G.R. No. 143256 ; August 28, 2001
RODOLFO FERNANDEZ and MERCEDES CARANTO FERNANDEZ, HUSBAND and WIFE, EDDIE C. FERNANDEZ and LUZ FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES, petitioners, vs. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, POTENCIANO FERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, JULITA FERNANDEZ, WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, MARY FERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO FERNANDEZ, GERARDO FERNANDEZ, RODOLFO FERNANDEZ and GREGORIO FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

The late spouses Dr. Jose K. Fernandez and Generosa A. de Venecia were the registered owners of a parcel of land and a two-storey building in Dagupan City. They had a biological son, Rogelio, who died at age twelve. Being childless, they purchased a one-month-old baby boy, who was later identified as petitioner Rodolfo Fernandez. Rodolfo was raised by the couple, sent to school, and lived with them until they became old and disabled. Jose K. Fernandez died on July 20, 1982, leaving his wife Generosa and the estate. On August 31, 1989, Rodolfo and Generosa executed a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition, dividing the property between them. On the same day, Generosa executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Rodolfo’s son, Eddie Fernandez, over her allocated portion including the building. After learning of these transactions, the respondents, who are nephews and nieces of the deceased Jose K. Fernandez (their father Genaro being Jose’s brother), filed an action to declare the Extra-Judicial Partition and Deed of Sale void ab initio. They alleged that the petitioners, taking advantage of Generosa’s physical and mental incapacity, executed simulated contracts to deprive the rightful heirs of the estate. In their answer, the petitioners alleged that Rodolfo was the acknowledged child of the deceased spouses. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the documents null and void, ordering reconveyance and possession to the plaintiffs, and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner Rodolfo Fernandez is a legitimate or legally adopted child of the spouses Jose and Generosa Fernandez, thereby entitling him to inherit from their estate and validly participate in the extra-judicial partition.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that Rodolfo Fernandez failed to prove his filiation as a legitimate or legally adopted child of the deceased spouses. The evidence he presented—a baptismal certificate and an application for back pay where Jose referred to him as a son—was insufficient to establish legitimate filiation under the Family Code. The baptismal certificate is evidence only of the sacrament, not the veracity of kinship declarations. The back pay application was not executed for the purpose of acknowledging filiation. Furthermore, Rodolfo was not shown to be a legally adopted child. Consequently, Rodolfo had no right to inherit from the spouses Fernandez. The Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was void because Rodolfo, not being an heir, could not partition the estate with the surviving spouse Generosa. The subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale was also void as it was based on the void partition. The property therefore rightfully belonged to the estate of Jose K. Fernandez, to be inherited by his surviving spouse Generosa and, upon her death, by the rightful heirs—the respondents as nephews and nieces. The awards for damages were sustained as the petitioners’ acts in executing the void documents warranted such awards.