persons and family relations cases

7/17/2019 Persons and Family Relations cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/persons-and-family-relations-cases-568daea44c1de 1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-43955-56 July 30, 1979

RENATO LAZATN !l"!# RENATO STA. CLARA, petitioner,

vs.

$ONORA%LE JU&GE JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., NORA L. &E LEON, %ERNAR&O &E LEON,

ARLENE &E LEON !'( RMA L. )ELOSO, respondents.

Ernesto T. Zshornack, Jr. for petitioner.

Jose W. Diokno Law Office private respondents the Leons.

Arturo E. Balastro for privates respondent !eloso.

TEE$AN*EE, J.:1äwphï1.ñët

The ourt dis!isses the petition "hich see#s to overrule respondent $ud%e&s orders declarin% that

petitioner has failed to establish b' co!petent evidence his alle%ed status as an adopted child of the

deceased (a)atin spouses and pra's for $ud%!ent of this ourt *declarin% as established the fact of

+his adoption as a son of the deceased spouses entitlin% hi! to succeed in their estates as such.*

Respondent $ud%e correctl' ruled that he could not allo" petitioner +"ho had filed a !otion tointervene in the proceedin%s to probate the "ill of the late Mar%arita de -sis Vda. de (a)atin and to

settle her estate as her adopted son, after havin% earlier filed a !otion to intervene in the intestate

proceedin%s of her predeceased husband as his ad!itted ille%iti!ate /not natural0 son, over the

opposition of private respondents, to introduce evidence that he had *en$o'ed ... the status of an

adopted child of the "ithout his first producin% co!petent and docu!entar' that there had been

$udicial proceedin%s for his b' the said spouses "hich resulted in the final $ud%!ent of a co!petent

court decreein% his adoption.

On 1anuar' 23, 2456, Dr. Mariano M. (a)atin dia!ond intestate in Pasa' it', survived b' his "ife,

Mar%arita de -sis, and his adopted t"in dau%hters, respondent Nora (. de (eon, !arried to

respondent 7ernardo de (eon, and respondent Ir!a (a)atin, !arried to Francisco Veloso.

One !onth after Mariano&s death, his "ido", Mar%arita de -sis, co!!enced an intestate proceedin%

before the ourt of First Instance of Pasa', doc#eted as Sp. Proc. No. 8389P. Mariano, Oscar,

Vir%ilio and :vonne, clai!in% to be ad!itted ille%iti!ate +not natural children of Dr. (a)atin "ith one

;elen Muno), intervened. Subse<uentl', one (il' (a)atin also intervened, clai!in% to be another

ad!itted ille%iti!ate +not natural child.



T"o !onths after or on -pril 22, 2456, the "ido", Mar%arita de -sis, also died, leavin% a =

holo%raphic "ill e>ecuted on Ma' 84, 245?, providin%, a!on% others, for a le%ac' of cash, $e"elr',

and stoc#s to respondent -rlene de (eon, a %randdau%hter@ a le%ac' of support to Rodolfo Aallardo,

a son of her late sister@ and a le%ac' of education to Ra!on Sta. lara, son of petitioner Renato

(a)atin alias Renato Sta. lara.

Durin% her lifeti!e, Mar%arita de -sis #ept a safet' deposit bo> at the People&s 7an# and Trust

o!pan', Ro>as 7oulevard branch, "hich either she or respondent Nora (. de (eon could open.

Five da's after Mar%arita&s death, respondent Nora (. de (eon, acco!panied b' her husband,

respondent 7ernardo de (eon, opened the safet' deposit bo> and re!oved its contentsB +a shares

of stoc#@ +b her adoption papers and those of her sister, respondent Ir!a (. Veloso@ and +c $e"elr'

belon%in% to her and to her !other. Respondent Nora (. de (eon clai!s that she opened the safet'

deposit bo> in %ood faith, believin% that it "as held $ointl' b' her and her deceased !other. ;er sole

reason for openin% the bo> "as to %et her stoc# certificates and other s!all ite!s deposited therein.

Chen she "as to close the deposit bo>, the ban# personnel infor!ed her that she needed an

authorit' fro! the court to do so, in vie" of her !other&s death and so, she re!oved ever'thin% fro!

the bo>.

On 1une 3, 2456, private respondents filed a petition to probate the "ill of the late Mar%arita de -sis,

before doc#eted as Sp. Proc. No. 8362P of respondent ourt, Da's after havin% learned that

respondent Nora (. de (eon had opened this safet' deposit bo>, petitioner&s son, Ra!on Sta. lara,

filed a !otion in the probate court, clai!in% that the deceased had e>ecuted a "ill subse<uent to

that sub!itted for probate and de!andin% its production. ;e li#e"ise pra'ed for the openin% of the

safet' deposit bo>. Respondent Nora (. de (eon ad!itted that she opened the bo> but there "as no

"ill or an' docu!ent rese!blin% a "ill therein.

pon the order of the probate court, presided over b' 1ud%e -rsenio 7. -lcantara, the safet' deposit

bo> "as opened on Nove!ber 9, 2456, at "hich ti!e it "as found to be e!pt', because priorthereto respondent Nora (. de (eon had alread' re!oved its contents.

On Nove!ber 88, 2456, or seven !onths after, the death of Mar%arita de -sis, petitioner intervened

for the first ti!e in the proceedin%s to settle the estate of the late Dr. Mariano M. (a)atin +Sp. Proc.

No. 8389 P, as an ad!itted ille%iti!ate +not natural child.

nder the sa!e date of Nove!ber 88, 2456, petitioner&s son, Ra!on, filed a petition in the estate

proceedin%s of Mar%arita de -sis to e>a!ine private respondents on the contents of the safet'

deposit bo>, Chereupon, on 1anuar' 32, 245E, the probate court ordered respondent Nora (. de

(eon to deliver the properties ta#en fro! the safet' deposit bo> to the ler# of ourt. Subse<uentl',

ho"ever, the t"o cases +Sp. Proc. No. 8389P, Mariano (a)atin, and 8362P, Mar%arita de -sis"ere transferred to the sala of respondent 1ud%e 1ose . a!pos, 1r.

On Ma' 84, 245E, 1ud%e a!pos issued an order re<uirin% counsel for respondents Nora (. de

(eon and 7ernardo de (eon to produce all those papers and ite!s re!oved fro! the safet' deposit

bo> and to deliver the sa!e to the custod' of the court "ithin one "ee#. Cithin the period ordered,

respondent Nora (. de (eon deposited "ith the ler# of ourt, not the ite!s the!selves, but t"o

#e's to a ne" safet' deposit bo> "hich could onl' be opened upon order of the court.



On -u%ust 8?, 245E, petitioner Renato to (a)atin alias Renato Sta. lara filed a !otion to intervene

in the estate of Mar%arita de -sis, Sp. Proc. No. 8362P, as an adopted child, on the basis of an

affidavit e>ecuted b' 7en$a!in (a)atin, brother of the deceased Dr. Mariano M. (a)atin, the

petitioner "as an *ille%iti!ate son* of Dr. (a)atin and "as later adopted b' hi!. This affidavit "as

later !odified on -u%ust 24, 245E to state that petitioner "as adopted b' both Mariano M. (a)atin

and his "ife Mar%arita de -sis.

On Septe!ber 84, 245E, 1ud%e a!pos found respondent& Nora (. de (eon %uilt' of conte!pt of

court for not co!pl'in% "ith the orders of 1anuar' 32, 245E and Ma' 84, 245E, re<uirin% her to

produce and deliver to the court an the papers and ite!s re!oved fro! the safet' deposit bo>. ;er

for!er counsel "as also found %uilt' of conte!pt, sentenced to pa' a fine of P??.?? and suspended

fro! appearin% in the t"o cases +Sp. Proc. No. 8389P, Mariano M. (a)atin, and Sp. Proc. No. 8362

P, Mar%arita de -sis, on her testi!on' that she, Nora (. de (eon, acted upon his advice.

