G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997
Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene R. Dezoller, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Teodora Domingo, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene Dezoller, niece and nephew of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, filed an action for reconveyance against private respondent Teodora Domingo. The subject property was originally owned by the spouses Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. Teodora died on March 5, 1983, without ascendants or descendants, survived by her husband Martin and petitioners, whose father Hermogenes (Teodora’s brother) predeceased her. Petitioners claim inheritance by right of representation. After Teodora’s death, Martin executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating the property solely to himself, leading to a new title in his name. On January 2, 1988, Martin sold the property to respondent Teodora Domingo. Martin died on October 25, 1988, and petitioners filed the reconveyance action on November 2, 1988. During trial, petitioners presented Corazon as a lone witness and offered documentary evidence including baptismal certificates, death certificates, certifications of destroyed birth records, joint affidavits, and a family picture to prove filiation. After petitioners rested their case, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing petitioners failed to prove legitimate filiation per Article 172 of the Family Code. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held the documentary evidence inadmissible and insufficient to prove filiation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for reconveyance based on petitioners’ alleged failure to prove their legitimate filiation to Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the lower courts erred in requiring petitioners to prove their legitimacy and filiation in the collateral action for reconveyance. The presumption of legitimacy under the law operates in favor of petitioners as children born in wedlock, and this presumption can only be impugned in a direct action brought by the proper parties (the husband or his heirs) within the periods fixed by law. Private respondent, not being the proper party, could not collaterally attack petitioners’ legitimacy. The burden of proof to overthrow the presumption rested on private respondent, who failed to present any countervailing evidence by merely filing a demurrer. Furthermore, the Court found that petitioners’ documentary and testimonial evidence, particularly the baptismal certificates and the testimony of Corazon regarding family reputation, were admissible and constituted prima facie evidence of filiation under the Rules of Court. The trial court’s grant of the demurrer was premature as it effectively denied petitioners the opportunity to complete their presentation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declared petitioners and private respondent as co-owners of the property, with petitioners entitled to an undivided one-fourth share (by right of representation of their father’s one-half share in the conjugal property) and respondent entitled to three-fourths.