Professional Documents
Culture Documents
De Aparicio v. Paraguya
De Aparicio v. Paraguya
SYLLABUS
DECISION
GANCAYCO , J : p
Trinidad Montilde, a young lass of Tubigon, Bohol had a love affair with a priest,
Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and in the process she conceived. When she was almost four (4)
months pregnant and in order to conceal her disgrace from the public she decided to
marry Anastacio Mamburao. Father Lumain solemnized their marriage on March 4,
1924. 1 They never lived together as man and wife. On September 12, 1924, 192 days
after the marriage, Trinidad gave birth to Consolacion Lumain. As shown by her birth
certificate her registered parents are Trinidad and Anastacio. 2 On October 31, 1936, Fr.
Lumain died but he left a last will and testament wherein he acknowledged Consolacion
as his daughter and instituted her as the sole and universal heir of all his property rights
and interests. 3 This was duly probated in the Court of First Instance of Bohol on June
11, 1938 and on appeal it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 4
Soon after reaching the age of majority Consolacion led an action in the Court
of First Instance of Bohol against Hipolito Paraguya for the recovery of certain parcels
of land she claims to have inherited from her father Fr. Lumain and for damages. After
trial on the merits a decision was rendered on July 6, 1962, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court renders judgment:
(e) Sentencing plaintiff to pay the Court the docketing fees and all
other legal expenses.
Not satis ed therewith, the defendant now interposed this appeal to the Court of
Appeals alleging the trial court committed the following errors: Cdpr
"I
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE IS
A NATURAL CHILD OF THE LATE REV. FR. FELIPE LUMAIN.
III
The spouses Roman Lumain and Filomena Cosare and their children Rev.
Fr. Felix Lumain and Macario Lumain are dead. This fact is corroborated by the
following death certificates:
(a) Exhibit I — death certi cate showing that on August 20, 1929
Roman Lumain, husband of Filomena Cosare, was buried in the Catholic
Cemetery of Tubigon, Bohol;
(b) Exhibit J — death certi cate showing that Filomena Cosare, wife of
Roman Lumain, was buried on October 6, 1934 in the Catholic Cemetery of
Tubigon, Bohol;
(c) Exhibit K — death certi cate showing that Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain,
son of Roman Lumain and Filomena Cosare, was buried on November 3, 1936 in
the Catholic Cemetery of Tubigon, Bohol;
It appears proven at the same time that Ceferina Falcon de Lumain died on
June 29, 1953, as shown by Exhibit M.
Several witnesses had declared that the spouses Roman Lumain and
Filomena Cosare were possessing as owners and enjoying the products of the
three parcels of land described in the complaint; that after their death, it was their
two children Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and Macario Lumain who succeeded them in
the possession of the same property.
It is true that vendor Roman Lumain reserved the right to repurchase the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
property at any time, but in the light of the provisions of Article 1508 of the old
Civil Code which is the law applicable to the case, it is obvious that Roman
Lumain and his heirs have lost the right the redeem the property. Article 1508 of
the old Civil Code provides:
'When this case was called today, Atty. Diosdado R. Delima and
Conrado D. Marapao, counsel for the parties, submitted the following
agreement:
'Comes the undersigned attorney and respectfully proposes for an
appointment of a Commissioner of the Court for the following purposes:
1. To localize Parcel II of the Second Amended Complaint under
Tax No. 6862 superseded by Tax No. 20836 in the name of Roman
Lumain;
2. To localize all the portions in the said parcel which are
claimed by Hipolito Paraguya and to make a sketch of the portions
showing its relative positions with one another, showing its dimensions in
meters, and showing its relative position in relation to the whole parcel;
3. To localize the portion in same parcel which are claimed by
Ceferina Falcon and to make a sketch of the said portion showing its
dimensions in meters and showing further its relative position in relation to
the whole parcel.
I AGREE:
(Sgd.) CONRADO MARAPAO
Attorney for the Defendants
Ceferina Falcon and Hipolito
Paraguya'
In the light of the foregoing, we conclude that out of the rst parcel of land
described in the 6th amended complaint defendant had only acquired Portions A
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
and B described in the plan Exhibit E-1.
