JUSTIFICACIÓN DEL ESTUDIO

RAFAEL J. FERRER, ET AL., Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs.

JOAQUIN J. DE INCHAUSTI, ET AL., Defendants and Appellees.

G.R. No. 12993,October 28, 1918

FACTS:

Deceased Isabel Gonzalez first married Ramon Martinez Viademonte. They begot a child, Ramon Viademonte, Jr. After the death of her husband, she again married to Don Jose Joaquin de Inchausti. They had three children namely Clotilde, Rafael and Joaquin all surnamed Inchausti y Gonzalez.

When Isabel Gonzalez died, she left a property valued at P191,284.81. Don Jose Joaquin de Inchausti made an extrajudicial partition of said property. Each of the children received one-fourth of the estate.

Ramon Viademonte, Jr. became the administrator of the fourth part of the estate. Upon his death, his property was transferred by will to the son of his brother, Rafael de Inchausti.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs Rafael and Maria Angelina, all surnamed Ferrer, children of deceased Rosa MatildeViademonte, asked that they be entitled to one-fifth part of the estate. They alleged that their mother is a child of Isabel Gonzalez from the first marriage of the latter to Ramon Martinez. And as such, they should be entitled to that part of the estate corresponding to their mother, them being the heirs of the latter.

However, the de Inchausti’s denied said allegation. As proof, they presented the day-book of the deceased Ramon Martinez Viademonte, Jr. which says that on September 1, 1852, a child named Rosa Matilde Robles based on the baptismal certificate duly issued, was delivered to their mother. And in that baptismal certificate, it was written that the child was of unknown parents.

Furthermore, Joaquin de Inchausti testified that his half-brother, Ramon Martinez Viademonte, Jr., while still living, intimated to him that Rosa Matilde was not his sister but only a protégée of theirparents and that the true name of the latter is Rosa Matilde Robles.

The judge of the Court of First Instance held that Rosa Viademonte could not have been a legitimate daughter of deceased Isabel Gonzalez. It further held that plaintiffs should not be entitled to what they demandedand that they should pay the costs. Thus, this appeal was taken through bill of exceptions.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the testimony of Joaquin de Inchausti is admissible as evidence to prove the filiation of Rosa Matilde Robles/Rosa MatildeViademonte; and

2. Whether or not the day-book of Ramon Martinez Viademonte, Jr. is admissible as evidence.

RULING:

Anent the first issue, yes, Joaquin de Inchausti’s testimony can be admitted as evidence to prove the real filiation of Rosa Matilde Robles/Rosa MatildeViademonte.

In view of the fact that Ramon Martinez Viademonte, Jr. is now dead, the testimony of Joaquin de Inchausti, referring to the said deceased is admissible for they are members of the same family.

Consequently, the conclusion is that Rosa Matilde is the same Rosa Matilde Robles named in the certificate of birth of the latter. And because she was born in 1852, in no manner canshe be a legitimate daughter of Ramon Viademonte and Isabel Gonzalez whose marriage was dissolved in 1836 by the death of the husband.

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the day-book cannot be admitted as evidence for being only a memorandum wherein the entries were not made the same time that the events mentioned therein occurred.

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, evidence of monuments and inscriptions in public places may be given upon trial as evidence of common reputation. And entries in family Bibles or other family books or charts, engravings or rings, family portraits, and the like, are considered as evidence of pedigree.

The law does not require that theentries be made at the same time that the events happened.

Moreover, the witness Joaquin de Inchausti declared affirmatively that the memorandum was in the handwriting of his brother Ramon Martinez Viademonte, Jr. whose handwriting he is familiar with. The testimony of said witness contains some reference to a member of the family who is already dead and concerns their family genealogy. Therefore, it can be admitted as evidence.

On the other hand, even assuming that Rosa Matilde is a natural child, she could not still inherit from her supposed mother because according to the Law of Toro which is the operative law on the date of death of Isabel Gonzalez, natural children have no right to succeed to their natural mother if upon the death of the latter, she leaves legitimate children, as in the case at bar.

Furthermore, the action for partition was brought beyond the reglementary period of ten years and hence, the same had already prescribed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE

• The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.

➢ Requisites for the exception to apply:

a) There is a controversy in respect to the pedigree of any members of a family;

b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed ante litem motam or pervious to the controversy; and

c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of said person, either by consanguinity or affinity.

ROSENDO HERRERA, Petitioner, vs.

ROSENDO ALBA, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, ARMI A. ALBA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 148220 FACTS:

Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba, represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. Rosendo Herrera filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. He also denied physical contact with respondents mother.

Armi Alba offered corroborative proof in the form of letters and pictures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied Armi Albas assertion. He denied ever having sexual relations with Armi Alba and stated that respondent is Armi Albas child with another man. Armi Alba countered petitioner’s denial by submitting pictures of respondent and petitioner side by side, to show how much they resemble each other.

Respondent also filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. Dr.

Halos was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught Cell Biology. She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute (UP-NSRI), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she developed the Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular Biology. In her testimony, Dr.

Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability.

Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DNA testing admissible in establishing paternity or filiation.

RULING:

While it is true that in Pe Lim v. CA, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing.

To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a fathers operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.

However, advances in science show that sources of evidence of paternity and filiation need not be limited to incriminating acts. The Court agrees with the trial court that forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community. It holds that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results. Likewise, in Tijing, Vallejo and Yatar, the court ruled that DNA analysis is admissible as evidence. Hence, it shall be admissible in the case at bar.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

COMMON REPUTATION

• Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.

➢ Requisites for the admissibility of the exception:

a) The facts must be of public or general interest and more than thirty years old;

b) The common reputation must have been ancient (more than 30 years old or one generation old);

c) The reputation must have been one formed among the class of persons who were in a position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion; and

d) The common reputation must have been existing previous to the controversy.

➢ Requisites for the admissibility of common reputation respecting marriage:

a) The common reputation must have been formed previous to the controversy; and

b) The common reputation must have been formed in the community or among the class of persons who are in a position to have sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion.

➢ Requisites for the admissibility of common reputation respecting moral character:

a) That it is the reputation in the place where the person in question is best known;

b) That it was formed ante litem motam.