Case Digest: Corpus vs Corpus, G.R. No. L-22469, October 24, 1978

Succession | Iron Curtain Rule

Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.

Ponente:

Aquino, J.:

Facts:

In 1939, Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila at age 77.

His will was probated in and affirmed in the court's 1941 decision (Corpus vs. Yangco, 73 Phil. 527).

Yangco had no forced heirs. His nearest relatives at death included:

1. Luis R. Yangco (half brother)
2. Paz Yangco (half sister, married to Miguel Ossorio), 
3. Amalia, Jose A. V., and Ramon Corpus (children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus), and 
4. Juanita Corpus (daughter of his half brother Jose)

In 1944, Juanita died.

In 1945, the probate court received a project of partition in the will of Teodoro R. Yangco.

The estate of Luis R. Yangco opposed the petition.

Atty. Roman A. Cruz, representing Juanita Corpus among others, alleged the will intended estate conservation, not physical partition.

Probate Court: Approved the partition, rejecting the need for intestacy declaration.

Appeals were dismissed after compromises were reached.

• Legatees agreed to pay P35,000 to various heirs. 
• Tomas Corpus signed the compromise settlement as Juanita Corpus's sole heir. 
• Luis R. Yangco's estate entered into a similar compromise.

In 1951, Tomas Corpus, as Juanita Corpus's sole heir, filed an action to recover her supposed share, alleging that the perpetual prohibitions in the will invalidated it, demanding intestate distribution.

Trial Court: Dismissed the action due to res judicata and laches, stating the intrinsic validity of Yangco's will was already determined.

Court of Appeals: Certified the appeal to the Supreme Court due to its involvement with real property valued over fifty thousand pesos.

Issue:

WoN Tomas Corpus a cause of action to recover his mother's supposed intestate share in Yangco's estate. NO

Held:

To answer that question, it is necessary to ascertain Yangco's filiation.

The trial court found that Yangco "At his death, Luis and Paz, surnamed Yangco, also survived him, acknowledged natural siblings by their natural father, Luis R. Yangco.". The basis of the trial court's conclusion that Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child and not a legitimate child was the statement in the will of his father, Luis Rafael Yangco, dated June 14, 1907, that Teodoro and his three other children were his acknowledged natural children. His exact words are:

Primera. Declaro que tengo cuatro hijos naturales reconocidos, Hamados Teodoro, Paz, Luisa y Luis, los cuales son mis unicos herederos forzosos .

That will was attested by Rafael del Pan Francisco Ortigas, Manuel Camus and Florencio Gonzales Diez.

Appellant Corpus assails the probative value of the will of Luis R. Yangco, Identified as Exhibit 1 herein, which he says is a mere copy of Exhibit 20, as found in the record on appeal in Special Proceeding No. 54863. He contends that it should not prevail over the presumption of legitimacy found in section 69, Rule 123 of the old Rules of Court and over the statement of Samuel W. Stagg in his biography of Teodoro R. Yangco, that Luis Rafael Yangco made a second marital venture with Victoria Obin implying that he had a first marital venture with Ramona Arguelles, the mother of Teodoro.

These contentions have no merit. The authenticity of the will of Luis Rafael Yangco, as reproduced in Exhibit I herein and as copied from Exhibit 20 in the proceeding for the probate of Teodoro R. Yangco's wilt in incontestable. The said will is part of a public or official judicial record.

On the other hand, the children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus are presumed to be legitimate. A marriage is presumed to have taken place between Ramona and Tomas. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. It is disputably presumption "That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage"; "that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board, is legitimate", and "that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life" (Sec. 5[z], [bb] and cc Rule 131, Rules of Court).

Since Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus was the legitimate child of Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas Corpus has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangco's estate. Juanita Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because there is no reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. The trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint of Tomas Corpus.

Article 943 of the old Civil code provides that "el hijo natural y el legitimado no tienen derecho a suceder abintestato a los hijos y parientes legitimos del padre o madre que to haya reconocido, ni ellos al hijo natural ni al legitimado". Article 943 "prohibits all successory reciprocity mortis causa between legitimate and illegitimate relatives" 16 Sanchez Roman, Civil Code, pp. 996-997 cited in Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil. 279, 287. See 16 Scaevola Codigo Civil, 4th Ed., 455-6). ...

Appellant Corpus concedes that if Teodoro R. Yangco was a natural child, he (Tomas Corpus) would have no legal personality to intervene in the distribution of Yangco's estate (p. 8, appellant's brief).

The rule in article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code which provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child".

That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child.

The law does not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avod further grounds of resentment (7 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., pp. 185- 6).

Under articles 944 and 945 of the Spanish Civil Code, "if an acknowledged natural or legitimated child should die without issue, either legitimate or acknowledged, the father or mother who acknowledged such child shall succeed to its entire estate; and if both acknowledged it and are alive, they shall inherit from it share and share alike. In default of natural ascendants, natural and legitimated children shall be succeeded by their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established for legitimate brothers and sisters." Hence, Teodoro R. Yangco's half brothers on the Corpus side, who were legitimate, had no right to succeed to his estate under the rules of intestacy.

Following the rule in article 992, formerly article 943, it was held that the legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child (Cacho vs. Udan L- 19996, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 693. See De Guzman vs. Sevilla, 47 Phil. 991).

Where the testatrix, Rosario Table was the legitimate daughter of Jose Table the two acknowledged natural children of her uncle, Ramon Table her father's brother, were held not to be her legal heirs (Grey vs. Table 88 Phil. 128).

By reason of that same rule, the natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the legitimate grandparent (Llorente vs. Rodriguez, 10 Phil. 585; Centeno vs. Centeno, 52 Phil. 322; Allarde vs. Abaya, 57 Phil. 909).

The natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle, a legitimate brother of her natural mother (Anuran vs. Aquino and Ortiz, 38 Phil. 29).

WHEREFORE the lower court's judgment is affirmed. No costs.