Portea v. Pabellon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the intestate estate of Pablo C. Luce. The central issue is the inheritance of his properties following his death. The trial court determined that Pablo C. Luce's legitimate daughter, Cristeta Luce, survived him by approximately half an hour and thus inherited his estate. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner-appellant, Pio Portea, appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon to the Supreme Court. The appeal was predicated on the assertion that the case involved only questions of law. The record on appeal was approved by the trial court, with a prayer for certification to the Supreme Court due to the legal nature of the issues. 3. The Petition: The appellant seeks review of the trial court's decision, arguing that in the absence of definitive proof regarding the exact times of death of Pablo Luce and his daughter Cristeta Luce, the presumption of survivorship under section 69, sub-section ii (5), of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court should apply. This rule presumes survival for individuals between 15 and 60 years of age over those younger or older. The appellant also contends that even if Cristeta Luce survived her father, her estate should devolve to him as Pablo Luce's nephew, citing provisions of the Civil Code regarding inheritance by representation in collateral lines.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant can raise questions of fact on appeal when the record on appeal states that only questions of law are involved. Whether the presumption of survivorship under Section 69(ii)(5) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court applies in determining the inheritance of Pablo C. Luce's properties. Whether the oppositors-appellees, as maternal grandparents of Cristeta Luce, can inherit from her.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed. The properties of Pablo C. Luce were inherited by his legitimate daughter, Cristeta Luce, who survived him for approximately half an hour.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of raising questions of fact: The Court reiterated the principle established in Millar vs. Nadres that an appellant who states in the record on appeal that only questions of law are involved is estopped from raising questions of fact on appeal. Although the writer of the opinion expressed a personal conviction that such cases should be certified to the Court of Appeals if factual issues are indeed raised, the majority stand dictates that the appellant cannot now controvert the factual findings of the trial court. This procedural bar prevents the appellant from arguing factual contentions regarding the time of death. On the applicability of the presumption of survivorship: The appellant invoked Section 69, sub-section (ii)(5), of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, which presumes that in a common calamity, the person between 15 and 60 years of age survives the person under 15 or over 60. However, this presumption is disputable and is rendered inapplicable by the trial court's factual finding that Pablo Luce died half an hour before Cristeta Luce. The appellant is estopped from controverting this finding of fact, and the evidence on record supports it. Therefore, the cited rule on survivorship, which is meant for situations where the order of death is unknown, cannot be applied here. On the inheritance of the oppositors-appellees: The appellant contended that even if Cristeta Luce survived her father, her estate should go to him (Pablo Luce's nephew) based on the right of representation under Article 925 of the Civil Code. However, the Court clarified that the oppositors-appellees, as maternal grandparents of Cristeta Luce, are claiming inheritance in their own right as ascendants, not by right of representation. The trial court correctly withheld adjudication of Cristeta Luce's estate as it was not part of the intestate proceedings. Moreover, Article 935 and 937 of the Civil Code provide that ascendants inherit from their descendants in the absence of the latter's children or other ascendants. Since Cristeta Luce did not leave any legitimate children or ascendants other than her grandparents, the oppositors-appellees are entitled to inherit from her in their own right.
Main Doctrine
The rule on disputable presumption of survivorship under Section 69(ii)(5) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court does not apply when the trial court has made a factual finding on the order of death, which finding the appellant is estopped to controvert. Furthermore, oppositors claiming inheritance from their grandchild as ascendants, not by right of representation, are entitled to inherit if the deceased left no children or ascendants.