Immune from collateral attack

Can the legitimacy and filiation of a child be the subject of a collateral attack as an incidental issue in another case? This is one of the questions answered in this case of Lydia and her alleged daughter Nida.

The case involved a parcel of land with an area of 4,527 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 109456 registered in the name of Eulogio. Since 1936, when the land was still registered in the name of Eulogio’s parents, it was already tenanted by Fredo, the husband of Lydia, who had been working on it and introduced improvements thereon consisting of fruit bearing trees, seasonal crops, a residential house and other permanent growths. When Eulogio’s parents died the property was inherited by Eulogio and his sisters Francia and Mila. Initially it was registered only in the names of Francia and Mila. Thus on May 26, 1993, Mila voluntarily executed a leasehold contract with Fredo to reaffirm the leasehold tenancy over the land, denominated as Kasunduang Buwisan sa Sakahan.

After the execution of the said Kasunduan or in May 1994, Fredo already died leaving Lydia and alleged daughter Nida as surviving heirs who continued occupying the land as tenants. By that time the land was finally transferred in the name of Eulogio, by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement among him and his sisters Mila and Francia. Then on September 28, 1994, Eulogio caused the preparation of another Kasunduan between him and Lydia who was then 81 years old, unable to read and write. Lydia simply signed her name on the document with her thumbmark and was paid P50,000, without the contents being explained to her. While the document was signed in Bulacan, Eulogio had it notarized in Pasig, Rizal.

Later on, the old woman Lydia realized that the purpose of the document was to eject her from the farm-holding. So she tried to return the money she received but Eulogio refused. Thus Lydia and her daughter Nida was forced to file a complaint for the annulment of the Kasunduan dated September 28, 1994 before the Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

After hearing and based on the evidence of both parties, the Provincial Adjudicator declared the Kasunduan void and ordered Eulogio to respect the peaceful possession of Lydia over the subject land as the surviving spouse of Fredo after Lydia returns the P50,000 she received from Eulogio. On appeal, the DARAB affirmed the ruling of the Provincial Adjudicator finding that the late Fredo and Lydia were indeed the tenants of the land dating back to the time when it was still owned by Eulogio’s parents.

Eulogio still questioned this ruling before the Court of Appeals (CA). But while the case was pending, Lydia died. So Nida asked the CA that she be allowed to substitute for Lydia as the legal heir. But Eulogio opposed such move. He contended that Nida was not a legal heir as she was a mere ward of Fredo and Lydia. So upon the death of Lydia, who was the sole compulsory heir of Fredo, the complaint was already rendered moot, Eulogio said. Was Eulogio correct?

No. The legitimacy and filiation of a child cannot be contested by way of defense or as collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. They can be questioned only in a direct action seasonally filed by the proper party, and not through a collateral attack. This is confirmed by Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code which refer to “the action to impugn the legitimacy.”

The same rule is applied to adoption. It cannot also be assailed collaterally in a proceeding for the settlement of a decedent’s estate. The legality of adoption by a testatrix can be assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose and cannot be subject to collateral attack. So the status of Nida cannot be taken up in this case of the annulment of the kasunduan (Reyes vs. Mauricio, G.R. 175080, November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 79).

* * *

E-mail:[email protected]