G.R. No. L-62283 November 25, 1983
CARIDAD CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE PEDRO REYNALDO SY-QUIA, respondents.

FACTS

Pedro M. Sy-Quia died, leaving a holographic will that divided his estate among his widow, Caridad Cruz Vda. de Sy-Quia, and their five legitimate children. The will was probated. More than three years later, Jose Pedro Reynaldo Sy-Quia filed a motion in the probate proceeding, claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of the testator, born to Remedios Borres. He argued that his voluntary acknowledgment nullified the will, necessitating intestate succession. Caridad opposed, contending Jose was seeking compulsory recognition, which was time-barred. During the hearing, Jose presented evidence including a school authorization signed by Pedro M. Sy-Quia referring to Jose as “my son.”
Caridad moved for the deposition of Dr. Ernesto Medina Cue, who had conducted serological tests in 1961 on the blood types of Jose, Pedro, and Remedios. The deposition, taken over Jose’s objection, indicated Jose could not be the son of Pedro and Remedios. The trial court denied Jose’s claim, finding no indubitable writing of acknowledgment and noting the blood test results. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s admission of the deposition, ruling it inadmissible, but held that Jose’s theory of voluntary acknowledgment under Article 278 of the Civil Code was viable. It remanded the case, ordering Dr. Cue to testify in court for cross-examination.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the testimony of Dr. Cue and in ruling on the admissibility of his deposition and the viability of Jose’s claim as a voluntarily acknowledged natural child.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It affirmed that Dr. Cue’s deposition was inadmissible under Section 4, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, as it was taken without a showing of witness unavailability, justifying the need for his live testimony. However, the Court directed that Dr. Cue’s testimony be received by the Court of Appeals itself, invoking its authority under Section 9 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129) to receive evidence, rather than remanding to the trial court.
On the substantive issue, the Court clarified that Jose’s claim was properly based on voluntary acknowledgment under Article 278 of the Civil Code, not compulsory recognition. Voluntary acknowledgment can be made in any authentic writing, defined as any genuine and indubitable writing, and such status can be established by ordinary evidence without time limitations, even after the father’s death. Therefore, Jose’s motion in the testate proceeding to claim a hereditary share was a proper remedy. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to receive Dr. Cue’s testimony and render a new decision accordingly.