SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228119. November 29, 2017.]
AMPARO SARIOLA, MA. LUZ SARIOLA, AND LYDIA VASQUEZ LIM, petitioners,vs. HEIR OF PACITA SIGUENZA, REPRESENTED BY MA. FRANCISCA ALMONTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 228119 (Amparo Sariola, Ma. Luz Sariola, and Lydia Vasquez Lim v. Heir of Pacita Siguenza, represented by Ma. Francisca Almonte)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the March 18, 2016 Decision 1 and October 10, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136026 for failure of petitioners Amparo Sariola, Ma. Luz Sariola, and Lydia Vasquez Lim (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that respondent Ma. Francisca Almonte (respondent) is the sole heir of Paz Vasquez a.k.a. Pacita Siguenza (Pacita), and thus, is entitled to the subject property.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent had sufficiently proven her filiation and heirship to Pacita by presenting her Certificate of Live Birth 3 indicating therein that she is Pacita's child. 4 On the other hand, petitioners' reliance on the Last Will and Testament 5 purportedly executed by Pacita stating that respondent is not her real child cannot be given any credence as such document not only failed to comply with the formalities of a notarial or a holographic will, 6 it also failed to undergo probate proceedings that would have proven its due execution. 7
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-39. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
2.Id. at 39-43.
3.Id. at 58.
4. "A birth certificate, being a public document, offers prima facie evidence of filiation and a high degree of proof is needed to overthrow the presumption of truth contained in such public document. This is pursuant to the rule that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The evidentiary nature of such document must, therefore, be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity." (Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Harper, 693 Phil. 596, 614 [2012], citing Heirs of Cabais v. CA, 374 Phil. 685, 688 [1999]).
5.Rollo, p. 57.
6. See Articles 805, 806, and 810 of the Civil Code.
7.Baltazar v. Laxa, 685 Phil. 484, 497 (2012). See also Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.