Cases (declaration About Pedigree) Flashcards
FACTS: Martin Guerrero, the surviving spouse and only heir of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero (TDG), sold the property originally owned by the latter to herein respondent Teodora Domingo. Thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 374012 was issued in the latter’s name. When Martin Guerrero died, herein petitioners, alleging to be TDG’s niece and nephew, filed an action for reconveyance claiming that they are entitled to inherit one-half of the property in question by right of representation from TDG. During the trial, Corazon, one of the petitioners, testified that she is the niece of TDG and submitted documentary evidence such as pictures, baptismal certificate etc. to prove the alleged filiation. Private respondent filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate filiation with the deceased Teodora Guerrero. The trial court issued an order granting the demurrer to evidence. In upholding the dismissal, respondent Court of Appeals declared that the documentary evidence presented by herein petitioners, such as the baptismal certificates, family picture, and joint affidavits are all inadmissible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation.
ISSUES: ‘
(1) Whether or not a trial court may dismissed an action for reconveyance on the ground of complainant’s failure to prove his alleged filiation on which the cause of action is anchored.
(2) Whether or not testimony as to filiation to a deceased person is inadmissible for being a hearsay evidence.
HELD: (1)”The answer is in the negative. The court a quo and respondent appellate court have regrettably overlooked the universally recognized presumption on legitimacy. The presumption of legitimacy in the Family Code actually fixes a civil status for the child born in wedlock, and that civil status cannot be attacked collaterally. The legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the proper parties, and within the period limited by law. The burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners who have the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on private respondent who is disputing the same. (2)”The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship between the parties concerned is the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the former is Teodora’s niece. Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only before the commencement of the suit involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon. There is no dispute with respect to the first, second and fourth elements. What remains for analysis is the third element, that is, whether or not the other documents offered in evidence sufficiently corroborate the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime regarding the pedigree of petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to present evidence other than such declaration. Distinction must be made as to when the relationship of the declarant may be proved by the very declaration itself, or by other declarations of said declarant, and when it must be supported by evidence aliunde. The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant’s estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family. We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate of the declarant herself.
