SOLINAP V.

LOCSIN alleged, among others, (a) that he is an acknowledged

Pedigree| December 10, 2001|Sandoval-Gutierrez natural child of Jhonny Locsin; (b) that during his lifetime,
Jhonny owned personal properties (undetermined savings,
Digest maker: Zoe current and time deposits) and 1/6 portion of undivided
mass of real properties owned by him and his siblings; (c)
SUMMARY: After Juan Locsin, Sr. died intestate, Locsin, Jr. filed a that he is the only surviving legal heir of descendant
petition for letters of administration alleging that he is an ● The heirs of Jose Locsin, Maria Locsin, Manuel Locsin, and
acknowledged natural child of the deceased. To support his claim, Ester Locsin Jarantilla (siblings of Jhonny) filed an
Locsin, Jr. submitted a machine copy of his Certificate of Live Birth opposition to the petition, alleging that respondent Juan is
(Exh. D) which states that his birth was reported by Locsin, Sr., his not a child or acknowledged natural child of Juan
father. He also presented the LCR of Iloilo City, who produced and “Jhonny” Locsin, who never affixed “Sr.” to his name.
identified in court the bound volume of 1957 records of birth, as well ● Lucy Salinop (sole heir of Maria Locsin vda. de Araneta),
as a photograph in front of the coffin of the deceased. Manuel Locsin and successors of Lourdes Locson also filed
an opposition alleging that Juan’s claim as a natural child
The oppositors submitted a CTC of Locsin, Jr.’s Cert. of Live Birth is barred by prescription.
found in the Civil Registrar General in MM (Exh. 8), indicating that the ● Evidence of Juan that he is an acknowledged natural child:
birth of Locsin, Jr. was reported by his mother and that the same does  Machine copy of Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit
not contain the signature of the deceased. They also pointed out that D) found in the bound volume of birth records in
while Locsin, Jr. was born in 1956 and his birth was recorded in 1957, the Office of the Local Civil registrar of Iloilo City.
Exh. D was recorded on a 1958 revised form. The Certificate contained information that Juan’s
father is Jhonny Locsin, and that he was the
DOCTRINE: A Certificate of Live Birth duly recorded in the Local informant of the facts stated therein, as evidenced
Civil Registry, a copy of which is transmitted to the Civil Registry by his signatures.
General pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, is prima facie evidence of  Rosita J. Vencer, Local Civil Redistrar of Iloilo City,
the facts therein stated. However, if there are material discrepancies who produced and identified in court the bound
between them, the one entered in the Civil Registry General prevails. volume of 1957 records of birth where the alleged
original of the Certificate is included.
(yung hearsay ata sa case na ‘to based sa notes ng upperclassmen is the  Photo of Juan and his mother, Amparo Escamillla,
photo pero di siya diniscuss as hearsay sa case mismo) in front of a coffin bearing Jhonny Locsin’s body
 claims this shows that he and his mother have
FACTS: been recognized as family members of deceased
● Juan “Jhonny”C. Locsin died intestate on December 11, 1990. ● Oppositor’s evidence
11 months after, respondent Juan E. Locsin, Jr. filed a  Certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth
Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC. He found in the Civil Registrar of Metro Manila,
 indicating that the birth of Juan was reported by his handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
mother and does not contain the signature of concerned.
deceased.  In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by:
 They also observed that while Juan was born on (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a
October 22, 1956, and his birth was recorded on legitimate child; or
January 1957, the Certificate of Live Birth he (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
presented (exhibit D) was recorded on a December 1, special laws.
1958 revised form  claim that this suggests that  The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of
exhibit D was falsified. birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any
 Witness Col. Pedro Elvas, a handwriting expert, authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of
testified that the signature of the deceased and the acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action
Civil Registrar of Iloilo appearing in exhibit D are is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just
forgeries. a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a
● RTC: ruled in favor of Juan, finding the Certificate of Live voluntary recognition that does not require a separate
Birth (exhibit D) and the photograph sufficient proof of action for judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for
respondent’s illegitimate filiation with deceased. recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending
● CA: affirmed in toto to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record or an authentic writing,
RELEVANT ISSUE/S & RATIO judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is
WON Juan established that he’s the natural son of the deceased? essential in order to establish the child's acknowledgment.
NO  Although the trial court found Exhibit D to be genuine due
 Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the RoC, when a person dies to the testimony of Rosita Vencer, Local Civil Registrar of
intestate, administration shall be granted to (a) To the Iloilo City, the SC was not convinced. The respondent’s
surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of birth was recorded on January 1957. At that time, the Local
kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person Civil Registrar of Iloilo was Emilio Tomesa. Thus, Vencer's
as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests knowledge of respondent's birth record was based merely
to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve. on her general impressions of the existing records in that
 In this case, Juan failed to prove that he is the natural son of Office.
deceased and is considered as next of kin.  When entries in the Certificate of Live Birth recorded in the
 The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate Local Civil Registry vary from those appearing in the copy
children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing transmitted to the Civil Registry General, the variance has
in the civil register or a final judgement; or (2) an admission to be clarified in more persuasive and rational manner.
of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private Vencer's explanation “that maybe the forms in 1956 were
already exhausted so the former Civil Registrar had
 requested for a new form and they sent us the 1958 Revised petition for issuance of letters of administration is ORDERED
Form” was not convincing. DISMISSED
 “A birth certificate not signed by the alleged father (who
had no hand in its preparation) is not competent evidence of
paternity” (Fernandez v CA)
 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 (from
which Exhibit "D" was machine copied) 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.
 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 failed to prove his filiation with the deceased
and is therefore not an interested person within the meaning
of Rule 79 of the RoC entitled to the issuance of letters of
administration.

RULING: WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby GRANTED. The

challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. No. 57708 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent's