Reyes v. Sotero

REYES v.
SOTERO
G.R. No. 167405 February 16, 2006
J. YNARES-SANTIAGO
Topic: Rules Conferring Power Over Another's Property - Rule 73 Venue and Process
FACTS
1. Elena Lising died and Private Respondent Corazon Chichioco filed a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration and settlement of the estate (Spec. Proc. No.
204 )of the deceased.
2. The Petitioner filed an Opposition.

a. She claimed that she is the sole heir of the deceased, having been adopted by
her and her husband.
b. Thus,the petition by Chichioco should be dismissed, as there is no need to
appoint an administrator especially since the deceased left no debt.
3. The Petitioner presented, as evidence of her adoption, the following documents:

a. Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Paniqui, Tarlac stating that
on page 76, Book No. 01 of the Register of Court Decrees, Reyes was adopted
by Elena Lising and Serafin Delos Santos1
b. Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC-Tarlac City, stating that a
judgment was rendered in Spec. Proc. No. 1410 on December 21, 1968
decreeing petitioner’s adoption by Elena Lising and Serafin Delos Santos.
c. Copy of Judicial Form No. 436 indicating that the adoption decree was on file in
the General Docket of the RTC-Tarlac City, wherein the dispositive portion of the
adoption decree grants the petition for adoption.
d. A Decree of Final Distribution issued by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
(PVAO) showing that, upon the death of Serafin Delos Santos, death benefits
were paid to his widow, Elena Lising, and his "daughter", Ana Joyce Delos
Santos, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law.
4. On the other hand, respondents filed a criminal action against Petitioner for the
alleged falsification of the adoption decree and Judicial Form No. 43, docketed as I.S.
No. 00-1016 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Tarlac City.
a. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to charge the
petitioner with falsification but this was appealed by the Petitioner before the
Office of the Regional State Prosecutor.
5. During the pendency of the criminal case, the RTC granted respondents’ motion for the
appointment of a special administrator and appointed its branch clerk of court, Atty.
Saguyod.
a. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied.
1
pursuant to a decision rendered in SP No. 1410 by Judge Julian Lustre of the CFI of Tarlac, Branch 3, promulgated
on December 21, 1968 and duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar on January 29, 1969.
6. Respondents also filed a motion to enjoin Petitioner from conducting business on
the deceased’s estate.
a. The RTC granted this via Resolution on September 18, 2002, enjoining Petitioner
and empowering the Special Administrator to take control and possession of the
deceased’s properties.
b. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied on November
12, 2002
7. Meanwhile, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor and the DOJ, upon review,
reversed the findings of the Provincial Prosecutor and dismissed the criminal charges
against Petitioner.
8. So Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA assailing the
RTC’s September 18, 2002 and November 12, 2002 resolutions.
a. She alleged that said resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction since as sole heir, she had the right
to possess and use the decedent’s property, title over which automatically
passed on to her upon the latter’s death.
b. There was also no valid challenge to her adoption and she consequently remains
to be the sole heir of the decedent.
i. Thus, she stressed that there was no need for the appointment of an
administrator or for the settlement proceedings and Corazon’s original
petition (Spec. Proc. No. 204) should be dismissed.
9. The CA partially granted the petition.

a. It nullified the assailed resolutions of the RTC.
b. But it refused to dismiss Spec. Proc. No. 204 because petitioner must prove
that she was indeed adopted before the trial court as "imputations of irregularities
permeating the adoption decree render its authenticity under a cloud of doubt."
10. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. W/N PETITIONER STILL NEEDS TO PROVE HER LEGAL ADOPTION BY EVIDENCE

OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY PRESENTED BEFORE THE RTC – NO.
a. GR: An adoption decree is a public document required to be entered into public
records, i.e. in the local civil registrar’s office as well as the court which rendered
judgment.
i. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.
b. ITC, these certifications suffice as proof of the fact of petitioner’s adoption by the
Delos Santos spouses until contradicted or overcome by sufficient evidence.
i. Mere "imputations of irregularities" will not cast a "cloud of doubt" on the
adoption decree since the certifications and its contents are presumed
valid until proof to the contrary is offered.
c. [impt] MOREOVER, such contrary proof can only be presented in a separate

action brought principally for the purpose of nullifying the adoption decree.
i. The latter cannot be assailed collaterally in a proceeding for the
settlement of a decedent’s estate (Santos v. Aranzanso)
ii. Absent a categorical pronouncement that the adoption was void in an
appropriate proceeding, respondents cannot assail in the present
proceedings the validity of the adoption decree in order to defeat
petitioner’s claim that she is the sole heir of the decedent.
d. THUS, since petitioner’s adoption remains unrebutted, he should therefore enjoy

his status as a legitimate child of the decedent.
i. The effect therefore is that respondent would be excluded from inheriting
from the decedent since they are merely collateral relatives of the latter.
- Other SC notes:
- To allow the proceedings below to continue would serve no salutary purpose but
to delay the resolution of the instant case.
- After all, the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 204 is the logical consequence of our
pronouncement relative to the presumed validity of petitioner’s adoption.
- All the evidence pertinent to the resolution of the petitioner’s opposition, which is
actually a motion to dismiss the petition for letters of administration and
settlement of the estate, is a matter of record in the instant case.
- The same has in fact been submitted for resolution before the RTC more
than six years ago and is so far the only pending incident before the RTC.
- No useful purpose will thus be served if we let the RTC resolve the matter, only
for its ruling to be elevated again to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to this
Court.
- The remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of
evidence is not necessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the
dispute based on the evidence before it.
- RULING: Petition GRANTED. SP No. 204 DISMISSED.

Reyes v. Sotero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Reyes v. Sotero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REYES v.

2. The Petitioner filed an Opposition.

3. The Petitioner presented, as evidence of her adoption, the following documents:

9. The CA partially granted the petition.

10. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.

1. W/N PETITIONER STILL NEEDS TO PROVE HER LEGAL ADOPTION BY EVIDENCE

c. [impt] MOREOVER, such contrary proof can only be presented in a separate

d. THUS, since petitioner’s adoption remains unrebutted, he should therefore enjoy

- RULING: Petition GRANTED. SP No. 204 DISMISSED.

You might also like