View full case

HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a disputed 1.1062 hectare parcel of land located in Cagayan de Oro City. The land was originally declared for taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. The respondent, Lourdes Evero Pacana, claims to be the sole owner of the land, alleging that she inherited it from her mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero. The respondent further claims that she demanded the return of the land but was ignored. When Teofilo and his wife died, the petitioners, heirs of Teofilo Gabatan, took possession of the land despite the respondent's demands to vacate.

The petitioners, on the other hand, denied the respondent's claims of ownership and heirship. They asserted that Juan Gabatan died single and without any issue, and that he was survived by one brother and two sisters, including Teofilo Gabatan who inherited the land. The petitioners also argued that they have been in possession of the land for more than fifty years and enjoyed the fruits of the improvements on the land.

The disputed property in this case is Lot 3095 C-5, which was owned by the deceased Juan Gabatan. The respondent filed a case for the recovery of ownership and possession of the said property, claiming to be the sole and surviving heir of Juan Gabatan. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the documentary evidence, as well as the acknowledgment of the respondent by her father Teofilo and his relatives, established her right to inherit from Juan Gabatan. The CA also held that the petitioners' possession of the property could not ripen into acquisitive prescription because their predecessor-in-interest never held the property as an owner. Aggrieved, the petitioners raised various errors before the Supreme Court, including the lower court's failure to declare that Juan Gabatan died single and without issue, and the applicability of laches and prescription. The Supreme Court noted that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, but there are exceptions when the findings of fact are contrary to the trial court or when the court overlooks relevant facts. The Court recognized the need for a special proceeding to determine the legal heirs, rather than in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession.

The petitioners filed a civil action claiming to be the children of the deceased and seeking to inherit his share of the conjugal properties. The trial court in the civil case declared that the petitioners were not children of the deceased and that the properties in question were the paraphernal properties of the deceased's wife. The Court ruled that such declarations are improper in a civil case and must be made in a special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate. However, in a previous case, the Court allowed the trial court in a proceeding for annulment of title to determine the status of the party as heirs, considering the impracticality and burden of subjecting the estate to administration proceedings. In the present case, there appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed, and the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented in the civil case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not a separate special proceeding is necessary to determine the status of an alleged heir.

  2. Whether or not the trial court erred in conferring upon the respondent the status of sole heir of Juan Gabatan.

  3. Whether or not the birth certificate presented by the respondent is genuine and authentic.

  4. Whether Exhibit A or petitioners' Exhibits 1 and 8 should be given greater probative weight.

  5. Whether the birth certificate presented by respondent (Exhibit A) is sufficient to prove her filiation to her alleged grandfather, Juan Gabatan.

  6. Whether respondent presented sufficient evidence to prove the relationship of her mother, Hermogena, to Juan Gabatan.

  7. Whether the testimonies of Frisco Lawan, Felicisima Nagac Pacana, and Cecilia Nagac Villareal are reliable and can be accorded probative weight.

  8. Whether the photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit H) is admissible as evidence.

  9. Whether respondent substantiated her claim as the sole heir of Juan Gabatan and thus entitled to the property under litigation.

  10. Whether the defense of laches is applicable in this case.

RULING:

  1. No. The court ruled that a separate special proceeding is not necessary to determine the status of an alleged heir when there is only one property being claimed as inheritance and the parties have voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court in a civil case. The trial court may proceed to evaluate the evidence presented and render a decision on the issue of heirship.

  2. Yes. The court found insufficient and questionable basis for the trial court to confer upon the respondent the status of sole heir of Juan Gabatan. The respondent did not present preponderant evidence to support her claim. The trial court's judgment conferring sole heirship on the respondent was overturned.

  3. Yes. The court disagreed with the trial court's finding that the birth certificate presented by the respondent (Exhibit A) was more genuine and authentic than the birth certificate presented by the petitioners (Exhibit 1). The court noted that Exhibit 1, although handwritten, was an older form than Exhibit A which was a typewritten document. Therefore, the trial court erred in considering Exhibit A as the genuine and authentic birth certificate.

  4. Petitioners' Exhibits 1 and 8 should be given greater probative weight than Exhibit A. The certified true copies of the handwritten birth certificate of respondent were duly authenticated by two competent witnesses, while Exhibit A lacks proper authentication.

  5. Even assuming that Exhibit A is a reliable document, it is insufficient to prove respondent's filiation to Juan Gabatan. Exhibit A only proves that respondent's mother is Hermogena Clarito Gabatan, but it does not prove that Hermogena is the daughter of Juan Gabatan.

  6. Respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the relationship of her mother, Hermogena, to Juan Gabatan. She did not offer Hermogena's birth certificate, the best evidence of her relationship to Juan Gabatan. The witnesses relied on hearsay and did not have personal knowledge of the facts of marriage and birth.

  7. The testimonies of Frisco Lawan, Felicisima Nagac Pacana, and Cecilia Nagac Villareal are deemed unreliable and cannot be accorded probative weight. Frisco Lawan, who testified regarding the relationships within the Gabatan family, was not related to Juan Gabatan and his testimony is therefore not reliable. Felicisima Nagac Pacana and Cecilia Nagac Villareal, who are blood relatives of the petitioners, are also the mother and aunt, respectively, of the respondent's husband. Hence, they cannot be considered as entirely disinterested witnesses.

  8. The photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit H) is inadmissible as evidence. Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. While there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the original is lost or is a public record, the proponent of the secondary evidence must establish the basis for its presentation. In this case, the proponent failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of the original document or provide any proof of its existence or registration in a public office. Additionally, the stamped certification on the photocopy is insufficient as authentication, as it does not state that Exhibit H is a true copy from the original nor was the certifying officer presented as a witness to attest to its authenticity. The assessor's office where the photocopy was obtained is not the proper custodian of the original notarized deed of sale.

  9. The Court finds that respondent failed to substantiate her claim as the sole heir of Juan Gabatan with convincing, credible, and independently verifiable proof. Her presentation of a tampered/altered or spurious copy of her certificate of live birth did not help her case. As a result, the complaint and amended complaint in Civil Case No. 89-092 are dismissed for lack of merit.

  10. The defense of laches is deemed applicable in this case. Respondent and her mother failed to assert their rights as legal heirs of Juan Gabatan since 1933. Their only action was filed in 1978 but was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent waited until 1989 to refile the case. The Court held that she cannot use Rita Gabatan's old age as an excuse for delay. Thus, the defense of laches is also ruled against the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A separate special proceeding is not necessary to determine the status of an alleged heir when there is only one property being claimed as inheritance and the parties have voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court in a civil case.

  • The filiation of legitimate children may be proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, by an authentic document or final judgment, by continuous possession of status, or by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

  • In determining the authenticity and genuineness of conflicting birth certificates, the court must carefully examine the evidence presented and consider relevant factors such as the form used, the presence of any alterations or discrepancies, and the credibility of the parties presenting the birth certificates.

  • The best evidence of familial tie is the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, an authentic document, or a final judgment.

  • In the absence of the aforementioned best evidence, continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child may be presented. If both types of evidence are absent, other admissible proof may be presented.

  • Testimonies of witnesses who have a personal interest in the outcome of the case may be considered unreliable and accorded less probative weight.

  • The best evidence rule requires that the contents of a document be proven by the original document itself, except in certain exceptions where the proponent must establish the basis for the presentation of secondary evidence.

  • Proper authentication of a document requires an attestation stating that the copy is a correct copy from the original and must be made by the officer having legal custody of the record.

  • The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

  • Laches is a valid defense if there is an unreasonable delay in asserting one's claim.