Tubera-Balintec v. Heirs of Tubera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the probate of a holographic will executed by Cesar L. Tubera, who died on August 29, 2004. The petitioner, Flora L. Tubera-Balintec, one of Cesar's siblings, presented a holographic will dated November 23, 2003, wherein Cesar purportedly bequeathed his properties equally to his siblings. The respondents, the heirs of Cesar L. Tubera, opposed the probate, asserting that Florenda Ballesteros was Cesar's wife and Mark Cesar Tubera was their legitimate son. The petitioner contested the validity of the marriage and the filiation of Mark Cesar, alleging that the marriage contract and birth certificate were fictitious and that the signature on the birth certificate differed from Cesar's known signature. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after trial, dismissed the petition, declared Mark Cesar Tubera as the sole heir, and ordered the petitioner and her siblings to turn over the decedent's properties. The RTC found the marriage between Cesar Tubera and Florenda Ballesteros void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license and the failure to meet the cohabitation requirements under Article 34 of the Family Code. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, agreeing that the marriage was void and that Mark Cesar, though the decedent's child, could not be considered a legitimate child due to the void marriage. The CA further found that Mark Cesar was preterited in the holographic will, leading to the annulment of the will and resort to intestacy. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition raises two issues: whether the CA erred in dismissing the case and whether the CA erred in declaring Mark Cesar Tubera as the illegitimate (or non-marital) child of the deceased Cesar L. Tubera. The petitioner's sole argument centers on the alleged invalidity of Cesar Tubera's signature on Mark Cesar's Certificate of Live Birth, claiming it is not his signature and differs from specimens in other documents. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the authenticity of the signature and the validity of the recognition of Mark Cesar are factual issues that cannot be revisited in a Rule 45 petition, especially given the uniform findings of the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for probate. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Mark Cesar Tubera as the illegitimate (or non-marital) child of the deceased Cesar L. Tubera.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision dated April 21, 2017 and Resolution dated October 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102981 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition: The Court held that the authenticity of the decedent Cesar Tubera's signature on the Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Cesar is a factual issue. Since both the RTC and the CA uniformly found the signature to be genuine, this Court, in a Rule 45 petition, cannot revisit such factual determination. The petitioner's argument that the signature is not that of the decedent, based on a comparison with other documents, was a factual claim that was already passed upon by the lower courts. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition for probate, which was affirmed by the CA, stands. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Mark Cesar Tubera as the illegitimate (or non-marital) child of the deceased Cesar L. Tubera: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Mark Cesar is indeed the child of the decedent Cesar Tubera. This filiation was established by the Certificate of Live Birth, where the decedent was declared as the father, acted as the informant, signed as such, and executed an affidavit for delayed registration of birth. The Court reiterated that Article 172 of the Family Code allows filiation to be established by a record of birth appearing in the civil register or by an admission of filiation in a public or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent. The Certificate of Live Birth, with the decedent's declarations and signatures, sufficiently established Mark Cesar's filiation as a non-marital child. Consequently, as the sole compulsory heir, Mark Cesar excludes collateral relatives like the petitioner. The Court also noted that the issues of preterition and the nullity of the marriage between Cesar Tubera and Florenda Ballesteros were not raised in the petition, thus the CA's rulings on these matters remained undisturbed.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that a holographic will, which preterited a compulsory heir, is void, leading to intestacy. The validity of the decedent's signature on a Certificate of Live Birth establishing filiation is a factual issue not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition when affirmed by lower courts.