Scribd
Upload
280 views

TISON V CA - Fatt

This case involves a dispute over property originally owned by spouses Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. After Teodora's death, Martin claimed the property as sole heir. The petitioners, who are Teodora's niece and nephew, filed a case claiming their right to inherit half the property. The Court of Appeals ruled against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners provided sufficient proof of their relationship to Teodora through testimony and documents. As such, upon Teodora's death, half the property was reserved for Martin as his share of the conjugal partnership, while the other half was to be divided equally between Martin and the petitioners. The court

Uploaded by

Fatikate Garo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
280 views

TISON V CA - Fatt

This case involves a dispute over property originally owned by spouses Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. After Teodora's death, Martin claimed the property as sole heir. The petitioners, who are Teodora's niece and nephew, filed a case claiming their right to inherit half the property. The Court of Appeals ruled against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners provided sufficient proof of their relationship to Teodora through testimony and documents. As such, upon Teodora's death, half the property was reserved for Martin as his share of the conjugal partnership, while the other half was to be divided equally between Martin and the petitioners. The court

Uploaded by

Fatikate Garo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TISON v CA

G.R. No. 121027. July 31, 1997


Petitioner: Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene R. Dezoller
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Teodora Domingo

FACTS:

The case involves an action for reconveyance filed by herein petitioners against herein private respondent
over a parcel of land with a house and which was originally owned by the spouses Martin Guerrero and
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. It appears that petitioners Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and
nephew, respectively, of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who is the sister of petitioners father,
Hermogenes Dezoller. Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died on March 5, 1983 without any ascendant or
descendant, and was survived only by her husband, Martin Guerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners
father, Hermogenes, died on October 3, 1973, hence they seek to inherit from Teodora Dezoller Guerrero by
right of representation.

The records reveal that upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, her surviving spouse, Martin, executed
in 1986 an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating unto himself, allegedly as sole heir.
Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Martin Guerrero. In January 2, 1988,
Martin Guerrero sold the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo and thereafter, Transfer
Certificate of Title was issued in the latters name.

Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988. Subsequently, herein petitioners filed an action for reconveyance
on November 2, 1988, claiming that they are entitled to inherit one-half of the property in question by right
of representation. They claim their filiation to their father and their aunt by presenting documentary evidences
such as the baptismal certificates, family picture, and joint affidavits. On the other hand, private respondent
filed a Demurrer to Plaintiffs Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate filiation
with the deceased Teodora Guerrero in accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code. The Court of
Appeals ruled that the evidences of the petitioners were all inadmissible and insufficient to prove and
establish filiation. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not herein petitioners failed to meet the quantum of proof required by Article 172 of the Family
Code to establish legitimacy and filiation.

HELD:

Yes. With regard to legitimacy, both the trial court and CA overlooked the universally recognized
presumption on legitimacy. Well settled is the rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.
Even assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved in this case, the burden of proof rests not on herein
petitioners who have the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on private respondent who is disputing
the same. Private respondent opted not to present countervailing evidence to overcome the presumption, by
merely filing a demurrer to evidence instead, she in effect impliedly admitted the truth of such fact.

The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship between the parties concerned is the
testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime
in 1946, categorically declared that the former is Teodoras niece. Such a statement is considered a declaration
about pedigree which is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule.The declaration made by Teodora
Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece, is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such
relationship, notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being
that such declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to avoid a
failure of justice. More importantly, there is in the present case an absolute failure by all and sundry to refute
that declaration made by the decedent.

Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, one-half of the subject property was automatically reserved
to the surviving spouse, Martin Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal partnership. The remaining half shall
be equally divided between the widower and herein petitioners who are entitled to jointly inherit in their own
right. Hence, Martin Guerrero could only validly alienate his total undivided three-fourths (3/4) share in the
entire property to herein private respondent. Thus, the questioned judgment of respondent Court of Appeals
is reversed and herein petitioners and private respondent are declared co-owners of the subject property with
an undivided one-fourth (1/4) and three-fourths (3/4) share therein, respectively.

You might also like