In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Juan Locsin alleging that respondent's claim as a natural child

(2001) Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. is barred by prescription or the statute of

Concept: Entries in Official Records limitations. Intestate Estate of the late Jose Locsin,
Jr. (brother of the deceased) also entered its
Brief Facts: Juan Locsin, Jr., claiming to be an appearance in the estate proceedings, joining the
acknowledged natural child of the late Juan Locsin, Sr,, earlier oppositors
filed a petition for letters of administration. The other 4. As evidence, Juan, Jr. submitted a machine copy
heirs of Juan, Sr. opposed, contending that Juan, Jr. was (Exhibit D) of his Certificate of Live Birth No. 477
never acknowledged by Juan, Sr. To support his found in the Office of the Local Clerk Registrar of
contention, Juan, Jr presented a carbon copy of his Iloilo City. Exhibit D contains the information that
Certificate of Live Birth wherein Juan, Sr. signed as his Juan, Sr. was Juan, Jr.s father and that he was the
father. He also presented a picture of himself with his informant of the facts therein stated, as evidenced
mother, standing in front of the coffin of Juan, Sr. The by his signature. To prove the existence and
oppositors also presented a certified true copy of a authenticity of Exhibit D, Rosita Vencer, the Local
Certificate of Live Birth of Juan, Jr. which did not contain Civil Registrar of Iloilo City was presented. She
Juan, Srs signature. The Court ruled in favor of the produced and identified the bound volume of the
oppositors. It gave more credence to the Certificate of 1957 records of birth where the alleged original of
Live Birth offered by oppositors. Exhibit D is included. Respondent also submitted
photograph showing him and his mother, Amparo
DOCTRINE: The due recognition of an illegitimate child Escamilla, in front of the coffin of Juan, Sr. as
in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of evidence that they were recognized family
record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a members of Juan, Sr.
consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and 5. On the other hand, petitioners, in their opposition,
no further court action is required. In fact, any claimed that Exhibit D is spurious. They submitted
authentic writing is treated not just a ground for a certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth No.
compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary 477 found in the Civil Registrar General, Metro
recognition that does not require a separate action for Manila (Exhibit 8) showing that the birth of Juan, Jr.
judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for was reported by his mothers. It did not contain
recognition is predicated on other evidence merely Juan, Sr.s signature. They also pointed out the
tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of anomaly that while Juan, jr. was born on Oct. 1956
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an and his birth was recorded on January 1957, Exhibit
authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable D was recorded on a Dec 1958 form. In contrast,
statute of limitations is essential in order to establish Exhibit 8 appears on a July 1956 form which was
the child's acknowledgment. already used before Juan, Jr.s birth. Petitioners also
presented Col. Elvas, a handwriting expert, who
A birth certificate is a formidable piece of evidence testified that the signature of Juan, Sr. and Emilio
prescribed by both the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Tomesa (the Civil Registrat of Iloilo City at the time
Family Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. of Juans birth) were forgeries.
However, birth certificate offers only prima facie 6. The trial court ruled in favor of Juan, Jr. It found that
evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary Exhibit D and the photograph were sufficient
evidence. Its evidentiary worth cannot be sustained evidence to prove Juan, Jrs illegitimate filiation
where there exists strong, complete and conclusive with the deceased.
proof of its falsity or nullity. 7. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision. CA
denied upon MR.
When entries in the Certificate of Live Birth recorded in 8. The instant petition for review on certiorari was
the Local Civil Registry vary from those appearing in then filed by petitioners.
the copy transmitted to the Civil Registry General,
pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, the variance has to ISSUES:
be clarified in a more persuasive and rational manner. Which of the two documents presented is genuine?-
Exhibit 8 (the certified true copy of the Certificate of
FACTS: Live Birth found in Civil Registrar General in Metro
1. Eleven months after Juan Locsin, Sr. died, Manila)
respondent Juan Locsin, Jr. (Juan, Jr.) filed with the
RTC of Iloilo a Petition for Letters of Administration, RATIO:
praying that he be appointed Administrator of the Exhibit D is spurious. It is Exhibit 8 which the
Intestate Estate of the deceased. He claimed that court gave credence to.
he was an acknowledged natural child of Juan - The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate
Locsin, Sr. children, is established by:
2. An Opposition was filed by the heirs of Jose Locsin, (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register
Jr., the heirs of Maria Locsin, Manuel Locsin and or a final judgment; or
Ester Jarantilla. They averred that respondent is not (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
a child or an acknowledged natural child of the late document or a private handwritten instrument and
Juan C. Locsin, who during his lifetime, never signed by the parent concerned.
affixed "Sr." in his name. - In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by:
3. Another opposition was filed by Lucy Salinop Lucy (1) the open and continuous possession of the
Salinop (sole heir of the late Maria Locsin Vda. De status of a legitimate child; or
Araneta, sister of the deceased), Manuel Locsin (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and the successors of the late Lourdes C. Locsin and special laws.