We do not overlook the fact that Macario Lumain, as co-owner of the rst
parcel of land described in the 6th amended complaint could not select any
portion thereof as his own, as long, as there was no actual partition of the
property. We believe, however, that it would be more advantageous to the plaintiff
to disregard this procedure, since a partition would be more costly for her, for in
such case defendant would claim reimbursements for necessary and useful
expenses. Moreover, the sales took place almost 10 years before the ling of the
complaint, and it would be unjust for defendant Paraguya to suffer the adverse
effects of the laches committed by plaintiff.
Plaintiff maintains that she is entitled to inherit the property of the
deceased Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain on the ground that she had been recognized as
daughter of the latter in his testament Exhibit A-1 which has been duly probated
by this Court and the Court of Appeals, as shown from Exhibit A-2.
Defendant, on the other hand, maintains that plaintiff is not entitled to
inherit the property of the deceased Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain for the reason that she
is an adulterous child. He further maintains that the acknowledgment of plaintiff
by the late Fr. Felipe Lumain is null and void she being not a natural child of the
latter. In support of this contention, defendant offered in evidence Exhibit 2 which
is the marriage certi cate of Anastacio Mamburao and Trinidad Montilde, mother
of plaintiff. According to this certi cate, the marriage of both spouses took place
on March 4, 1924. Defendant also offered in evidence Exhibit 1 showing that
plaintiff was born on September 12, 1924. Taking into account both documents, it
can be said that plaintiff was born six months after her mother's marriage to
Anastacio Mamburao. During the trial Trinidad Montilde declared that she had
never lived together with her husband and at present the latter is living with
another woman.
Bearing in mind the date of the birth of plaintiff, it is evident that her
mother Trinidad Montilde was still single at the time she was conceived. It is a
legal presumption that plaintiff is the daughter of the spouses Anastacio
Mamburao and Trinidad Montilde, but bearing in mind that this presumption is
disputable and was successfully overcome by Trinidad Montilde, plaintiff's
mother, we nd no other avenue than to declare that plaintiff is a natural child of
the late Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain. Consequently, she can be acknowledged by the
latter as his own child.
But in the remote possibility that plaintiff is not a natural child of the
deceased Fr. Felipe Lumain, we still maintain that, under the latter's will (Exhibit A-
1), she is entitled to claim the disputed property, she having been instituted in the
will as universal heir. This document contains the following provisions:
'4. — Dono tambien a la mencionada niña, Consolacion M. Lumain,
mi homestead consistentente en una parcela de terreno de 24 hect. situada
en el barrio de Calatrava, Carmen, Bohol, con todas sus mejoras; todas
Acciones e interesesen la JAGNA ELECTRIC SERVICE CO., Jagna, Bohol;
todos los bienes muebles e immuebles que me corespondan de la herencia
de mis padres; y todos los bienes e intereses que yo consiga en lo futuro.
(The following words are written in pencil without initial of the testator:
Estoy asegorado por la Insular Life Assurance Co. en la cantidad de Dos
Mil Pesos, y la beneficiaria de mi Poliza es la misma consolacion.)
Is plaintiff entitled to claim the entire rst parcel of land described in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
6th amended complaint? Let us not forget that the spouses Roman Lumain and
Filomena Cosare died leaving two legitimate children: Rev. Fr. Felipe Lumain and
Macario Lumain. Let us not either forget that Fr. Lumain died ahead of Macario
Lumain. Under the circumstances, therefore, Fr. Lumain did not become the owner
of the share of Macario Lumain, he having died ahead of the latter. Macario
Lumain could not either inherit the share of his brother, because the latter had
instituted the plaintiff as his legal heir. Plaintiff, on the other hand, cannot inherit
the property of the deceased Macario Lumain in view of the following provisions
of Article 943 of the old Civil Code:
'A natural or a legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate
the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who has
acknowledged it; nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from the
natural or legitimated child.'
