotabo. Whether the plaintiffs-appellants have a valid cause of action.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed, and the order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Cebu is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata: The Court held that the question of whether Vicente Tabotabo was a duly acknowledged natural child of Gaudencio Tabotabo was directly in issue and squarely passed upon in Special Proceedings No. 256. The appellants, through their guardian ad litem, had moved to be declared sole heirs based on their father's alleged acknowledgment in the will. The probate court's order of September 10, 1909, which denied this claim, became final as no appeal was taken. Therefore, the defense of res judicata was well-taken, preventing the relitigation of the same issue. On the issue of prescription: The Court found that Gaudencio Tabotabo died on September 2, 1908, and his properties were taken possession of by Daniel and Rafaela. Upon Rafaela's death in 1939, Daniel and other heirs distributed the properties. The present complaint was filed on September 11, 1955. The Court ruled that the right, if any, of the plaintiffs to recover the properties was long barred by the statute of limitations, citing Sections 40 and 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further clarified that the filing of Civil Case No. 7990 before Rafaela's death or any alleged extrajudicial demands did not interrupt the prescriptive period for filing the instant action, citing Osorio v. Jongco and Peralta v. Alipio. On the issue of acknowledgment of a natural child: The Court examined paragraphs 5 and 6 of Gaudencio Tabotabo's will. Paragraph 5 mentioned Vicente as a son with Anastacia Aligato, and paragraph 6 provided for the disinheritance of Vicente and Juana. The Court affirmed the probate court's finding in 1909 that Vicente had not been solemnly acknowledged, either expressly or impliedly, and that the testator's firm will was not to recognize Vicente as his natural son. The Court noted that paragraph 6 was intimately connected with paragraph 5, and read together, they indicated the testator's intent to forestall any attempt at recognition. Furthermore, under the Old Civil Code, an adult natural child could not be acknowledged without his consent, and there was no showing that Vicente consented to such acknowledgment; in fact, he had opposed the probate of the will. On the issue of cause of action: Based on the findings that Vicente Tabotabo was not acknowledged by Gaudencio Tabotabo and thus had no successional rights, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs-appellants, as legitimate children of Vicente, also had no right to inherit from Gaudencio. Consequently, they had no cause of action against the defendants-appellees for the recovery of the properties.
Main Doctrine
A prior final judgment on the issue of acknowledgment of a natural child in a probate proceeding bars a subsequent claim for inheritance based on the same acknowledgment due to res judicata. Furthermore, claims for recovery of property are subject to prescription periods, which are not interrupted by extrajudicial demands or prior unsuccessful civil actions.