Arbolario v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Anselmo Baloyo and Macaria Lirazan had five children. Their eldest daughter, Agueda, was survived by two children, Antonio and Irene Colinco. Antonio was survived by his three daughters, Ruth, Orpha, and Goldelina Colinco. The second child, Catalina Baloyo, married Juan Arbolario and had one daughter, Purificacion Arbolario. Juan Arbolario also had children, Voltaire, Lucena, Fe, Exaltacion, and Carlos Arbolario (collectively, the Arbolarios), with Francisca Malvas. The Arbolarios were born before 1951. Eduardo Baloyo sold his interest in Lot 323 to Agueda Baloyo Colinco in 1946. In 1951, Agueda, Catalina, Gaudencia, Eduardo, and Julian Baloyo executed a declaration of heirship. Gaudencia Baloyo conveyed her interest to Irene Colinco and Purificacion Arbolario. Julian Baloyo died without issue. Purificacion Arbolario possessed a portion of Lot 323 until her death around 1984 or 1985. Procedural History: In 1987, Irene, Ruth, Orpha, and Goldelina Colinco executed a Declaration of Heirship and Partition Agreement, adjudicating Lot 323 among themselves, leading to the cancellation of OCT No. 16361 and the issuance of TCT No. T-140018 in their names. Subsequently, the Colincos filed Civil Case No. 367 against Spouses Rosalita Rodriguez and Carlito Salhay to recover possession of a portion of Lot 323 occupied by the Salhays since 1970. The Salhays claimed to be lessees of Purificacion Arbolario from 1971 to 1978 and alleged purchasing the disputed portion from her in September 1978. In 1988, the Arbolarios, joined by the Salhays, filed Civil Case No. 385 seeking the cancellation of the Colincos' title, asserting they were excluded from the partition agreement despite being Purificacion's alleged half-siblings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Arbolarios, declaring the Declaration of Heirship and Partition Agreement void regarding Purificacion's share and ordering a new title issued. The RTC also dismissed the Colincos' complaint in Civil Case No. 367. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the complaint and counter-claim in Civil Case No. 385 and ordering the Salhays to vacate the premises in Civil Case No. 367. The Petition: Petitioners, the Arbolarios and the Salhays, filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's Decision and Resolution. They raise three main issues: (1) the CA erred in considering the Arbolarios illegitimate and thus not entitled to inherit from their half-sister, Purificacion Arbolario; (2) the CA erred in disregarding the Salhays' purchase of the property; and (3) the CA erred in ruling that the RTC had no right to distribute the property. Petitioners argue that the CA's finding of illegitimacy is based on an unproven allegation and that Catalina Baloyo died in 1903, prior to the Arbolarios' birth. They also contend that the Salhays presented sufficient evidence of their purchase of the disputed lot.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and serious error in considering the Arbolarios illegitimate children and not entitled to inherit from their half-sister Purificacion Arbolario. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and serious error in considering the purchase of the property by Rosela Rodriguez and subsequent acquisition by Petitioners Rosalita Rodriguez and Carlito Salhay improper. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and serious error in deciding that the RTC had no right to distribute the said property.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED, and the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegitimacy of Petitioners: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Arbolarios were illegitimate children. The Court reiterated the principle that once a valid marriage is established, it is presumed to continue until legally terminated. Since there was no proof that Juan Arbolario's marriage to Catalina Baloyo was annulled or terminated before he cohabited with Francisca Malvas, their union resulting in the birth of the Arbolarios was considered extra-marital. The burden of proof to establish legitimacy or the validity of a subsequent marriage rests on those claiming it, which the Arbolarios failed to discharge. The Court emphasized that paternity or filiation, or the lack thereof, must be judicially established, and children born within wedlock are legitimate, but the Arbolarios failed to prove the fact or presumption of marriage between Juan Arbolario and Francisca Malvas. Therefore, they could not invoke a presumption of legitimacy and were barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting intestate from the legitimate relatives of Juan Arbolario, such as Purificacion. On the evidence of purchase by the Salhays: The Court found no reason to overturn the CA's factual finding that there was no clear and reliable evidence to support the Salhays' claim of purchasing the disputed portion of the lot. While the Salhays alleged they purchased the property from Purificacion Arbolario, Rosalita Rodriguez Salhay testified that her mother, Rosela Rodriguez, was the one who purchased the land, but no evidence of such sale was presented. Furthermore, Rosalita declared that she had never paid land taxes for the land, weakening their claim of lawful acquisition and possession. The CA correctly noted the lack of a written contract and supporting evidence for the alleged sale. On the partition of the property: The Court agreed with the CA that the RTC had no right to partition the disputed lot in an ordinary civil action under the circumstances presented. The purpose of partition is to end co-ownership, and questions regarding the determination of heirs, proof of filiation, and the determination of an estate's claims should be brought before the proper probate court or in special proceedings. The petitioners failed to establish their right to partition as they did not prove their status as legitimate heirs of Purificacion. The CA correctly pointed out that the parties' claims were for recovery of possession and annulment of a deed of partition, not for a formal partition proceeding.
Main Doctrine
Once a valid marriage is established, it is deemed to continue until proof that it has been legally ended is presented. The mere cohabitation of a spouse with another woman will not give rise to a presumption of legitimacy in favor of children born of the second union unless there is convincing proof that the first marriage had been lawfully terminated and the second lawfully entered into. Illegitimate children are barred from inheriting intestate from the legitimate relatives of their parents.