Go Kim Huy v. Go Kim Huy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner William Go Kim Huy claims hereditary rights over the estate of the deceased Bonifacio Go Kim. Petitioner filed a complaint to declare properties and businesses held by respondents as part of Bonifacio Go Kim's estate and to compel an accounting. Petitioner arrived in the Philippines at age six using the name Gaw Piak, stayed with Bonifacio Go Kim, and was allegedly supported by the decedent. Petitioner later changed his name and became a naturalized Filipino citizen. Respondent Santiago Go Kim Huy claims to be the only son of Bonifacio Go Kim and asserts that petitioner is not related to the decedent but was treated as a family member due to his father's friendship with Bonifacio Go Kim. Procedural History: The case has a protracted history involving multiple judges and appeals. A lis pendens annotation was initially cancelled by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) but later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) issued a resolution cancelling its earlier certification that Bonifacio Go Kim registered petitioner as his child, declaring petitioner not a son of Bonifacio Go Kim and Chua Yiak. Petitioner appealed this resolution, and the Ministry of Justice (now Department of Justice) opined that while BID could correct its records, its findings would not be binding on the court. The Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's special civil action for certiorari assailing this opinion, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The records were lost in a fire, and a petition for reconstitution was filed. The RTC initially denied a motion to dismiss, finding cause of action, but later dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and awarded moral damages to respondents. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The Supreme Court previously upheld the BID's authority to correct its records. The Petition: Petitioner seeks the nullification of the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in not finding him to be the legitimate son of Bonifacio Go Kim, in giving weight to cancelled certifications, and in not holding that Bonifacio Go Kim owned properties that should be partitioned among his heirs, including petitioner. Petitioner also sought damages.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner sufficiently proved his filiation as the legitimate son of the deceased Bonifacio Go Kim; and whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, and in giving weight to cancelled certifications from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. Whether petitioner is entitled to a share in the properties allegedly owned by Bonifacio Go Kim. Whether petitioner is entitled to damages.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, with the modification that the award of moral damages is deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of filiation and insufficiency of evidence: The burden of proof rests upon the petitioner to establish his affirmative allegation that Bonifacio Go Kim is his father. Under Philippine law, filiation is established by (1) the record of birth in the civil register or a final judgment; (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent; or (3) open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioner failed to produce his official record of birth, a judicial decree, or an instrument handwritten by the decedent. The Court noted that the applicable law at the time of filing was the Civil Code, not the Family Code. The documents petitioner sought to rely upon, such as Exhibit "B" (application for alien registration) and Exhibit "EEE" (Alien Certificate of Registration), were previously cancelled by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) through Exhibit "I," a BID resolution ordering the correction of records. This Court had previously upheld the BID's authority to correct its own records in G.R. No. 78887, and to reconsider these cancelled documents would mean disturbing a final and executory judgment. Petitioner failed to present convincing evidence, other than the cancelled certifications, to prove his relation to the decedent. The Court reiterated that judgments which have attained finality cannot be subject to review, otherwise, there would be no end to litigation. The petitioner's claim of filiation was solely dependent on the 1974 BID certification, which was later cancelled, and he failed to show any substantial issue that would warrant disturbing the prior pronouncements of this Court. On the issue of properties under the Torrens System: The Court reiterated that where a property is duly registered under the Torrens System, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given weight. In the absence of strong and compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered the owner of the property in controversy until their title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action. Petitioner failed to present such compelling evidence to overcome the registered titles. On the issue of moral damages: The Court deleted the award of P200,000.00 in moral damages. It reasoned that the delay and protracted litigation were not solely imputable to the petitioner. Furthermore, there was no clear testimony on the anguish or anxiety suffered by the respondents, and the grant of moral damages requires proof of mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof rests upon the petitioner to establish his affirmative allegation of filiation. In the absence of a record of birth, an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument, or continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child, filiation cannot be proven by mere certifications that were subsequently cancelled and affirmed as cancelled by the Supreme Court.