,-,1-----· ORIGINAL t,;, '',, I) ·,:.'. ., ......... , ./.. ,... ) ,,..,0'i • l.J) ;I';.i~\1 1,. J. • .;.. FILED BY: .J(;tt!}Soq'.: f'''; ~.. ·v1:I) ..... ;':i• ■'!'.· . ..... -- ... --.,t,-_, ., DATE: JGV\\i\CtlZ~') '\£, • .. 'f . -·,··: '. .. ,., ,·,· ·. •,:' ;,, ,,': ,,.., ;.'.: :.(. ,:~· .\ ·},. ",t· ,,,•··~· \M 14 il1 2: I 0 ,:,/:urar1s m•itktbl1iE•N·B·WNiC . '.'\ > '.:' ·.,' !•·': / •\··J :::} y .r .:.:· .'. · , :. ,.w,th,n 1 HOUR, · ·, ··· ; · 1 ,. ;::,_ .-:·'.: :·,- _, ..':" .··, ' :;_, _,.:··,.:,'\\': .; ): ·,:J•"·,.:f. ::.,\:i ;._' '1':' ._\·' ,,[o~R~ 8~rr1cc 'NT DIVISION ,,,· (As per EN BANC Memorandum.·dated Jan':'::22/2013) .!'· EI VE D .D. OJ..1'..JJ JJ.L V J.O.LVli . t~ C.. \.l~iw, 1 lt 2015 AMADEA.ANGELA K. AQUINO ;6-:1-~ Petitioner, ~........---~ -~-------~-"•~-. ,,/-··· .,,., ~~;. No. 208912 '\) ( // . '-------·"•··-·-·•--" ...............- _.. ... SUPREM''. COURT - versus- Of'F1CE OF THE cu;1u, OF COURT ENDANC RECEIVED JAN RODOLFO C. AQUINO, Respondent, BY: ~ ~ TIME: =1~/'. ~ : x-----------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 209018 - versus- •' • r·;, C ·. ,· · 11 1·1· ,<'·. t'" \.,... •• •• .,., ... ", ,, : '! '·1·'1:t1\]1·1·ti:i.. •.ui. 'I! ,1,•~c:•.• ~·1·••\1 !1,iill• , ... ti: \(:{''• T,~T-:•1 \f"J!•;1;1·, I [;• I•. ,,J"/"'-'• • '•/ ,\11,I ,,' '•I I '.srl,.. ~-,.,.~ \~ '' .... ··• \ '°\i' ·)·•. ;• ,' :·,'I I.': i} (i ·, i'.• /_',;._'.• :,,; i.'i '.',. :'\. ·: f.1 .. 1 t1 , ........................ -· ··1·· ' ,, '"'( ABDULLAH C. AQUINO, £.OSTED. r~i.•111'.!:ll:•mJ.llrnJ:,Jl;l~~;.,,i:~~!! Respondent, •, x------------------------------------------x ORIGU\fl\~- i\NDJ .• . ,i~-. C.O.PIE' CONSOLIDATED REPLY ' (To Abdullah C. Aquino's Comment dated October 9, 2014 and Rodolfo C. Aquino's Comment dated October 20, 2014) Petitioner, AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO, through counsel, by way of Reply to respondent Abdullah Aquino's Com1nent dated October 9, 2014 and respondent Rodolfo C. Aquino's Comment dated October 20, 2014, respectfully states: Respondents rely on inapplicable technical rules to deprive petitioner of her status and right as an heir of the decedent, Miguel T. Aquino. :~·~,.. 1. Yet again, respondents emphasize inapplicable technical requirements under the Family Code to persuade this Court that petitioner has not established her status as a ,~~.I I'\ I \AX 11•: !1!: ,_. ")'"7/' 11 Ii ..-·- '- < 1k --- ., . ..Jltol, 1/;I ! i Ii .pd of the decedent's son, Arturo C. Aquino (Arturo), and so :1 {not entitled to inherit by right of representation from the :/1 bedent Miguel T. Aquino (Miguel). i1i11 ii : 2. Respondents would stress the purported i' pplicability of Article 1 72 of the Family Code to Amadea ·I ,_1,,,, I: .rigela Aquino (Amadea), but admit that Amadea's father, !)r, (fruro, died before her birth. Notably, Articles 172 and 175 of ·.~:.Family Code respectively provide: . "Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children 1s I! •(I established by any of the following: ,:,,,, (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a finaljudgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document ii::I "I or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the I! '" parent concerned. ··: Ii" \:I In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate 1;1 ., filiation shall be proved by: ,.!:' 'I i' (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a •[I legitimate child; or Iii (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and (i special laws. l XXX XXX XXX :1 "Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their · illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on · the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)" 3. Given the circumstance of Amadea's birth vis-a-vis /r father's demise, it is, therefore, unreasonable, illogical, .~d; even absurd to require Amadea to produce a public '\::ument or private handwritten instrument "signed by the .rent concerned" for a dead man cannot plausibly sign a cument to prove the filiation of his child. 4. With more reason, A1nadea cannot be expected to stitute filiation proceedings to establish her posthumous :liation within the period fixed in Article 175 in relation to 2 1 ii Ii!' ,·1l 2?:; ! '/'. /. 1:. 1· 1I• i!, 'I' :),Article 172 of the Family Code, i.e., during the lifetime of /1/ 111 :.Arturo, for obvious reason: the said period had already lapsed 1'1,, ::I even before she was born. I I:· 1 ill1 lfli 5. Clearly, subsumed if not underpinning the second '1!11 :paragraph of Article 172 and Article 175 of the Family Code is I!··11 i.i,I ! 