G.R. No. 3257

Parties:
Plaintiffs-Appellants: Petrona, Mariano, Regino, Pedro, Jose, and Victoria Capistrano
Defendant-Appellee: The estate of Josefa Gabino, deceased, represented by Juan Fabella, executor

FACTS:
Josefa Gabino, an 84-year-old married woman, executed a will. In it, she declared two marriages: the first to Eustaquio Capistrano, with whom she had two daughters, Damiana and Teresa; and the second to Juan Salamero, with whom she had three children who died in infancy. She stated that during her marriage to Capistrano, no property was acquired. Properties were acquired during her second marriage with Salamero, and she also inherited property from her mother. After setting aside specific legacies, she designated her daughters Teresa and Damiana Capistrano as her legal heirs, to inherit according to a specific division outlined in her will. She appointed Juan Fabella and Carlos Soriano as executors.

The will was submitted for probate, and no opposition was filed. The court approved the will and issued letters of administration to the executor.

Subsequently, the brothers and sisters of Josefa Gabino, namely Petrona, Mariano, Regino, Pedro, Jose, and Victoria Capistrano, filed a petition. They claimed that their father, Tomas Capistrano, was a natural child acknowledged by Josefa Gabino. They argued that although Josefa Gabino did not mention Tomas Capistrano or his descendants in her will, it was not an act of disinheritance but rather due to the social dishonor of acknowledging an illegitimate child. They sought a distribution of the estate that would include themselves, alleging that of Tomas Capistrano’s eight children, one died without issue, and another renounced her share in their favor. They requested the court order the distribution of the estate according to their proposistion, including the appointment of commissioners for partition.

The defendant executor denied the allegations. The court below rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

The core of the plaintiffs’ action was based on their assertion that their father, Tomas Capistrano, was an acknowledged natural child of the deceased testatrix, Josefa Gabino.

The court found that Tomas Capistrano was born and baptized with the surname Leonardo in January 1846. Under the laws in effect prior to the Civil Code, specifically Law 11 of Toro (later Law 1, title 5, book 10, of the Novisima Recopilacion), such a child could only be acknowledged by his supposed mother during her lifetime. The plaintiffs, the children of the alleged natural child, were of legal age and had the opportunity to seek acknowledgment from their grandmother while she was alive, which they did not do.

The court also noted that Article 130 of the Civil Code established a presumption of paternity for those acknowledged by one parent, if that parent had the legal capacity to marry at the time of conception. However, this presumption requires the acknowledgment itself. In this case, there was no proof that Tomas Leonardo Capistrano Daan was the son of Josefa Gabino.

ISSUE:
Whether Tomas Capistrano was an acknowledged natural child of Josefa Gabino, thereby entitling his heirs (the plaintiffs) to a share in her estate.

RULING:
The judgment of the court below is AFFIRMED. The Supreme Court found no proof that Tomas Leonardo Capistrano Daan was the son of Josefa Gabino. The plaintiffs failed to establish the essential fact of acknowledgment of natural filiation by the testatrix during her lifetime, which was a prerequisite for their claim to inherit from her estate. Therefore, their petition for inheritance was denied.