GR 77867; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 77867 February 6, 1990
ISABEL DE LA PUERTA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CARMELITA DE LA PUERTA, respondents.
FACTS
Dominga Revuelta died in 1966, leaving a will bequeathing her properties to her three children: Alfredo, Vicente, and Isabel de la Puerta. Isabel was appointed executrix. During the probate proceedings, Vicente filed a petition to adopt Carmelita de la Puerta, which was granted. Vicente died during the appeal of the adoption case. Subsequently, Carmelita intervened in the probate of Dominga’s estate, filing a motion for a monthly allowance as the acknowledged natural child of Vicente. The probate court granted her motion, finding sufficient evidence of her filiation to Vicente. This order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Isabel assails this affirmation, arguing Carmelita is not Vicente’s natural child. She invokes the presumption of legitimacy, contending Carmelita is the legitimate child of Juanita Austrial and Gloria Jordan, who were living together as spouses. She further argues Vicente was married to Genoveva de la Puerta at the time of Carmelita’s birth in 1962, precluding natural filiation. Isabel presented witnesses to support her claim regarding Carmelita’s parentage.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the probate court’s finding that Carmelita de la Puerta is the natural child of Vicente de la Puerta, entitling her to support from his estate.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The legal logic proceeds from the classification of filiation and its attendant presumptions. The Court held that Carmelita could not be Vicente’s natural child because a natural child is one born outside of wedlock to parents who, at the time of conception, were not disqualified from marrying each other. Vicente was legally married to Genoveva from 1938 until his death in 1978. Since he had a living, undivorced spouse at the time of Carmelita’s conception and birth, he was legally disqualified from contracting a marriage with Gloria Jordan. Consequently, Carmelita could only be classified as a spurious child (an illegitimate child not natural).
The factual findings of the lower courts, while generally respected, were overturned because they were based on a misapprehension of the applicable law. The evidence presented, including Vicente’s own declaration in the adoption proceedings, could only establish that Carmelita was his illegitimate daughter, not his natural child. The presumption of legitimacy invoked by Isabel, pertaining to the child of Gloria Jordan and Juanita Austrial, was rendered inconsequential. The decisive factor was Vicente’s marital status, which legally precluded the acknowledgment of a natural child. As a spurious child, Carmelita’s rights to support and inheritance flow only from her father, Vicente, and not from his mother, Dominga Revuelta. Therefore, her claim for an allowance was improperly filed in Dominga’s probate proceedings and should be pursued in the settlement of Vicente’s own estate.