Respondent court heard petitioner&s !otion to intervene as an adopted son in the estate of Mar%arita

de -sis, Sp. Proc. No. 8362P, at "hich hearin%s petitioner presented no decree of adoption in his,

favor. Instead, petitioner atte!pted to prove, over private respondents& ob$ections, that he hadreco%ni)ed the deceased spouses as his parents@ he had been supported b' the! until their death@

for!erl' he "as #no"n as *Renato (a)atin* but "as co!pelled to chan%e his surna!e to *Sta.

lara* "hen the deceased spouses refused to %ive consent to his !arria%e to his present "ife@ that

at first, he and his "ife sta'ed at the residence of n%racio de -sis, father of Mar%arita, but a fe"

!onths later, the' transferred to the Merc' ;ospital at Taft -venue, Manila, o"ned b' the deceased

spouses, "here the' continuousl' resided up to the present. Photo%raphs "ere also intended to be

presented b' petitioner, e.%., photo%raph of Ir!a Veloso "here she addressed herself as sister of

petitioner@ photo%raph of deceased Mar%arita de -sis and petitioner "hen he "as a bo'@ docu!ent

sho"in% that petitioners real na!e is *Renato (a)atin.* 1

Respondent court first reserved its rulin% on private respondents& ob$ections to the ad!ission ofpetitioner&s evidence, but on Nove!ber 26, 245E, "hen petitioner could not present evidence on the

issue of his alle%ed le%al adoption, respondent court discontinued the hearin% and %ave the parties

ti!e to file !e!oranda on the <uestion of the ad!issibilit' of the evidence sou%ht to be introduced

b' petitioner.

On March 6, 2459, respondent court barred the introduction of petitioner&s evidence becauseB t"#.$%h&w'$

-ll the evidence sub!itted b' Renato and Ra!on Sta. lara throu%h their

counsel do not prove or have no tendenc( to prove the e)istence of an( *udicial

proceedin+ where the adoption of the parties aove naed were taken up ( an(

court. Neither do the evidence tend to establish the presence of an' record of aproceedin% in court "here the adoption of the above na!ed persons "as held. The

evidence, however, tends to prove a status of a reco+ni-ed natural child which,

however, is not the le+al asis for which enato and aon seek to intervene in this

proceedin+s. In vie" thereof, and ta#in% into consideration the evidence heretofore

presented b' the petitioners, an' further introduction of si!ilar evidence,

docu!entar' or oral, "ould not prove or tend to prove the fact of their adoption but

rather of a reco%ni)ed natural child.



Petitioner then filed on March 29, 2459, in both cases, a !otion to declare as established the fact of

adoption in vie" of respondent Nora (. de (eon&s refusal to co!pl' "ith the orders of respondent

court to deposit the ite!s she had re!oved fro! the safet' deposit bo> of Mar%arita de -sis. -s

authorit' therefor, petitioner invo#es the sanction of Rule 84, Section 3 of the Rules of ourt, since

accordin% to hi!, the order of the court for the production of the ite!s in the safet' deposit bo> can

be considered as an order for production and inspection of docu!ents under Rule 85.

Private respondents opposed the !otion, and on March 89, 2459, respondent court denied

petitioner&s !otion. On -pril 89, 2459, respondent Nora (. de (eon deposited "ith respondent court

the ite!s she had re!oved fro! the safet' deposit bo>. -n inventor' "as conducted b' respondent

court, "ith notice to the parties, and the ite!s surrendered consisted onl' of pieces of $e"elr' and

stoc# certificates.

On 1une 3,2459, respondent court, rulin% on petitioners !otion for definite resolution on his previous

n declare as established the fact of adoption, issued the f orderB t"#.$%h&w'$

-s far as the case of Renato Sta. lara is his Petition to establish his status as anadopted child, The ourt has ruled that he has failed to establish such status. The

an' !otion for reconsideration unless based on so!e docu!entar' proof.

;ence, the petition at bar.

Ce find the rulin% of the respondent court to be in confor!it' "ith la" and $urisprudence.

