G.R. No. L-12949; June 30, 1960
GABINA DARACAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LEOVIGILDO DARACAN, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the inheritance from the late Tomas Daracan, who died intestate in 1929. Tomas had three legitimate children: Liborio, Fruto, and Reginaldo Daracan. Reginaldo died in 1910, Fruto in 1921 (survived by one child who died single in 1938/1939), and Liborio in 1944. The petitioners (Gabina, Victorio, Lorenzo, Domingo, Jovito, Mercedes, Bonifacia, and Pacita Daracan) are the legitimate children of Liborio. The respondents (Leovigildo, Romulo, Deogracias, Margarita, and Alberta Daracan) claim to be the legitimate grandchildren of Reginaldo Daracan, through his son Domingo Daracan (who married Concepcion Lago). The respondents filed an action for partition and accounting of the estate of Tomas Daracan, which included a homestead land (covered by T.C.T. No. 3168 issued to Victorio Daracan after an extrajudicial partition among the petitioners) and other parcels. The petitioners contested the respondents’ filiation, claiming Reginaldo died unmarried at age 13 and that Domingo was actually a child of Maria Malabug by her second marriage to Salvador de la Fuente. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them co-owners entitled to one-half of the properties and ordering reconveyance, but did not award an accounting of fruits or include a specific parcel (Parcel No. 2) in the partition. The respondents did not appeal this judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on filiation and partition but modified it by awarding the respondents P2,050.00 as their share in the produce of the homestead from 1951, which the trial court had not awarded.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by awarding the sum of P2,050.00 to the respondents, who did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment.
2. Whether the respondents’ use of the surname Daracan is conclusive proof that they are legitimate descendants of Reginaldo Daracan entitled to inherit from Tomas Daracan.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in awarding P2,050.00. The respondents, as plaintiffs and appellees, did not appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which did not award any sum for the produce of the properties. Therefore, that portion of the trial court’s judgment became final as to them. While an appellee may point out errors in the appellant’s brief for defensive purposes, they cannot obtain affirmative relief on a matter not awarded by the trial court without having appealed. The award of P2,050.00 by the Court of Appeals constituted a modification granting affirmative relief to a party who did not appeal, which was improper. Consequently, that part of the Court of Appeals’ judgment ordering payment of P2,050.00 is stricken.
2. The Court of Appeals’ finding on filiation is sustained, but not solely on the basis of the surname. The Supreme Court, reviewing on certiorari, focused on the legal issue of the award modification and did not overturn the factual findings of the Court of Appeals regarding legitimacy and heirship. The Court of Appeals had found, based on evidence such as baptismal certificates (Exhibit “A”) and a marriage contract (Exhibit “D”), that Reginaldo Daracan was legally married to Maria Malabug, that Domingo Daracan was their legitimate son, and that the respondents are Domingo’s legitimate children. The use of the surname was not treated as conclusive proof but as part of the totality of evidence supporting their filiation. The petitioners’ challenge on this point was a factual issue resolved by the lower courts, and the Supreme Court did not re-examine these factual determinations in this proceeding. The partition ordered by the lower courts stands.