FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196759. November 20, 2017.]
LOURDES A. MACAVINTA, LIZZETTE A. MACAVINTA, ADIEL A. MACAVINTA, UNNI JOSE A. MACAVINTA, AND ONIE A. MACAVINTA, petitioners,vs. AMELITA A. ALVIOLA, GERONIMO AVILA, YOLANDA A. DATUIN, MANUEL A. ABELLA, REYNALDO A. ABELLA, TERESA A. LOYOLA, ANDREI A. ABELLA, JOSEPH A. ABELLA, ERLINDA A. SANTIAGO, GORGONIA A. LALIC, ALFONSO E. AVILA, AND CONRADO AVILA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: TaDCEc
"G.R. No. 196759 (Lourdes A. Macavinta, Lizzette A. Macavinta, Adiel A. Macavinta, Unni Jose A. Macavinta, and Onie A. Macavinta v. Amelita A. Alviola, Geronimo Avila, Yolanda A. Datuin, Manuel A. Abella, Reynaldo A. Abella, Teresa A. Loyola, Andrei A. Abella, Joseph A. Abella, Erlinda A. Santiago, Gorgonia A. Lalic, Alfonso E. Avila, and Conrado Avila). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 and Resolution. 2 The CA reversed the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan. The RTC had earlier dismissed the Action for Partition with Annulment of Documents and Damages 4 filed by Amelita A. Alviola, Geronimo Avila, Ma. Cristina A. Abella, Erlinda A. Santiago, Gorgonia A. Lalic, Alfonso Avila, and Conrado Avila (respondents) against Lourdes A. Macavinta, Lizzette A. Macavinta, Adiel A. Macavinta, Jose A. Macavinta, and Onie A. Macavinta (petitioners).
ANTECEDENT FACTS
On 29 January 2003, respondents filed an Action for Partition with Annulment of Documents and Damages. They alleged that they were the illegitimate children of the late Jose P. Avila (Jose), while petitioner Lourdes Macavinta (Lourdes) was the latter's legitimate child. 5 Jose was one of the compulsory heirs of Geronimo Avila (Geronimo), who owned several parcels of land in Aklan during the latter's lifetime. 6
Respondents claimed that Lourdes — together with her mother, Damiana Constantino; and paternal uncle, Paterno Avila — had previously filed a case for partition of Geronimo's properties in Aklan before the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Capiz against her other paternal uncle, Vicente Avila. 7 An amicable settlement was eventually reached by the parties therein, whereby Lourdes was given parcels of land located in Lezo and Numancia, Aklan (subject properties). 8
According to respondents, Lourdes made it appear in that case that she was the only child of Jose, so only she and her mother were able to get their shares in Geronimo's Aklan properties. Lourdes subsequently sold the subject properties to her legitimate children and co-petitioners: Adiel, Lizzette, Jose, and Onie (Macavinta siblings). 9 Consequently, respondents sought the partition of the subject properties and that they be declared as its co-owners on account of their status as Jose's illegitimate children.
To prove their illegitimate filiation, respondents Conrado Avila, Cristina Avila-Abella, and Erlinda Avila-Santiago submitted their birth certificates, which all bore Jose's signature. 10 They also offered the testimonies of witnesses as to the former's open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children of Jose 11 and a photograph of his funeral. 12 Lastly, they banked their claim on the supposed recognition of their status by Lourdes herself in the agreement reached by the parties in another special proceeding involving Jose's estate in Cebu. 13
For their part, petitioners denied that respondents were the illegitimate children of Jose, since they were not recognized as such during his lifetime. They further averred that the recognition supposedly made by Lourdes in the aforementioned special proceedings was not the recognition of filiation contemplated by law. 14
THE RTC RULING
Finding that respondents had failed to prove their allegations by a preponderance of evidence, the trial court dismissed their complaint. 15
Applying the Civil Code — and not the Family Code — the RTC found that respondents were barred by prescription from establishing their illegitimate filiation, as their putative parent, Jose, had already passed away. 16 It refused to give credence to the birth certificates they had presented, holding that these could be used only to prove the date of birth, and not filiation. 17
THE CA RULING
The CA reversed the RTC Decision. It held that the trial court had erred in applying the Civil Code in determining the illegitimate filiation of respondents. Rather, a retroactive application of the Family Code was found to be warranted, as no vested right was impaired.