2. -doption is a $uridical act, a proceedin% in re! + "hich creates bet"een t"o persons a relationship

si!ilar to that "hich results fro! le%iti!ate paternit' and filiation. 3 Onl' an adoption !ade throu%h the

court, or in pursuance "ith the procedure laid do"n under Rule 44 of the Rules of ourt is valid in this

$urisdiction. 4 It is not of natural la" at all, but is "holl' and entirel' artificial. 5 To establish the relation, the

statutor' re<uire!ents !ust be strictl' carried out, other"ise, the adoption is an absolute nullit'. 6 The fact

of adoption is never presu!ed, but !ust be affir!ativel' proved b' the person clai!in% its e>istence. The

destruction b' fire of a public buildin% in "hich the adoption papers "ould have been filed if e>istent does

not %ive rise to a presu!ption of adoption nor is the destruction of the records of an adoption proceedin%

to be presu!ed. On the contrar', the absence of a record of adoption has been said to evolve a

presu!ption of its none>istence.7 Chere, under the provisions of the statute, an adoption is effected b' a

court order, the records of such court constitute the evidence b' "hich such adoption !a' be

established.

8. Petitioner&s flo" of evidence in the case belo" does not lead us to an' proof of $udicial adoption.

Ce can not pluc# fro! his chain of evidence an' lin# to the real e>istence of a court decree of

adoption in his favor. Petitioner&s proofs do not sho" or tend to sho" that at one ti!e or another aspecific court of co!petent $urisdiction rendered in an adoption proceedin% initiated b' the late

spouses an order approvin% his adoption as a child of the latter. No $udicial records of such adoption

or copies thereof are presented or atte!pted to be presented. Petitioner !erel' proceeds fro! a

nebulous assu!ption that he "as $udiciall' adopted bet"een the 'ears 248G and 2438. 7' "hat

particular court "as the adoption decreed or b' "ho! "as the petition heard, petitioner does not

even !anifest, !uch less sho". There are no "itnesses cited to that adoption proceedin% or to the

adoption decree. -pparentl' on the assu!ption that the adoption "as co!!enced in Manila,



petitioner&s counsel secured a certification fro! the ourt of first Instance of Manila "hich, ho"ever,

ne%ativel' reported *+That a!on% the salva%ed records no" available in this Office, there has not

been found, after a dili%ent search, an' record re%ardin% the adoption of Mr. Renato (a)atin alias

Renato Sta. lara alle%edl' filed so!eti!e in the 'ears 248G to 2432 b' the spouses Dr. Mariano M.

(a)atin and Mar%arita de -sis (a)atin.* The certification of the (ocal ivil Re%istrar of Manila *+That

our pre"ar records relative to decisions of the ourt of First Instance "ere either destro'ed orburned durin% the (iberation of the it' of Manila,* does not furnish an' le%al basis for a

presu!ption of adoption in favor of petitioner. This is because there "as no proof that petitioner "as

reall' adopted in Manila or that an adoption petition "as filed in the ourt of first Instance of Manila

b' the deceased spouses, "here, after hearin%, a $ud%!ent of approval "as rendered b' said court.

Moreover, if there "as reall' such adoption, petitioner could have convenientl' secured a cop' of the

ne"paper publication of the adoption as re<uired under Section 6, Rule 44 of the Rules of ourt

+for!erl' Section 6, Rule 2?? or a certification of the publishin% house to that effect. Petitioner&s

failure on this point is anotherer stron% indication of the none>istence of the one "ho %ave the

"ritten consent of the none>istence of the adoption paper. Ce also observed to the adoption

+Section 3, Rule 44, Rules of ourt, "hether the parents or orphana%e, does not appear on this

point is not so difficult and such proof !ust be presented if onl' to prove the real e>istence of theadoption. -nd of course, if the "ar, the clear ri%ht and dut' of petitioner "as to dul' reconstitute the

records as provided b' la".

3. The absence of proof of such order of adoption b' the court, as provided b' the statute, cannot be

substituted b' parol evidence that a child has lived "ith a person, not his parent, and has been

treated as a child to establish such adoption. 9 ven evidence of declaration of the deceased, !ade in

his lifeti!e, that he intended to adopt a child as his heir, and that he had adopted hi!, and of the fact that

the child resided "ith the deceased, as a !e!ber of his fa!il', fro! infanc' until he attained his !a$orit',

is not sufficient to establish the fact of adoption. 10 Nor does the fact that the deceased spouses fed,

clothed, educated, reco%ni)ed and referred to one li#e petitioner as an adopted child, reco%ni)ed and

referred to one li#e petitioner as an adopted child, necessaril' establish adoption of the child. 11 Cithal, the

atte!pts of petitioner to prove his adoption b' acts and declarations of the deceased do not dischar%e the

!andator' presentation of the $udicial decree of adoption. The thrust of petitioner&s evidence is rather to

establish his status as an ad!itted ille%iti!ate child, not an adopted child "hich status of an ad!itted

ille%iti!ate child "as H the ver' basis of his petitioner for intervention in the estate proceedin%s of the

late Dr. (a)atin, as above stated. +/upra, at pa%e 3 hereof

Ce do not discount thou%h that declarations in re%ard to pedi%ree, althou%h hearsa', are ad!itted

on the principle that the' are natural e>pressions of persons "ho !ust #no" the truth. 1+ Pedi%ree

testi!on' is ad!itted because it is the best that the nature of the case ad!its and because %reater evil

!i%ht arise fro! the re$ection of such proof than fro! its ad!ission. 13 7ut, in provin% an adoption, there is

a better proof available and it should be produced. The "hereabouts of the child&s fa!il' and circulation of

the $urisdiction in "hich the' resided and investi%ation in those courts "here adoption are usuall' %ranted"ould surel' produce an adoption order, if indeed there "as an order. 14 7esides, since the point in favor

of receivin% hearsa' evidence upon !atters of fa!il' histor' or pedi%ree is its reliabilit', it has been set

forth as a condition upon "hich such evidence is received that it e!anate fro! a source "ithin the fa!il'.

Pursuant to this vie", before a declaration of a deceased person can be ad!itted to prove pedi%ree, or

ancestr', the relationship of the declarant, b' either of blood or affinit' to the fa!il' in <uestion, or a

branch thereof, !ust ordinaril' be established b' co!petent evidence. 15 Section 33 of Rule 23? statesB

*The act or declaration of a person deceased, or outside of the Philippines, or unable to testif', in respect



to the pedi%ree of another person related to hi! b' birth or !arria%e, !a' be received in evidence "here

it occurred before the controvers', and the relationship bet"een the t"o persons is sho"n b' evidence

other than such actor declaration ...*

6. Secondar' evidence is nonetheless ad!issible "here the records of adoption proceedin%s "ere

actuall' lost or destro'ed. 7ut, prior to the introduction of such secondar' evidence, the proponent

!ust establish the for!er e>istence of the instru!ent. The correct order of proof is as follo"sB

>istence@ e>ecution@ loss@ contents@ althou%h this order !a' be chan%ed if necessar' in the

discretion of the court. 16 The sufficienc' of the proof offered as a predicate for the ad!ission of an

alle%ed lost deed lies "ithin the $udicial discretion of the trial court under all the circu!stances of the

particular case. 17 -s earlier pointed out, petitioner failed to establish the for!er e>istence of the adoption

paper and its subse<uent loss or destruction. Secondar' proof !a' onl' be introduced if it has first beer.

established that such adoption paper reall' e>isted and "as lost. This is indispensable. 1 Petitioner&s

supposed adoption "as onl' testified to b' hi! and is alle%edl' to be testified to a brother of the

deceased Mariano M. (a)atin or others "ho have "itnessed that the deceased spouses treated petitioner

as their child. If adoption "as reall' !ade, the records thereof should have e>isted and the sa!e

presented at the hearin% or subse<uent thereto or a reasonable e>planation of loss or destruction thereof,

if that be the case, adduced. 19

-ssu!in% the !ere fact that the deceased spouses treated petitioner as their child does not $ustif'

the conclusion that petitioner had been in fact $udiciall' adopted b' the spouses nor does it

constitute ad!issible proof of adoption.

Ce cannot entertain the plea of petitioner that the sanction of Rule 84 should be applied to consider

as established the fact of his adoption due to the refusal of respondent Nora (. de (eon to produce

the docu!ent of adoption, because first, the fact or real e>istence of petitioner&s adoption had not

been established@ second, there is no proof that such docu!ent of adoption is in the possession of

respondent Nora (. de (eon@ third, the otu proprio order of the court for Nora de (eon to produce

the ite!s retrieved fro! the safet' deposit bo> cannot be treated as a !ode of discover' ofproduction and inspection of docu!ents under Rule 85@ and fourth, the ite!s deposited in the safet'

deposit bo> have alread' been surrendered b' respondent Nora (. de (eon on -pril 89@ 2459 and no

docu!ent of adoption in favor of petitioner "as listed as found in the safet' deposit bo>.