1: the assumption that the named parent was still alive when the 11/1 ·child was born and had continued to live for a period of time. },, ' As Amadea's father died before she was born, the technical 'requirements of Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code are •.. both inapplicable to Amadea's case. 6. Nonetheless, intent on urging this Court to · .. unjustifiably deny Amadea her rights as a child of Arturo, ' , respondent Abdullah points out that, pursuant to Bernabe v. Alejo, 1 Amadea should have had filed an action for recognition · within four (4) years from attaining the age of majority. Yet, respondent Abdullah himself admits that Bernabe was . promulgated only in 2002, or two (2) years after the period ., provided to commence the suit for recognition therein had . already lapsed for petitioner Amadea. As respondent Abdullah , . himself concedes, Amadea attained the age of majority in 1996 · and so only had, following his thesis, until 2000 to institute · the action. 7. The Honorable Court had once held that, in parallel . · with Articles 42 and 8 3 of the Civil Code, its decisions have no retroactive effect and should be applied prospectively, unless : expressly provided otherwise.4 Hence, this Honorable Court's pronouncements in Bernabe are not applicable to petitioner (1·11: '·Iilll , Amadea. Furthermore, in Bernabe the alleged illegitimate I i1 child was born during the lifetime of the alleged father, who died when the alleged illegitimate child was already at least twelve (12) yea.rs old, in the instant case, on the other hand, Amadea's father, Arturo, died before her birth. Thus, the case of Bernabe is not on all fours with the instant case. 1111 8. Without any law or rule in context squat~ 1·. applicable to petitioner Amadea's situation, an illegitimate 1:1 1!1 1,1 1G.R. No. 140500. January 21, 2002. 11' 2 Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the 1i:,\I contrary is provided. 3 Article 8. Judicial laws applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. 4 Co v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993. 3 2i1(, .$umous child, the trial court correctly employed the j.ri "' . .9Jple of estoppel to the case at bar observing: that "the \heirs did not deny, challenge or qualify any ofthe claims yant Amadea Aquino. They all rely on technicalities 1·ot one of them belied the claims of Amaaea all of ort her nosition that she has , been in :~in:uous possession of the status of an acknowledJ?ed :tura:l child of Arturo Aquino."5 Thus, the dispositive .. hof the RTC Order reads: :-f· ,,. "ACCORDINGLY, Amadea Angela K. Aquino is hereby 1!konsidered and declared an acknowledged natural child or ::legitimated child of Arturo C. Aquino for purposes of determining her share in the estate of her grandfather, Miguel T. Aquino, in representation of her father Arturo C. Aquino and pending the distribution of the residual estate, the Administrator is hereby directed to immediately give her a>:imonthly allowance of P64,000.00 upon the latter's posting a-,bond of Pl00,000.00." -:i,'',;; ~1,~'.~ndents Abdullah and . dolf<> are now estopped 11\1~' ,;(claiming that Amadea LQb,the daughter of their ''.fiel'.· and a rightful heir ·:~e.:>decedent, Miguel T . !illo·. To recall, the trial court observed the following: : "In the Motion to be Included in the Distribution and Partition of the Estate, it is alleged: "6. It was Arturo Aquino's family, particularly his father Miguel Aquino (grandfather of the movant), who provided for the medical expenses of the yet unborn child of his son.xxx 7. Immediately after she was born, herein movant and her mother lived with the Aquino family at their ancestral home xxx · 8. xxx one of her godparents was Abdullah Aquino, brother of her father xxx From the time of her birth until at present, herein movant has been recognized by the Aquino clan as the natural child of Arturo Aquino xxx , 10. XXX ',i' 5 · RTC Order dated April 22, 2005, p. 2. Emphasis and derscoring supplied. 4 ....,•'j !,~··"!- ,. 11. Miguel Aquino supported herein movant since birth and spent for her education from kinder to college xxx 12. The deceased gave a parcel of commercial lot to the movant xxx 13. XXX 14. The employees of the Aquino clan also know movant to be a member of the Aquino family xxx" These allegations are all admitted by Abdullah C. Aquino in his Comment to the Petition on November 17, 2003. Furthermore, movant was named after her grandmother Amadea C. Aquino, the mother of her late father, Arturo Aquino." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Notably, the foregoing acts alleged by petitioner ,and admitted by respondent Abdullah are the acts of the .·· decedent, Miguel T. Aquino, whose intestate estate is up for distribution among his heirs. The decedent himself recognized .Amadea as his granddaughter, the child of his son, as evinced •· ,by the following events and circumstances: (a) he supported A1nadea even before she was born providing for the medical expenses of her then pregnant 1nother; (b) he provided for her · education from kinder to college; (c) he gave her allowance for .