Probative value

Can a baptismal certificate prove a person’s filiation and heir-ship? This is one of the issues resolved in this case of Delia.

The case involved two parcels of land covered by land registration decrees Nos. 10364 and 18969 issued way back in 1914, containing areas of 3,635 square meters and 37.87 hectares respectively and registered in the name of Delia’s grandmother, Dona Demetria.

After Dona Demetria died in 1974, a certain Teddy residing in Chicago, USA tried to assert his right to the said lands as son and sole heir by executing an Affidavit of Adjudication before the Philippine Consulate in Chicago, USA. Since the titles to the land were not in his possession and could not be located, Teddy executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Atty. Castro, his lawyer in the Philippines, to file a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for reconstitution of the original certificates of title (OCT) of said lands. Eventually or in 1997, decrees of registration bearing Nos. 219464 and 219465 were re-issued. Pursuant to these decrees, OCT No. 0-1200 and 0-1201 covering the two parcels in the name of the late Dona Demetria were reconstituted.

Thereafter or on October 1, 1996 Atty. Castro as the attorney-in-fact of Teddy already sold 27.03 hectares of said land to a realty company (LTI). Since the OCTs were still in the name of Dona Demetria, Teddy and Atty. Castro also took steps to register with the Register of Deeds the affidavit of adjudication executed by Teddy.

So on November 18, 1998 upon learning of these moves made by Teddy and his lawyer, Delia filed a Petition for Quieting of Title before RTC against Teddy, Atty Castro and the Register of Deeds. In the petition Delia claimed that she and not Teddy was the late Dona Demetria’s sole surviving heir. She averred that she is the daughter of Francisco who was the only child of Demetria with the latter’s late husband Dionisio.

Delia was joined in her petition by another realty company (AZM) as successor-in-interest over 23 hectare portion of the subject parcels pursuant to the MOA and Deed of Conditional Conveyance which Delia executed in its favor. On the other hand, LTI also intervened in the case claiming that it has also acquired 27 hectares of the land from Teddy.

During the hearing, Delia and AZM submitted testimonial and documentary evidence. Delia testified and presented her baptismal certificate, birth certificate, driver’s license, death certificate of her late grandmother Dona Demetria, and the family tree of the showing the branch of Dona Demetria. 

In contrast, Teddy, and/or Attorney Castro opted not to adduce any evidence while LTI failed to present evidence on the scheduled trial date, so it was deemed to have waived its right to present evidence.

Based on the evidence submitted by Delia and AZM, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Delia as the sole heir of Dona Demetria with the sole hereditary right to the properties, and AZM as her successor in interest to 23 hectares. It also declared that Teddy is not a son of Dona Demetria while LTI has no valid right or interest in the property.

LTI, Teddy and Atty. Castro questioned this decision before the Appellate Courts contending that the evidence presented by Delia and AZM was insufficient to prove the fact of Delia’s filiation and heir-ship particularly the reliance of the RTC on Delia’s baptismal certificate, arguing that it has no probative value and is not a conclusive proof of filiation. Were they correct?

No. Under Article 172 of the Family Code, the filiation of legitimate children shall be proved by other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, in the absence of the record of birth or a parent’s admission of such legitimate filiation in a public or private document duly signed by the parent. Such other proof of one’s filiation may be a baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses and other kinds of proof under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Thus, Delia’s baptismal certificate is not totally bereft of probative value. It may be appreciated together with all the other documentary and testimonial evidence submitted on her filiation like her testimony, birth certificate, driver’s license as well as the death certificate of her grandmother, the family tree and the book showing he grandmother’s descendants (Republic vs. Mangotara, G.R. 170375, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA,360).

* * *

E-mail: jcson@pldtdslcom