E. -s a necessar' conse<uence, petitioner Renato (a)atin alias Renato Sta. lara cannot properl'

intervene in the settle!ent of the estate of Mar%arita de -sis, Sp. Proc. No. 8362P as an adopted

child because of lac# of proof thereof. For one to intervene in an estate proceedin%, it is a re<uisite

that he has an interest in the estate, either as one "ho "ould be benefited as an heir or one "ho has

a clai! a%ainst the estate li#e a creditor. +0 - child b' adoption cannot inherit fro! the parent creditor. b'

adoption unless the act of adoption has been done in strict accord "ith the statue. ntil this is done, no

ri%hts are ac<uired b' the child and neither the supposed adoptin% parent or adopted child could bebound thereb'. +1 The burden of proof in establishin% adoption is upon the person clai!in% such

relationship. ;e !ust prove co!pliance "ith the statutes relatin% to adoption in the $urisdiction "here the

adoption occurred.++ A fortiori if no hereditar' interest in the estate can be %ained b' a clai!ant "ho failed

to sub!it proof thereof, "hether the "ill is probated or not, intervention should be denied as it "ould

!erel' result in unnecessar' co!plication. +3 To succeed, a child !ust be li%iti!ate, le%iti!ated, adopted,

ac#no"led%ed ille%iti!ate natural child or natural child b' le%al fiction or reco%ni)ed spurious child. +4



In the face of the verified pleadin%s of record +constitutin% $udicial ad!issions "hich sho" that

petitioner sou%ht to intervene on Nove!ber 88, 2456 in the estate proceedin%s of his alle%ed

adoptive father Dr. Mariano M. (a)atin +Sp. Proc. No. 8389P as an ad!itted ille%iti!ate +not

natural child, +5 "hile his intervention on -u%ust 8?, 245E in the estate of Mar%arita de -sis, "ido" of the

deceased Dr. (a)atin +Sp. Proc. No. 8362P "as as her adopted child on the basis of the affidavit of a

brother of the deceased Dr. (a)atin, 7en$a!in (a)atin, e>ecuted -u%ust 24, 245E +"hich affidavit

!odified a first affidavit e>ecuted on Ma' 32, 245E, "hich failed to estate b' *oversi%ht* petitioner, but

stated that affiant #ne" petitioner to be *an ille%iti!ate son* of Dr. (a)atin "ho later *le%all' adopted +hi!

as a son before the ourt of First Instance of Manila so!eti!e bet"een the 'ears 248G and 2482* and

prescindin% fro! the <uestion of "hether a natural or spurious child !a' be le%all' adopted b' the

putative father, "e hold that no %rave abuse of discretion nor error of la" as co!!itted b' respondent

$ud%e in issuin% the <uestioned orders of March 6, 2459, March 89, 2459 and 1une 3, 2459 den'in%

petitioner&s petition *to declare as established in this proceedin% the fact of adoption* and den'in% *an'

!otion for reconsideration unless based on so!e docu!entar' proof.* The ourt finds no basis to %rant

the affir!ative relief sou%ht in this proceedin% b' petitioner for a rendition of $ud%!ent *declarin% as

established the fact of 'our petitioner&s adoption as a son of the deceased spouses entitlin% hi! to

succeed in their estates as such in accordance "ith the applicable la" on succession as to his

inheritance.*

pon the filin% of the petition, the ourt issued on 1une 29, 2459 a te!porar' restrainin% order@

"hich as a!ended on 1ul' 82, 2459, restrained respondent $ud%e *fro! proceedin% "ith the hearin%

scheduled on 1une 25, 2459 at GB3? a.!., re<uirin% the sub!ission of evidence to establish heirship

in Special Proceedin%s No. 8389P entitled &Intestate state of the (ate Mariano M. (a)atin& and

Special Proceedin%s No. 8362P, entitled &Testate state of the late Mar%arita de -sis Vda. de

(a)atin,& and fro! proceedin% "ith the probate of the alle%ed holo%raphic "ill of the deceased Do@a

Mar%arita de -sis Vda. de (a)atin scheduled on 1une 84, 2459, -u%ust 2? and 28, 2459 and on an'

other dates.* Cith the ourt&s deter!ination of the issues as herein set forth, there is no lon%er an'

need for restrainin% the proceedin%s belo" and the said restrainin% order shall be i!!ediatel' lifted.

