G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON VICENTE NOBLE. JUAN NOBLE, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARIA S. NOBLE, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Juan Noble filed a petition for the probate of the purported last will and testament of the late Don Vicente Noble, who died on April 25, 1959, and wherein Juan was named executor. Maria S. Noble opposed the probate, claiming to be an illegitimate (spurious) child of the deceased, born on July 22, 1923, from his illicit relation with Lucia Sinag. Her opposition alleged the will was not executed in accordance with law and was a product of undue influence. She prayed for the will’s disallowance, her declaration as the only surviving illegitimate daughter, and, if the will were allowed, the nullity of the institution of heirs for being inofficious, entitling her to one-half of the estate. She also moved to present evidence of her filiation. Juan Noble opposed this motion, arguing her claim was an action for compulsory recognition that had prescribed under Article 285 of the Civil Code, as it was filed after the death of the putative father and when she was already of majority age. The court proceeded with the probate, admitted the will, appointed Juan Noble as administrator, and dismissed Maria S. Noble’s petition to establish filiation, ruling it was barred by prescription. Maria S. Noble appealed.

ISSUE

The main issue is what must be established by an illegitimate (not natural) child to be entitled to successional rights under Article 887 of the Civil Code: is the bare fact of filiation sufficient, or must the filiation be acknowledged by the putative parent?

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. It ruled that for an illegitimate (spurious) child to enjoy successional rights under Articles 287 and 887 of the Civil Code, the filiation must be duly proved and acknowledged by the putative parent. Mere allegation or proof of paternity is insufficient. The Court held that the investigation of paternity for such children, permitted under Article 289, refers to the circumstances for compulsory recognition under Articles 283 and 284. Since Maria S. Noble’s opposition contained no allegation that the deceased had recognized or acknowledged her as his child, but only claimed continuous possession of status and evidence of paternity, her petition failed to state a cause of action for successional rights. It effectively constituted an action to compel recognition, which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father. The Court cited Paulino v. Paulino, which held that acknowledgment is the basis of the right to inherit for a spurious child.