G.R. No. L-9786; August 31, 1960
Intestate Estate of Teodoro Tangco de Valencia, Deceased. ROSITA MASANGCAY, EVANGELINA MASANGCAY, FELICIDAD DE LA PEÑA, and JULIA DE LA PEÑA, petitioners and appellees, vs. MARCELO VALENCIA and PEDRO VALENCIA, oppositors and appellants.

FACTS

On November 3, 1950, petitioners Rosita Masangcay, Evangelina Masangcay, Felicidad de la Peña, and Julia de la Peña filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of La Union. They claimed to be nieces of the deceased Teodora Tangco de Valencia and sought to be declared her heirs, requesting summary distribution of her estate valued at P5,750.00. Marcelo Valencia, the deceased’s husband, opposed the petition, claiming to be the sole heir entitled to the entire estate. Pedro Valencia, Marcelo’s brother, also opposed, asserting that a parcel of land belonging to him was incorrectly included in the conjugal estate list and that he had a P700.00 claim on a house listed therein. Marcelo Valencia died on December 23, 1953, during the pendency of the case.
After trial, the lower court rendered a decision on May 27, 1955. It found that the deceased Teodora Tangco was the wife of Marcelo Valencia. Teodora, along with Basilisa and Simeona, were the daughters of Aleja Tangco. Teodora and Basilisa were fathered by Marcelo Barba, a married man. Simeona was fathered by Jacinto Castro, also a married man. All three daughters used the surname “Tangco.” The court found that Aleja Tangco had tacitly recognized and acknowledged Teodora, Basilisa, and Simeona as her natural children under the Law of Toro, which was applicable as they were born before the Spanish Civil Code took effect. The petitioners are the children of Basilisa (Rosita, Evangelina, and Ester Masangcay) and the children of Simeona (Felicidad and Julia de la Peña). The court ruled that as acknowledged natural children, Teodora, Basilisa, and Simeona could succeed each other as legitimate siblings. Consequently, it declared the petitioners as heirs of Teodora, entitled to one-half of the conjugal estate with Marcelo Valencia, and ordered its distribution accordingly. The oppositors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should decide the appeal, which was taken directly on questions of law by the oppositors-appellants, or whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeals because the petitioners-appellees, in their brief, have raised questions of fact.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration and decision. The Court held that while the oppositors-appellants appealed directly to the Supreme Court raising only questions of law, the petitioners-appellees, in their brief, raised a decisive question of fact. This factual issue pertained to whether Marcelo Barba and Jacinto Castro were married to other women at the time of the conception and birth of Teodora, Basilisa, and Simeona. The determination of this fact is critical as it dictates whether these children are illegitimate (if the fathers were married) or natural children (if the fathers were not married) of Aleja Tangco, which in turn governs the successional rights of the appellees.
Citing the precedent in Justo, et al., vs. Hernando, et al., the Court reasoned that an appellee who has obtained a favorable judgment is not expected to appeal and may only realize the need to raise questions of fact after reviewing the appellant’s brief. To require an appellee to always insist on an appeal to the Court of Appeals in every case where the appellant raises only questions of law would cause undue delay and unnecessary work. Since the present appeal involves both questions of law and fact, and the value of the estate involved is only P5,750.00, the case is properly remanded to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 17, subparagraph (5) of paragraph three of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.