Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals

Posted Oct 26, 1989

By Anonymous

5 min read

Case Title and Citation

DOROTEA, VIRGILIO, APOLINARIO, JR., SULPICIO & DOMINADOR, all surnamed UYGUANGCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Judge SENEN PENARANDA and GRACIANO BACJAO UYGUANGCO, respondents.
G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: CRUZ, J.

Facts

Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, survived by his wife Dorotea and four legitimate children (the petitioners).
Graciano B. Uyguangco claimed to be an illegitimate son of Apolinario, born in 1952 to Apolinario and Anastacia Bacjao.
At about age 15 (circa 1967) Graciano moved to his father’s hometown in Medina, Misamis Oriental, where he lived, received support, and attended Medina High School.
Graciano worked as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store in Mananom from 1967 to 1973 and allegedly shared in family business interests; he also used the surname Uyguangco and held positions (e.g., director) in a family corporation.
After Apolinario’s death, the petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate; Graciano alleged exclusion and filed a complaint for partition against the petitioners seeking a share as an illegitimate child.
At trial Graciano admitted he had none of the documentary proofs listed in Civil Code Article 278 (record of birth, will, statement before a court of record, or authentic writing).
The petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground that recognition/filial action was barred under applicable law; the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge, holding no grave abuse of discretion and that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal rather than prohibition.
The Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, modified the provisions on filiation. Relevant Family Code provisions include Articles 172 and 175 (establishing that illegitimate children may establish filiation by the same means as legitimate children, and providing for proof by open and continuous possession or other means) and Article 175’s limitation that actions based on the second paragraph of Article 172 may be brought only during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

Issues

May the private respondent prove his illegitimate filiation in the partition action without the documentary evidence required by the old Civil Code?
May the private respondent rely on open and continuous possession or other means under Article 172 (second paragraph) of the Family Code to establish illegitimate filiation after the alleged parent’s death?
Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction in allowing the proof to proceed and denying dismissal?

Ruling

No - The private respondent cannot now prove his illegitimate filiation in the partition action by circumventing the documentary requirements of the Civil Code insofar as the Family Code’s limitations apply.
No - Proof of illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 (open and continuous possession or other means) may be brought only during the lifetime of the alleged parent; it is not available after the alleged parent’s death.
Yes - Allowing the partition action to proceed insofar as it attempts to establish filiation by means barred by the Family Code was erroneous; the trial court’s denial of dismissal and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance were reversed.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, superseded or modified prior Civil Code provisions concerning recognition and proof of filiation. Article 175 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate children may establish filiation by the same means as legitimate children and Article 172 sets out documentary proofs and, in their absence, proof by open and continuous possession or other means.
Article 175 (second paragraph) limits actions based on the second paragraph of Article 172 to the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Court interpreted this as excluding the use of open and continuous possession or other non-documentary means to establish filiation against a deceased alleged parent.
The rationale: the alleged parent must have the opportunity to affirm or deny the filiation; if the parent is dead, that opportunity is lost and proof by such secondary means becomes unreliable. The Court quoted commentary to this effect (Handbook on the Family Code by Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy).
The Court observed that Graciano’s claim, presented collaterally in a partition complaint, was a circumvention of Article 172’s temporal limitation because his alleged father’s death (1975) precluded proving filiation by the second-paragraph means.
Because the asserted means of proof are barred against a deceased alleged parent, the partition complaint could not be sustained on the basis of the alleged filiation; consequently the complaint was dismissed.
The Family Code’s repeal and retroactivity provisions (Arts. 254 and 256) were applied to determine that the updated rules govern the present case without impairing vested rights.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Illegitimate filiation may be established by the same means as legitimate filiation, including documentary proof and, in the absence of documents, by open and continuous possession or other means allowed by rules of evidence (Family Code Arts. 172, 175).
Proof of filiation by open and continuous possession or other secondary means (second paragraph of Article 172) is available only during the lifetime of the alleged parent; it cannot be invoked against a deceased alleged parent.
A collateral action (such as partition) cannot be used to circumvent the temporal limitation on proving filiation set by the Family Code.
The Family Code supersedes inconsistent Civil Code provisions on filiation and applies retroactively insofar as it does not prejudice vested rights.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 9067 in the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, is DISMISSED.
Effect: The partition complaint filed by Graciano B. Uyguangco, insofar as it seeks a share as an illegitimate child based on proof barred by the Family Code, is dismissed.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

Justices Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea concurred.
No dissenting opinion noted in the decision.

Significance / Notes

The decision clarifies that the Family Code restricts the ability of putative illegitimate children to establish filiation by secondary means after the death of the alleged parent; claimants must rely on documentary proof or commence recognition actions during the alleged parent’s lifetime.
Partition or other collateral actions cannot be employed to bypass the Family Code’s temporal limitation on filiation proofs.
The case illustrates the impact of the Family Code’s repeal provisions (Art. 254) and its limited retroactivity (Art. 256) on pre-existing Civil Code remedies.
Practically, alleged illegitimate children and their advisers must seek recognition while the alleged parent is alive or ensure documentary evidence exists to support later claims.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.