GR 75005; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 75005-06, February 15, 1990
JOSE RIVERA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J. RIVERA, respondents.
FACTS
Upon the death of Venancio Rivera in 1975, two conflicting claims to his estate arose. Petitioner Jose Rivera filed for letters of administration, asserting he was the sole legitimate son of the deceased from a 1928 marriage to Maria Vital. He presented a marriage certificate and his baptismal record as proof. Private respondent Adelaido J. Rivera opposed, claiming to be a legitimate child of the decedent from a later marriage to Maria Jocson in 1942, and petitioned for the probate of two holographic wills left by Venancio. The cases were consolidated. The trial court found that Jose was not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera but of a different man with the same name, as evidenced by differing parental details in the vital documents. It ruled that the decedent was married to Maria Jocson, with whom he had seven children including Adelaido, and admitted the wills to probate. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Jose Rivera is the legitimate son and sole heir of the deceased Venancio Rivera, thereby entitling him to challenge the probate of the holographic wills and claim the estate.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the determination of identity and the application of presumptions. The Court found that the Venancio Rivera who married Maria Vital in 1928 (Jose’s claimed father) was a different person from the wealthy decedent who married Maria Jocson in 1942 (Adelaido’s father). Critical evidence showed the fathers of the two Venancios were different: Florencio Rivera for the former and Magno Rivera for the latter. Jose’s claim that Magno and Florencio were the same person was unsupported. In contrast, Adelaido successfully invoked the presumption of marriage under Article 220 of the Civil Code and Rule 131, Section 3(aa) of the Rules of Court, as his parents lived together as husband and wife for many years and raised a family, and the marriage record was destroyed by war. The Court also noted Jose’s inexplicable failure to seek support from his alleged wealthy father during the latter’s lifetime.
Regarding the holographic wills, the Court held that Jose, having been found not to be the decedent’s son, was a stranger to the estate with no legal personality to contest the wills. Thus, the requirement under Article 811 of the Civil Code for three witnesses to authenticate a contested holographic will was inapplicable. The authentication by two of the testator’s children was deemed sufficient for probate. Consequently, Jose had no rightful claim to the estate, and the wills were properly allowed.