Facts:
Respondent Juan E Locsin, Jr.
filed with the RTC a Petition for Letters of Administration praying that he be
appointed Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Juan “Jhonny” Locsin. He alleged, among others, (a) that he is an acknowledged
natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin; (b) that during his lifetime, the
deceased owned personal properties which include undetermined savings, current
and time deposits with various banks, and 1/6 portion of the undivided mass of
real properties owned by him and his siblings, namely: Jose Locsin, Jr., Manuel
Locsin, Maria Locsin Yulo, Lourdes Locsin and Ester Locsin; and (c) that he is
the only surviving legal heir of the decedent.
However, before
the scheduled hearing, oppositions has been filed on the ground that respondent
is not a child or an acknowledged natural child of the late Juan C. Locsin, who
during his lifetime, never affixed “Sr.” in his name; respondent’s claim as
natural child is barred by prescription; and there is no filial relationship
between herein respondent and the deceased.
To support his claim, respondent
submitted a machine copy (marked as Exhibit “D”) of his Certificate of Live
Birth No. 477 found in the bound volume of birth
records in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. Exhibit "D" contains the
information that respondent's father is Juan C. Locsin, Sr. and that he was the
informant of the facts stated therein, as evidenced by his signatures. To prove the existence and
authenticity of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 from which Exhibit
"D" was machine copied, respondent presented Rosita J. Vencer, the
Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. She
produced and identified in court the bound volume of 1957 records of birth
where the alleged original of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 is included. Respondent
also offered in evidence a photograph (Exhibit "C") showing him and
his mother, Amparo Escamilla, in front of a coffin bearing Juan C. Locsin's
dead body. The photograph,
respondent claims, shows that he and his mother have been recognized as family
members of the deceased.
In their oppositions, petitioners claimed
that Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 (Exhibit "D") is spurious.
They submitted a certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 found
in the Civil Registrar General, Metro Manila, marked as Exhibit "8", indicating that the birth of
respondent was reported by his mother, Amparo Escamilla, and that the same does
not contain the signature of the late Juan C. Locsin.
Issue:
Whether or
not respondent is entitled to the issuance of letters of administration.
Ruling:
No.
The Roces ruling regarding illegitimate
filiation is further elucidated in Fernandez
vs. Court of Appeals[17] where
this Court said that "a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father
(who had no hand in its preparation) is not competent evidence of
paternity."
A birth certificate is a formidable piece
of evidence prescribed by both the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family
Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. However, birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of
filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence. Its evidentiary worth cannot be
sustained where there exists strong, complete and conclusive proof of its
falsity or nullity. In this case,
respondent's Certificate of Live Birth No. 477 entered in the records of the
Local Civil Registry has all the badges of nullity. Without doubt, the authentic copy on
file in that office was removed and substituted with a falsified Certificate of
Live Birth.
At this point, it bears stressing the
provision of Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that
"(d)ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated." In this case, the glaring discrepancies between the two
Certificates of Live Birth have overturned the genuineness of Exhibit
"D" entered in the Local Civil Registry. What is authentic is Exhibit
"8" recorded in the Civil Registry General.
Incidentally, respondent's photograph with
his mother near the coffin of the late Juan C. Locsin cannot and will not
constitute proof of filiation, lest
we recklessly set a very dangerous precedent that would encourage and sanction
fraudulent claims. Anybody can
have a picture taken while standing before a coffin with others and thereafter
utilize it in claiming the estate of the deceased.
Respondent Juan E. Locsin, Jr. failed to
prove his filiation with the late Juan C. Locsin, Sr.. His Certificate of Live Birth No. 477
(Exhibit "D") is spurious. Indeed,
respondent is not an interested person within the meaning of Section 2, Rule
79 of the Revised Rules of Court entitled to the issuance of letters of
administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment