G.R. No. 208912/G.R. No. 209018, December 7, 2021
AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO C. AQUINO AND ABBULAH C. AQUINO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 209018] RODOLFO C. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On May 7, 2003, Rodolfo C. Aquino filed a petition for letters of administration for the estate of his deceased father, Miguel Aquino. Rodolfo alleged Miguel was survived by his second wife, his sons Abdulah and himself, and the heirs of his predeceased son Wilfredo. Miguel was also predeceased by his first wife and another son, Arturo. On July 2, 2003, Amadea Angela K. Aquino filed a Motion to be Included in the Distribution and Partition of Miguel’s Estate, claiming to be the only child of Arturo. Rodolfo opposed, arguing Arturo never recognized her as a natural child. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Angela’s motions in an Order dated April 22, 2005, finding the Aquino clan estopped from denying her filiation. Abdulah appealed, and Rodolfo filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated January 21, 2013, granted Abdulah’s appeal, reversing the RTC Orders. It held Angela failed to prove her filiation with Arturo due to lack of birth records or documents signed by Arturo, and because she could not establish open and continuous possession of status as Arturo died before her birth. The CA further ruled that even if filiation was established, Angela could not inherit ab intestato from her putative grandfather Miguel under Article 992 of the Civil Code (the “Iron Currain Rule”). Angela’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Meanwhile, the CA also denied Rodolfo’s certiorari petition. Both Angela (G.R. No. 208912) and Rodolfo (G.R. No. 209018) filed petitions before the Supreme Court. The cases were consolidated and referred to the Court En Banc to resolve the issue of whether Angela may inherit from Miguel’s estate.

ISSUE

Whether Amadea Angela K. Aquino is entitled to participate in the settlement of the estate of her putative grandfather, Miguel Aquino, which involves the determination of: (1) if she is time-barred from proving her filiation to Arturo; (2) if her filiation has been sufficiently proven; and (3) the proper interpretation and application of Article 992 of the Civil Code regarding succession between an illegitimate child and the legitimate relatives of the child’s parent.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe concurs in the result to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
1. On Prescription: Angela is not time-barred from proving her filiation to Arturo. Having been born on October 9, 1978 (before the Family Code), her right to prove filiation is governed by the Civil Code. Under Article 285 of the Civil Code, an action for recognition by a natural child may be filed within four years from attaining majority (age 21). Angela had until October 9, 2003, to file such an action. Her Motion filed in July 2003 was within the prescriptive period.
2. On Proof of Filiation: The case should be remanded to the RTC to properly thresh out the issue of Angela’s filiation. Angela’s claim is based on continuous possession of status under Article 283 of the Civil Code, supported by allegations of acts by Arturo’s family (e.g., Miguel paying for medical expenses, Angela using the Aquino surname, living in the ancestral home, receiving support). The trial court failed to conduct a proper hearing to evaluate this evidence and the opposition’s contrary evidence. Therefore, a remand is necessary for a full-blown trial on this issue.
3. On Article 992 of the Civil Code: The opinion advocates for a re-examination of the interpretation of Article 992. It agrees with the dissenting view of Justice Gutierrez in Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court that Article 992 should be interpreted to prohibit reciprocal succession only between collateral relatives, and not between direct ascendants and descendants. The opinion argues that the provision is a special rule on collateral succession that should not bar an illegitimate child from representing their deceased parent in the estate of a legitimate grandparent. It emphasizes that the right of representation is created by law (Articles 970 and 971, Civil Code) and an illegitimate child, once filiation is duly proven, inherits from the legitimate ascendant not in their own right, but in representation of their legitimate parent. Therefore, if Angela successfully proves she is Arturo’s illegitimate child, she should be allowed to represent him in the succession to Miguel’s estate.