G.R. No. 189289 . August 31, 2016.
GLORIA ZOLETA-SAN AGUSTIN, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO SALES, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 14, 1994, brothers Teodoro Sales (deceased) and Ernesto Sales filed an action for judicial approval of their recognition as the illegitimate children of the late Louis C. Fernandez. They alleged they were born to Louis and his common-law wife, Epitacia Sales, a house helper. Louis and his legal wife, Marie Louise Fernandez, had no children. The plaintiffs presented two public documents bearing Louis’s thumbmarks as evidence of formal recognition: a notarized document dated November 11, 1980, jointly executed by Louis and Epitacia, and a document titled “Acknowledgement of Children” solely executed by Louis on December 2, 1980.
Petitioner Gloria Zoleta-San Agustin, who claimed to be the niece of Louis and was informally adopted by the Spouses Fernandez, opposed the action. She alleged the documents of recognition were spurious and that the plaintiffs’ father was Corpus Micabalo, a former houseboy. The documents were examined by the NBI, which concluded the thumbprints belonged to Louis. The petitioner’s motion for DNA testing on the deceased Louis was denied by the RTC. The RTC also denied the admission of photographs the petitioner presented to prove she was treated as a child by the Spouses Fernandez, a ruling affirmed by the CA as irrelevant to the issue of recognition.
After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them the illegitimate children of Louis. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending the CA failed to act on her application for DNA testing despite a prior resolution indicating it would be treated as an assigned error. The CA denied the motion.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight and credence to the notarized documents of recognition and the testimony of the respondent’s expert witness.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals arbitrarily refused or failed to rule on the petitioner’s application for DNA testing.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision and resolution.
1. On the credibility of the documents and testimony: The Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and CA. The notarized documents executed by Louis, bearing his thumbmarks, were accorded the presumption of regularity. A thumb mark is a valid mode of signature. The petitioner’s allegations of spuriousness and inconsistencies surrounding the execution were insufficient to overcome this presumption. The testimony of Ernesto that Louis was blind and bedridden, hence incapable of writing and only able to affix his thumb mark, was found credible by the trial court. The Court emphasized that factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive and binding. None of the exceptions warranting a review of factual findings were present.
2. On the DNA testing application: The Court found the application for DNA testing immaterial. The filiation of Teodoro and Ernesto as illegitimate children was already satisfactorily established by the notarized documents of voluntary recognition executed by Louis during his lifetime. Under the Family Code, the filiation of illegitimate children can be established by such an admission in a public document. Since recognition was conclusively proven, DNA testing was unnecessary. The CA’s deferral and subsequent implicit denial of the application were therefore proper.
The Court concluded that the voluntary recognition by Louis in public documents was conclusive proof of filiation, rendering the petitioner’s contrary evidence and request for DNA testing unavailing.