Noble Vs Noble

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17742. December 17, 1966

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON VICENTE NOBLE.
JUAN NOBLE, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MARIA S. NOBLE, Oppositor-Appellant.
PONENTE: BARRERA, J
Facts:
Petitioner-appellee [executor] instituted an action for the
probate of the last will of the deceased. Oppositor-appellant
opposed the probate claiming to be an illegitimate (spurious)
child of the deceased. She alleged, among others, that the will
was not executed in accordance with the law. She prayed,
among others, that she be declared the only surviving
illegitimate daughter of the deceased; and in case the will be
allowed, the institution of heirs be declared null and void; the
devises and legacies be declared ineffective for being in
officious. Simultaneously, she moved for a permission to
present evidence of her alleged filiation.
Petitioner opposed the motion on the ground that the claim

was in effect an action for compulsory recognition, and since it
was brought after the death of the putative father and when
claimant was already of majority age, the right to bring the
same has already prescribed pursuant to Article 285 of the
new Civil Code. After the presentation of evidence, the trial
court admitted the will to probate, and ruled that the
oppositors motion to present evidence of her alleged filiation
had already prescribed. Hence, the appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the fact of bare filiation, and not a filiation
acknowledged by the putative parent, is the one necessary to
be established by an illegitimate not natural child in order the
he may be entitled to successional rights under Article 887.
[NO]
Ruling:
Order Appealed from is Affirmed.
While the Civil Code merely provides that "in all cases of
illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved" (Art.
887), there are cogent reasons, both legal and moral, which
require that such filiation must be acknowledged by the
presumed parent. For, if the mere fact of the paternity of the
supposed father is all that need be proved, that construction of
the law would pave the way to unscrupulous individuals taking
advantage of the death of the presumed parent who would no
longer be in a position to deny the allegations, to present even
fictitious claims and expose the life of the deceased to
inquiries affecting his character.
But more important than this, the law could not have
demanded anything less than proof of an acknowledged
filiation. Precisely, under Article 289 of the new Civil Code, the
investigation of the paternity or maternity of children
mentioned in the two proceeding articles (referring to
illegitimate not natural children) is specifically permitted only
in the circumstances enumerated in Articles 283 and 281 of
the same Code. It must be noted that these two articles refer
to compulsory recognition or acknowledgment. Hence, since
the proof of filiation required in Article 887, necessarily
involves the investigation mentioned in Article 289, and this
investigation in turn refers to recognition by the putative
parent, it follows that the filiation to be proven must be one
that is recognized.
In the present case, what is intended to be proved by

appellant is simply the supposed naked paternity of the
deceased. This is evident from the pertinent allegations of her
opposition to the probate of the will, which state:
"2. That the oppositor is in continuous possession of status of

a child of the late Don Vicente Noble by the direct acts of the
latter and/or his family; and that the oppositor has in her favor
evidence and/or proof that the late Don Vicente Noble is her
father."
It may be pointed out that the first sentence does not state
that the supposed father had recognized or acknowledged the
oppositor as his child. It is merely claimed that she was in
continuous possession of the status of a child, an allegation
which is a ground for compelling recognition under Article 283
of the new Civil Code and, therefore, presupposes no previous
recognition. The last sentence alleges that oppositor has in her
favor evidence and/or proof that the late Don Vicente Noble is
her father. Again, there is no assertion that she has evidence
that the deceased had recognized or acknowledged her as
such a child.
In a unanimous decision in the case of Paulino v. Paulino (G.R.

No. L-15091, December 28, 1961), this Court held:
"It is true that by their motion to dismiss the appellees are

deemed to have admitted that the appellant is the illegitimate
spurious, not natural, child of the deceased Marcos Paulino.
Such an admission, however, does not entitle her to inherit
from her alleged putative father. It is necessary to allege that
her putative father had acknowledged and recognized her as
such. Such acknowledgment is essential and is the basis of her
right to inherit. There being no allegation of such
acknowledgment the action becomes one to compel
recognition which can not be brought after the death of the
putative father." (Emphasis supplied.)
This is authority to the declaration that acknowledgment is the

basis of the right of a spurious child to enjoy the successional
rights mentioned in Articles 287 and 887 of the new Civil Code.
There being no allegation of her recognition or
acknowledgment by the alleged father in the petition to
establish her filiation, the same, therefore, states no cause of
action and the dismissal therefore by the lower court was
proper.
Incidentally, the last sentence of the above-quoted portion of
the decision in the Paulino case constitutes a reversal of the
ruling contained in the majority opinion in the case of
Zuzuarregui v. Zuzuarregui (G.R. No. L-10010, October 31,
1957) relied upon by the Appellant.
- Digested [24 October 2017, 13:13]
***

Noble Vs Noble

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noble Vs Noble

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17742. December 17, 1966

Petitioner opposed the motion on the ground that the claim

In the present case, what is intended to be proved by

"2. That the oppositor is in continuous possession of status of

In a unanimous decision in the case of Paulino v. Paulino (G.R.

"It is true that by their motion to dismiss the appellees are

This is authority to the declaration that acknowledgment is the

- Digested [24 October 2017, 13:13]

You might also like