GR 105625; (January, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105625 January 24, 1994
MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORIA BENITEZ LIRIO AND FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, respondents.
FACTS
The spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian owned various properties. Isabel died on April 25, 1982, and Vicente died intestate on November 13, 1989. A dispute arose over the administration of Vicente’s estate. Private respondents Victoria Benitez-Lirio (Vicente’s sister) and Feodor Benitez Aguilar (Vicente’s nephew) filed a petition for letters of administration, alleging that the deceased had no descendants and that Marissa Benitez-Badua, who was raised by the spouses, was not a biological relative nor legally adopted, and thus not a legal heir. Petitioner Marissa Benitez-Badua opposed, claiming she was the sole legitimate child and heir. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring her the legitimate daughter and sole heir, applying Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that petitioner was not the biological child of the spouses and thus not a legal heir.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Articles 164, 166, 170, and 171 of the Family Code to the case and in finding that petitioner was not the biological child and legal heir of the spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Articles 164, 166, 170, and 171 of the Family Code are inapplicable because they govern situations where a husband (or his heirs) impugns the legitimacy of a child born to his wife, denying it as his own. The present case does not involve impugning legitimacy but rather asserts that petitioner was not born to the spouses at all—she is alleged not to be their biological child. The Court cited Cabatbat-Lim vs. Intermediate Appellate Court to support this distinction. On the factual issue, the Supreme Court sustained the appellate court’s finding that petitioner was not the biological child of the spouses. The evidence, including testimonial accounts that the spouses were childless and a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement where Vicente Benitez stated that Isabel died “without descendants,” sufficiently rebutted the prima facie evidence of petitioner’s Certificate of Live Birth. Therefore, petitioner is not a legal heir of Vicente Benitez.