G.R. No. L-3821; March 17, 1952
Primitiva Canales, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Filoteo Arrogante, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Bernardina Canales died intestate in 1945, survived by her husband Filoteo Arrogante and two legitimate children. In 1948, Primitiva Canales filed an action against the surviving heirs, claiming to be a natural daughter of Bernardina, born in 1893 before Bernardina’s marriage in 1910. She presented evidence including a church baptismal record describing her as “Apolinaria Canales,” daughter of Bernardina Canales and an unknown father, and testified to having lived continuously with her mother. The defendants denied the allegation, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action due to the absence of an averment of acknowledgment and that any action for acknowledgment was barred by statute. The trial court ruled in favor of Primitiva, declaring she had satisfactorily established her status as a natural child and was entitled to share in the estate irrespective of acknowledgment. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE

Whether a natural child, under the Civil Code of 1889, who has not been acknowledged, is entitled to share in the inheritance of the deceased parent.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The substantive law governing the case is the Civil Code of 1889, as the deceased died before the effectivity of the new Civil Code. Under the old Code, a natural child has no successional rights unless acknowledged. Recognition may be voluntary (under Article 131) or compulsory (under Articles 135 and 136), but only after acknowledgment does the child acquire the rights of an acknowledged natural child. The plaintiff’s evidence, particularly the church baptismal record prepared without the mother’s intervention, did not constitute voluntary acknowledgment. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not institute a judicial action for compulsory acknowledgment during her mother’s lifetime. Any such action, if the present case were treated as one, is barred by Article 137 of the Civil Code of 1889, which generally requires such actions to be commenced during the lifetime of the putative parents. The plaintiff did not fall under the exceptions provided in Article 137, as she was over fifty when her mother died and no previously unknown document expressly acknowledging her was discovered. Therefore, not having been acknowledged, she has no right to the inheritance.