G.R. No. L-47407 August 12, 1986
SALUD DIVINAGRACIA, EMILIA DIVINAGRACIA, DOLORES DIVINAGRACIA, ROSARIO DIVINAGRACIA and JUANITA DIVINAGRACIA, petitioners, vs. JUDGE JOSUE N. BELLOSILLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch VII Court of First Instance, Iloilo City, and CAMILO DIVINAGRACIA, respondents.

FACTS

This case stems from the estate of Feliciano Divinagracia. After his death, his estate was settled in Special Proceeding No. 1752, which was closed by a final order in 1971. Subsequently, private respondent Camilo Divinagracia filed a motion to reopen the intestate proceeding, claiming to be an illegitimate child of the decedent who was preterited. In the prior case of Divinagracia vs. Roviro, the Supreme Court denied the motion to reopen, ruling the closure order was final and that the determination of Camilo’s status as a spurious child fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC).
Camilo then filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 10963) before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against the petitioners, the decedent’s widow and legitimate daughters. He sought the annulment of the project of partition and the delivery of his hereditary share, alleging he was an acknowledged illegitimate child. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as the issue of filiation was for the JDRC, and that the action had prescribed. Respondent Judge Bellosillo denied the motion, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 10963, which involves a claim for a hereditary share based on alleged status as an acknowledged illegitimate child.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance (CFI), now the Regional Trial Court (RTC), has jurisdiction. The legal logic is twofold. First, the nature of Camilo’s claim distinguishes this case from the prior ruling. In his complaint, he specifically alleges he is an already acknowledged spurious child, presenting an authentic writing (a 1957 letter) as evidence of voluntary recognition under Article 278 of the Civil Code. The Court, citing Tolentino, noted that such an authentic writing constitutes voluntary recognition itself and does not require a separate action for compulsory recognition. Therefore, his action is essentially one to claim his legitime as an acknowledged heir, which is a matter of partition and settlement of estate falling under the general jurisdiction of the CFI/RTC.
Second, the Court took judicial notice of a significant procedural change in the judicial structure. At the time of this decision, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) had already taken effect. This law abolished the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts and transferred their functions to the Regional Trial Courts. Consequently, even if the action involved questions of filiation, jurisdiction would no longer lie with a specialized JDRC but with the RTC. Thus, the respondent judge correctly assumed jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the RTC was ordered to proceed with the case.