Specifically, the CA applied Article 175 of the Family Code, which allows illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. 18 Thus, illegitimate filiation can be established through the use of birth certificates, during a child's lifetime. 19 cDEHIC
In the instant case, the CA found that three of the respondents were able to present their respective duly authenticated birth certificates, which bore Jose's signature. 20 In effect, they were able to establish their status as his illegitimate children. Thus, it found that co-ownership existed with respect to respondents Conrado Avila, Cristina Avila-Abella, and Erlinda Avila-Santiago. 21 As co-owners, they had a right to institute an action for partition with respect to the subject properties.
Accordingly, the CA remanded the case to the RTC and directed the interested parties to proceed with the partition of the subject properties. 22
Petitioners subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 23 claiming that the CA had erred in its retroactive application of the Family Code. They averred that the retroactive application would impair their vested right over the subject properties by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 12 November 1975 executed by Lourdes in favor of the Macavinta siblings. The appellate court rejected this contention and affirmed its ruling. 24 It held that no vested right would be impaired, as the Macavinta siblings' rights over the subject properties were those of co-owners and, as such, were limited to their pro indiviso shares. 25
Therefore, petitioners are now before this Court seeking a reversal of the CA ruling. They raise a single issue, insisting that the CA erred in its retroactive application of the Family Code. They argue that the application of that law would impair their vested rights over the subject properties. 26
ISSUE
The sole issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not the CA erred in giving retroactive effect to the provisions of the Family Code.
THE COURT'S RULING
We affirm the ruling of the CA.
In Heirs of Arado v. Alcoran, 27 this Court affirmed the lower courts in holding that the provisions of the Family Code should apply in a controversy involving filiation. We held therein that the petitioners' complaint for recovery of property was filed, litigated, and decided by the RTC during the effectivity of the Family Code. As a result, the respondent therein was allowed to establish his illegitimate filiation during his lifetime through the record of his birth appearing in the civil register. The Court then concluded that he had rights over the properties involved. 28
In this case, the CA likewise properly applied the Family Code in order to determine the illegitimate filiation of respondents. The facts show that the Action for Partition was filed by petitioners on 29 January 2003, 29 or during the effectivity of the Family Code. 30 Therefore, it was but proper for respondents' illegitimate filiation to be determined under the foregoing law.
Contrary to petitioners' mistaken notion, the retroactive application of the Family Code is not an issue in the present case. It was in fact the applicable law with respect to the matter of establishing respondents' illegitimate filiation at the time the action was filed. Thus, whether or not petitioners had vested rights over the subject properties which would be impaired, is immaterial.
Three of the respondents — Conrado Avila, Cristina Avila-Abella, and Erlinda Avila-Santiago — were able to present their birth certificates bearing Jose's signature. 31 Considering that fact, the CA correctly found that there was preponderant proof that all three of them were co-owners of the subject properties. 32 It bears emphasis that this Court gives great weight to the factual conclusions of the CA. 33 Hence, the three respondents have a cause of action to demand the partition thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 24 September 2010 and Resolution dated 18 March 2011 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01373 are AFFIRMED.
The RTC is DIRECTED to proceed with the partition of the subject properties with utmost dispatch.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 31-43; dated 24 September 2010; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 01373.
2.Id. at 48-51; dated 18 March 2011.
3.Id. at 18-29; penned by Presiding Judge Elmo F. del Rosario; dated 31 January 2006.
4.Id. at 18 and 28.
5.Id. at 18.
6.Id. at 19.
7.Id. at 32.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 19.
10.Id. at 38-39.
11.Id. at 39.
12.Id. at 19.
13.Id. at 38.
14.Id. at 22.
15.Id. at 28.
16.Id. at 25-26.
17.Id. at 26.
18.Id. at 37-38.
19.Id. at 38.
20.Id. at 39.
21.Id. at 39-40.
22.Id. at 42-43.
23.Id. at 44-45.
24.Id. at 48-51.
25.Id. at 50.
26.Id. at 12-13.
27. 763 Phil. 205 (2015).
28.Id.
29.Rollo, p. 18.
30. The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) took effect on 3 August 1988. See Tayag v. Court of Appeals, 285 Phil. 234 (1992).
31.Rollo, pp. 39.
32. See Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 12 (1998).
33.Syki v. Begasa, 460 Phil. 381 (2003).