G.R. No. 36654 ; February 27, 1933
VICTOR ALLARDE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VALENTIN ABAYA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, led by Victor Allarde and Inocencia Abaya, filed an action for partition of real properties allegedly belonging to the estate of the deceased spouses Bibiano Abaya and Juliana Rebullido. Inocencia Abaya claimed to be the acknowledged natural daughter of Adriano Abaya, who was the son of Bibiano and Juliana. The defendants, descendants of another child (Cornelia Abaya), opposed the claim, asserting ownership through long possession and prescription. The trial court ruled against Inocencia, finding her not entitled to the property, that the property was unidentified, and that her action had prescribed.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether Inocencia Abaya was the acknowledged natural child of Adriano Abaya; (2) what hereditary right she possessed in the estate of Bibiano Abaya; and (3) whether her action had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court. It held that Inocencia Abaya was the acknowledged natural child of Adriano Abaya based on evidence, including a letter from Adriano to his mother requesting care for Inocencia, which constituted acknowledgment under the Law of Toro. As an acknowledged natural child born before the Civil Code took effect, she was entitled to inherit only one-sixth of her father Adriano’s share in the estate of Bibiano Abaya. She had no right to inherit by representation from her grandmother Juliana Rebullido. The Court also ruled that parole hearsay evidence, not objected to, could be considered. The case was remanded to the trial court for Inocencia to identify the specific property left by Bibiano Abaya that was inherited by Adriano.

AI Generated by Armztrong.