G.R. No. 111994 . December 29, 1994.
SOTENIA GONO-JAVIER, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESTITUTA CASOCOT, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, claiming to be the children of the deceased Catalino Gono, an alleged acknowledged natural child of Juan Casocot, filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of five parcels of land. They asserted their right by intestate succession from Juan Casocot and, alternatively, claimed ownership through a tax repurchase by petitioner Anunciacion Gono-Javier in 1956 after a tax delinquency levy. Private respondents, mostly nephews and nieces of Juan Casocot, countered that Catalino Gono was never formally recognized as a natural child, thus petitioners had no hereditary rights. They also presented a 1960 deed of sale conveying the properties to some respondents and raised the defenses of prescription and a prior dismissal of a related action.
The Regional Trial Court ruled for petitioners, declaring them the lawful owners. It found the 1960 deed of sale simulated and void, held that Catalino Gono had been duly recognized by Juan Casocot, and upheld the validity of the tax repurchase. It consequently nullified the certificates of title issued to private respondents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and dismissing petitioners’ complaint for recovery of ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the failure to establish a crucial prerequisite for inheritance: the valid recognition of filiation. For a natural child to inherit by intestate succession, voluntary recognition must be expressly made in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or any authentic writing as required by Article 278 of the Civil Code. The deed of donation presented by petitioners, wherein Juan Casocot referred to Eugenia Gonzales as the “surviving spouse of my son,” constituted only an indirect acknowledgment, which is legally insufficient. Furthermore, since Catalino Gono was already deceased when this document was executed in 1954, he could not give the consent required by law for the recognition of a child of age.
Regarding the alternative claim of ownership via tax repurchase, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s factual finding that while Anunciacion Gono-Javier initially paid, she was later refunded, and the properties were actually redeemed by Juan Casocot himself in 1959. This factual determination is conclusive. Finally, the Court agreed that a prior action to nullify the 1960 deed of sale had been dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, constituting a bar to relitigating its validity. Thus, petitioners failed to establish a superior right of ownership over the disputed properties.