G.R. No. 205241. January 11, 2023.
CONCEPCION A. VIZCARRA, FELICIANO A. VIZCARRA MARRIED TO MARIA LUISA A. VIZCARRA, VICTOR A. VIZCARRA, EVARISTA A. VIZCARRA, AND DIONISIO A. VIZCARRA, PETITIONERS, VS. LILIA VIZCARRA-NOCILLADO, ANTONIO A. VIZCARRA, NORMA VIZCARRA-SANCHEZ, RIZALINA VIZCARRA-HINKLEY, AND JULIETA V. HUNTER-SUTTON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Ireneo Vizcarra died on September 5, 1993, survived by his children Constancio and Purificacion. Constancio died on August 18, 2004, survived by his wife Concepcion and their children (petitioners). Purificacion died on November 19, 2006, without legitimate issues. On December 31, 2006, petitioners executed an “Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Ireneo Vizcarra, Constancio F. Vizcarra and Purificacion Vizcarra,” leading to the cancellation of Ireneo’s title and the issuance of new titles in their names. Respondents, claiming to be heirs of Silvestre F. Vizcarra (who predeceased Ireneo), filed a complaint to declare the Extrajudicial Settlement null and void. They asserted that Silvestre was the son of Ireneo with Rosalia Ferrer, entitling them to a share in Ireneo’s estate. As proof of filiation, respondents presented: (1) an NSO Certificate indicating Silvestre’s father as “Irineo Vizcarra”; (2) a 1978 Certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Parañaque stating Silvestre was born to “Irineo Vizcarra” and “Rosalia Ferrer”; and (3) Silvestre’s Marriage Contract naming Ireneo as his father. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement null and void and ordering the cancellation of the new titles. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, giving weight to the NSO Certificate as proof of filiation. Petitioners assail the validity of the NSO Certificate, arguing it was a reconstruction based on the 1978 Certification, not the original 1920 Record Book, and that the father did not intervene in the recording of the birth.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the RTC’s conclusion that respondents established the filiation of Silvestre to Ireneo, entitling them to a share in Ireneo’s estate.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the CA and RTC. The Court held that the evidence presented by respondents was insufficient to prove Silvestre’s filiation to Ireneo. The NSO Certificate, being a reconstructed document based on a secondary source (the 1978 Certification) and not the original 1920 Record Book, cannot be considered an authentic copy of the original birth record. Under the Family Code, the record of birth is a means of proving filiation only if the father himself recorded the child’s filiation. There was no showing that Ireneo participated in the recording of Silvestre’s birth. The 1978 Certification and the Marriage Contract are not among the recognized forms of evidence for proving filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code. The NSO Certificate, derived from these sources, carries no probative value to establish paternity. Furthermore, an action to claim legitimacy must be filed during the lifetime of the child, and Silvestre did not institute such an action. Therefore, respondents failed to prove their status as compulsory heirs of Ireneo. The Extrajudicial Settlement executed by petitioners, as the only established heirs of Constancio (who was a legitimate child of Ireneo), was valid. The petition was granted, and the CA and RTC decisions were set aside.