In the light of the foregoing, it is obvious that, after the death of Fr. Felipe
Lumain, plaintiff and Macario Lumain became co-owners of all the properties left
by their deceased parents. Consequently, plaintiff is only an owner of one-half
(1/2) undivided share of said properties and the remaining undivided half belongs
to the heirs of the late Macario Lumain who took no intervention in this case. And
because of this fact, the Court can not render a judgment determining the
ownership of the property in question, on account of the fact that the heirs of the
deceased Macario Lumain are not parties to this case.
Under the rst assigned error appellant contends that portion G of the sketch
Exhibit E-1 with all the improvements belongs to him and that he is entitled to its
possession. In support thereof appellant argues —
"This particular portion of land known as portion G of the sketch Exhibit 'E-
1' declared in the name of the real owner of the defendant-appellant herein under
Tax Dec. No. R-13497, (Exh.: '9-b') formerly under Tax Dec. No. 23216 (Exh.: '9-a')
in the name of the former owner Rev. Father Pelagio Torrefranca is outside the
land in question. (See IV last paragraph of p. 23 & 24; letter B last paragraph of p.
31 and letter C 1st paragraph of p. 32, Record on Appeal; (See also IV 2nd
paragraph of p. 41, Record on Appeal).
We nd support in this contention from the report of the Commissioner
(Exhibit 'E') in paragraph 2 and 4 of said report: (See Record on Appeal, pp. 59-
60).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Par. 2 of the Commissioner's Report (Exhibit 'E') states:
'Que la pintada con lapiz encarnado, representa la reclamada por
Hipolito Paraguya bajo declaraciones Tax Nos. 13497 y 13919 de Hipolito.'
(p. 60, Record on Appeal)
In the Blueprint (Exh. '11') the name of Valerio Roba appeared as the owner
of that parcel known as Portion G (as shown in Exh 'E-1') for at that time in 1910
Valerio Roba was still the owner. The blueprint (Exh. '11') was made and surveyed
in 1910. But after 1910 Pelagio Torrefranca acquired this land (Portion G) from
Valerio Roba. This particular Portion G is now declared under Tax Dec. No. R-
13497 in the name of defendant-appellant Hipolito Paraguya and formerly
declared under Tax Dec. No. 23216 in the name of the former owner Pelagio
Torrefranca. (See Exhibits '9-a', '9-b', '10' and '10-a' to '10-g' and Exhibits '8' and
'9').
The Court should take notice that the land in the name of former owner
Valerio Roba (known as Portion G in Exhibit 'E-1') is the land acquired and owned
by Rev. Father Pelagio Torrefranca and later sold by Rev. Father Pelagio
Torrefranca to the defendant-appellant Hipolito Paraguya is outside the land
(outside the Black Lines of Exhibits "11" and 'E-1') of the late Roman Lumain as
shown in the blue print (Exhibit '11') a map of the land of the late Roman Lumain
made and surveyed in 1910. There is no question therefore that this Portion G
(shown in Exh. 'E-1') is not the land of the late Roman Lumain, hence outside the
land in question. The Court has no jurisdiction over this land Portion G as shown
in Exhibit 'E-1' for it is not a part of the land of Roman Lumain whose properties
are the ones in question (See Exhibits '11' and 'E-1' — These two Exhibits '11' and
'E-1' should be compared as they are closely connected to each other.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
This is supported by the ndings of the Lower Court found on page 61, 1st
Sentence of the 3rd Paragraph of the Decision, (p. 61 Record on Appeal) which
states: 'But if we examine the sketch Exhibit 'E-1' we will nd the land of Pelagio
Torrefranca is outside the land of Roman Lumain enclosed within the black lines.'
And on page 62, 1st Sentence of the 1st Paragraph of the Decision (p. 62, Record
on Appeal) which states: 'Consequently, the land bought by defendant Hipolito
Paraguya from Pelagio Torrefranca is outside the land of Roman Lumain
described in the plan Exhibit 11.' " 9
Footnotes
1. Exhibit 2.
2. Exhibit 1, TSN, Dec. 22, 1955, pp. 15-28.
13. Supra.
14. Articles 2217 and 2220, Civil Code; Silva v. Peralta, 110 Phil. 57; Strebel v.
Figueras, 96 Phil. 321; Lopez v. PANAM, 16 SCRA 431; Darang v. Belizar, 19 SCRA
214.