On 1anuar' 86, 2455, the ourt upon petitioner&s !otion resolved to conditionall' allo" respondent

$ud%e *to ta#e the deposition of petitioner&s "itnesses to perpetuate their testi!onies pursuant to

Rule 236, Section 5 of the Rules of ourt, sub$ect to the ourt&s rulin% in due course on the

ad!issibilit' of such testi!onies.* The ourt thereb' per!itted in effect the advance testi!onies of

petitioner&s "itnesses, principall' a!on% the! Rafael (a)atin and steban (. (a)atin, both brothers

of the deceased Dr. Mariano (. (a)atin and as stated in petitioner&s !otion of 1anuar' 22, 2455B t"#.$%h&w'$

Substantiall', the testi!on' of the abovena!ed "itnesses "ill be on the fact that

the' had been infor!ed b' the deceased spouses, Mariano and Mar%arita (a)atin

that 'our petitioner "as their /Mariano&s and Mar%arita&s0 $udiciall' adopted son and

to elicit further fro! the! the fact that 'our petitioner en$o's the reputation of bein%their $udiciall' adopted son in the (a)atin fa!il'.

The ourt&s resolution allo"in% the advance testi!onies of petitioner&s "itnesses "as but in

application of the ourt&s lon% standin% ad!onition to trial courts is reaffir!ed in Laa+an vs. De la

0ru-, +6, *to be liberal in acceptin% proferred evidence since even if the' "ere to refuse to accept the

evidence, the affected part' "ill nevertheless be allo"ed to spread the e>cluded evidence on the record,

for revie" on appeal.* The ourt therein once a%ain stressed the established rule that *it is be'ond



<uestion that rulin%s of the trial court on procedural <uestions and on ad!issibilit' of evidence durin% the

course of the trial are interlocutor' in nature and !a' not be the sub$ect of separate appeal or revie" on

certiorari, but are to be assi%ned as errors and revie"ed in the appeal properl' ta#en fro! the decision

rendered b' the trial court on the !erits of the case,* +7 and that a part'&s recourse "hen proferred

evidence is re$ected b' the trial court is to !a#e a offer statin% on the record "hat a part' or "itness

"ould have testified to "ere his testi!on' not e>cluded, as "ell as to attach to the record an' re$ected

e>hibits.

-t the continuation of the proceedin%s belo" for declaration of heirship and for probate of the alle%ed

holo%raphic the deceased Mar%arita de -sis Vda. de (a)atin, pet "ho has failed to establish his

status as an alle%ed @! child of Mar%arita de -sis +unless, as reserved to hi! b' the court belo", he

can sho" so!e docu!entar' proof,and "hose intervention in the estate of the deceased Dr.

Mariano (a)atin is as an ad!itted ille%iti!ate child, "in have to decide "hether he "ill pursue his

first theor' of havin% the of such ad!itted ille%iti!ate child of said deceased. Chatever be his theor'

and his course of action and "hether or not he !a' be dul' sno"ed to intervene in the proceedin%s

belo" as such alle%ed ad!itted ille%iti!ate child, his recourse in the event of an adverse rulin%

a%ainst hi! is to !a#e a for!al offer of proof and of his e>cluded evidence, oral and docu!entar',

and see# a reversal on an appeal in due course.

-ORDINA(:, the petition is dis!issed and the <uestioned orders den'in% petitioner&s petition

belo" *to declare as established in this proceedin% the fact of /his0 adoption* are hereb' affir!ed.

The te!porar' restrainin% order issued on 1une 29, 2459 and a!ended on 1ul' 82, 2459 is ordered

lifted, effective i!!ediatel'. Cithout costs.

SO ORDRD.

1akasiar, 2ernande-, 3uerrero and 1elencio45errera, JJ., concur. 67wph86.#9t

De 0astro, J., took no part.

persons and family relations cases

Documents