GR 95229; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95229 June 9, 1992
CORITO OCAMPO TAYAG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIE DAYRIT CUYUGAN, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Emilie Dayrit Cuyugan, as mother and legal guardian of minor Chad D. Cuyugan, filed a “Claim for Inheritance” complaint against petitioner Corito Ocampo Tayag, the administratrix of the estate of the late Atty. Ricardo Ocampo. The complaint alleged that Chad is the illegitimate son of the deceased Atty. Ocampo, born from an illicit relationship between Ocampo and Cuyugan. It cited excerpts from letters of Ocampo expressing love and a desire to recognize Chad as his heir. The complaint prayed for an inventory and accounting of Ocampo’s estate, determination and delivery of Chad’s share, and support pendente lite.
Petitioner Tayag filed an Answer with affirmative defenses, including that the complaint stated no cause of action, was premature, barred by prescription, and that Cuyugan had no legal personality to sue. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss, holding the need for further proceedings. After a Court of Appeals directive, the trial court formally denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint sufficiently showed a cause of action, the action was not premature as it sought to prove filiation and recognition, prescription had not set in under Article 285 of the Civil Code, and there was no misjoinder of causes of action. Petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals was dismissed on the ground that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari, with ordinary appeal being the remedy.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, which challenged the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the “Claim for Inheritance” complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that an action for recognition and claim to inheritance can be brought in one proceeding; it is not necessary to first secure a judicial declaration of filiation in a separate action. The complaint, by alleging the existence of an illegitimate child and his right to inherit, sufficiently states a cause of action. On the issue of prescription, the Court applied Article 285 of the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the complaint was filed, and not the Family Code. Under Article 285, a spurious child may file an action for recognition within four years from attaining majority age; thus, prescription had not set in. Finally, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the order denying the motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari, and the exceptions to this rule were not present in the case.