- The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a page of Exhibit D, there is a purported signature of
record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of the alleged father, but the blanks calling for the
record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a date and other details of his Residence Certificate
consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, were not filled up.
and no further court action is required. In fact, any - When Vencer was asked to explain the torn back
authentic writing is treated not just a ground for cover of the bound volume, she said that she was
compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary not aware of it since she was not a bookbinder. As
recognition that does not require a separate action to why Exhibit D was not sewn or bound into the
for judicial approval. volume, she explained that they just paste the
- Where, instead, a claim for recognition is detached leaves of the bound volume. There is no
predicated on other evidence merely tending to explanation why out of so many certificates,
prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a Exhibit D was merely pasted with the volume.
will, a statement before a court of record or an Vencers testimony actually highlighted the
authentic writing, judicial action within the suspicious circumstances surrounding its existence.
applicable statute of limitations is essential in order - The Civil Registry Law requires, inter alia, the Local
to establish the child's acknowledgment. Civil Registrar to send copies of registrable
- Pursuant to Section 12 of Act 3753 (An Act to certificates and documents presented to them for
Establish a Civil Register), the records of births entry to the Civil Registrar General, thus:
from all cities and municipalities in the Philippines "Duties of Local Civil Registrar. Local civil
are officially and regularly forwarded to the Civil registrars shall (a) file registrable certificates and
Registrar General in Metro Manila by the Local Civil documents presented to them for entry; (b)
Registrars. Since the records of births cover several compile the same monthly and prepare and send
decades and come from all parts of the country, to any information required of them by the Civil-
merely access them in the Civil Registry General Registrar; (c) issue certified transcripts or copies of
requires expertise. any document registered upon payment of proper
- To locate one single birth record from the mass, a fees; (d) order the binding, properly classified, of
regular employee, if not more, has to be engaged. all certificates or documents registered during the
It is highly unlikely that any of these employees in year; (e) send to the Civil Registrar-General, during
Metro Manila would have reason to falsify a the first ten days of each month, a copy of the
particular 1957 birth record originating from the entries made during the preceding month, for
Local Civil Registry of Iloilo City. With respect to filing; (f) index the same to facilitate search and
Local Civil Registries, access thereto by interested identification in case any information is required;
parties is obviously easier. Thus, in proving the and (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil
authenticity of Exhibit D more convincing evidence register purposes.
than those considered by the trial court should - Pursuant to the above provision, a copy of the
have been presented by respondent. document sent by the Local Civil Registrar to the
- The testimony of Rosita Vencer, the current Local Civil Registrar General should be identical in form
Civil Registrar of Iloilo City, cannot be given and in substance with the copy being kept by the
credence since the event to which she testified latter. The fact that there was a discrepancy
(the record of Juna, Jrs birth) happened 37 or 38 between the two exhibits should have aroused the
years ago. She was not the Registrar at that time. suspicion of both the trial court and the CA and
Her knowledge of Juan,Jrs birth record was based should have impelled them to declare Exhibit D a
merely on her general impressions of the existing spurious document.
records in that Office. - Exhibit 8 shows that respondent's record of birth
- When entries in the Certificate of Live Birth was made by his mother. It did not contain the
recorded in the Local Civil Registry vary from those signature and name of Juan, Sr.. Neither did it have
appearing in the copy transmitted to the Civil the entry that he and Amparo Escamilla were
Registry General, pursuant to the Civil Registry married in Oton, Iloilo in 1954. In Roces vs. Local
Law, the variance has to be clarified in more Civil Registrar, the Court said that Section 5 of Act
persuasive and rational manner. No. 3753 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of the
- When Vencer was asked as to why a 1958 form was Philippines . . . explicitly prohibit, not only the
used in 1957, she speculated that the 1956 forms naming of the father of the child born out of
were probably already exhausted so they were sent wedlock, when the birth certificate, or the
1958 forms. Her answer was a mere supposition of recognition, is not filed or made by him, but also,
an event. the statement of any information or circumstances
- On the other hand, Exhibit 8 is in a July 1956 form. by which he could be identified. Accordingly, the
The Court said that it is more logical to assume Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or
that the 1956 forms would continue to be used record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon
several years after. the information of a third person and the certificate
- Exhibit D is only a carbon copy of the alleged of birth of an illegitimate child, when signed only
original and is different from other records bound in by the mother of the latter, is incompetent
the 1957 volume since it was the only typewritten evidence of fathership of said child. In Fernandez
while the others were handwritten. Unlike the vs. CA, the Court said a birth certificate not signed
contents of those other certificates, Exhibit D does by the alleged father (who had no hand in its
not indicate important particulars, such as the preparation) is not competent evidence of
alleged father's religion, race, occupation, address paternity.
and business. The space which calls for an entry of - A birth certificate is a formidable piece of evidence
the legitimacy of the child is blank. On the back prescribed by both the Civil Code and Article 172 of
 the Family Code for purposes of recognition and - The photograph also cannot constitute as proof of
filiation. However, birth certificate offers only prima filiation. This will set a dangerous precedent that
facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by would encourage and sanction fraudulent claims.
contrary evidence. Its evidentiary worth cannot be Anybody can have a picture taken while standing
sustained where there exists strong, complete and before a coffin with others and thereafter utilize it
conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity. in claiming the estate of the deceased.
- Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court
that "documents consisting of entries in public DISPOSITIVE: Decision of CA is reversed. The petition
records made in the performance of a duty by a for issuance of letters of administration is dismissed.
public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts Digest maker: Kat
therein stated." In this case, the glaring
discrepancies between the two Certificates of Live
Birth (Exhibits D and 8) have overturned the
genuineness of Exhibit D.