[ G.R. No. 208912. December 07, 2021 ]
AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. RODOLFO C. AQUINO AND ABBULAH C. AQUINO, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 209018]
RODOLFO C. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. AMADEA ANGELA K. AQUINO RESPONDENT.
FACTS : For this Court's resolution are two consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari concerning a nonmarital child's right to inherit from her grandfather's estate. Rodolfo alleged that his father, Miguel T. Aquino (Miguel), died intestate on July 5, 1999, leaving personal and real properties. The estate of his first wife, Amadea C. Aquino (Amadea), who had died earlier on September 27, 1977, was already settled in 1978. Miguel was survived by: (1) Enerie B. Aquino, his second wife; (2) Abdulah C. Aquino (Abdulah) and Rodolfo C. (Rodolfo) Aquino, his sons with Amadea; and (3) the heirs of Wilfredo C. Aquino, his son with Amadea who also died earlier. Miguel was also predeceased by another son with Amadea, Arturo C. Aquino (Arturo). On July 2, 2003, Angela moved that she be included in the distribution and partition of Miguel's estate. Angela claimed that her grandfather, Miguel, took care of her mother's expenses during her pregnancy with her.On November 12, 2003, Rodolfo opposed Angela's Motion, claiming that Arturo never legally recognized Angela as his natural child in his lifetime. On November 17, 2003, Abdulah filed his Comment on Rodolfo's Petition and moved for the issuance of letters of administration of Miguel's estate in his favor. Recognizing that Rodolfo had expressed his intention to yield the administration in favor of Abdulah, the trial court issued the letters of administration on September 3, 2004, and appointed Abdulah as administrator of Miguel's estate. On April 22, 2005, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order that granted Angela's July 2, 2003 and March 7, 2005 Motions. It ruled that the Aquino clan was already estopped from denying Angela's filiation. Rodolfo filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's April 22, 2005 and March 6, 2008 Orders. On August 23, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, denying Rodolfo's Petition on the grounds of wrong remedy and violation of the principles of forum shopping and res judicata. Rodolfo moved for reconsideration, but his motion was also denied in an August 1, 2013 Resolution. On September 30, 2013, Rodolfo filed a Petition for Review before this Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' August 23, 2012 Decision and August 1, 2013 Resolution. This Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 209018. Meanwhile, Abdulah appealed the trial court's April 22, 2005 and March 6, 2008 Orders before the Court of Appeals claiming that Angela failed to prove her filiation and, in any case, Angela could not inherit from Miguel ab intestato. On January 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of Abdulah. Angela moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its July 24, 2013 Resolution.. On October 2, 2013, Angela filed a Petition for Review before this Court, assailing the Court of Appeals January 21, 2013 Decision. This Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208912. On October 21, 2013, this Court's Third Division issued a Resolution consolidating G.R. Nos. 208912 and 209018. This Court denied both Petitions in its November 11, 2013 Resolution. On April 25, 2014, Angela moved to have the case referred to this Court En Banc. On April 29, 2014, this Court's Third Division issued a Resolution granting Angela's Motion.
ISSUE : WON Angela can inherit from her grandfather's estate
HELD: YES, The statutory prohibition against reciprocal intestate succession between nonmarital children and the marital children and relatives of their parents is rooted in Article 943 of the Spanish Civil Code. Because the Civil Code changed the classification of nonmarital children, so did the wording of the prohibition, reflected now in Article 992. The Civil Code now allows all nonmarital children as defined in the Civil Code to inherit in intestate succession. But because of Article 992, all nonmarital children are barred from reciprocal intestate succession. The prohibition in Article 992 is so restrictive that this Court has characterized it as an "iron curtain" separating marital and nonmarital relatives. Yet, while Article 992 prevents nonmarital children from inheriting from their marital parents' relatives, there is no such prohibition for the nonmarital child whose parent is a nonmarital child as well. Because of this, the reciprocity in intestate succession of nonmarital children now depends on their parents' marital status. The parity granted to nonmarital children is more illusory than real. This disparity of treatment was not left unnoticed.
This Court abandons the presumption in In re Grey, Corpus, Diaz, and In re Suntay, among others, that nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or that they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family. We adopt a construction of Article 992 that makes children, regardless of the circumstances of their births, qualified to inherit from their direct ascendants—such as their grandparent—by their right of representation. Both marital and nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants. Nonmarital children are removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as marital children. Nomnarital children of marital children are also removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as nomnarital children of nonmarital children. This interpretation likewise makes Article 992 more consistent with the changes introduced by the Family Code on obligations of support among and between the direct line of blood relatives.
Accordingly, when a nonmarital child seeks to represent their deceased parent to succeed in their grandparent's estate, Article 982 of the Civil Code shall apply
The language of Article 982 does not make any distinctions or qualifications as to the birth status of the "grandchildren and other descendants" granted the right of representation. Moreover, as pointed out by Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, to allow grandchildren and other descendants, regardless of their birth status, to inherit by right of representation will protect the legitime of the compulsory heir they represent; otherwise, the legitime will be impaired, contrary to protections granted to this legitime in other areas of our law on succession.
Applying Article 982 in situations where the grandchild's right to inherit from their grandparent is in issue is more in accord with our State policy of protecting children's best interests and our responsibility of complying with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
To emphasize, this ruling will only apply when the nonmarital child has a right of representation to their parent's share in her grandparent's legitime. It is silent on collateral relatives where the nonmarital child may inherit by themself. We are not now ruling on the extent of the right of a nonmarital child to inherit in their own right. Those will be the subject of a proper case and, if so minded, may also be the subject of more enlightened and informed future legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment