8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997

CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON a! RENE R. DEZOLLER, petitioners,vs.COURT O" APPEALS a! TEODORA DOMINGO, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

he present appeal b! certiorarisee"s the reversal of the #ud$%ent rendered b! respondent Court of&ppeals on 'une (), *++1-hich affir%ed the Order of Dece%ber (, *++ issued b! the Re$ionalrial Court of /ue0on Cit!, 1ranch +2, $rantin$ herein private respondent3s De%urrer to Plaintiff3sEvidence filed in Civil Case No. /4224*)5 pendin$ therein.

he present appellate revie- involves an action for reconve!ance filed b! herein petitioners a$ainstherein private respondent before the Re$ional rial Court of /ue0on Cit!, 1ranch +2, doc"eted asthe aforesaid Civil Case No. /4224*)5, over a parcel of land -ith a house and apart%ent thereonlocated at San 6rancisco del Monte, /ue0on Cit! and -hich -as ori$inall! o-ned b! the spousesMartin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller 7uerrero. It appears that petitioners Cora0on ison and ReneDe0oller are the niece and nephe-, respectivel!, of the deceased eodora De0oller 7uerrero -ho isthe sister of petitioner3s father, 8er%o$enes De0oller. eodora De0oller 7uerrero died on March ,

*+2( -ithout an! ascendant or descendant, and -as survived onl! b! her husband, Martin 7uerrero,and herein petitioners. Petitioners3 father, 8er%o$enes, died on October (, *+9(, hence the! see" toinherit fro% eodora De0oller 7uerrero b! ri$ht of representation.

he records reveal that upon the death of eodora De0oller 7uerrero, her survivin$ spouse, Martin,e:ecuted on Septe%ber *, *+2; an &ffidavit of E:tra#udicial Settle%ent2ad#udicatin$ unto hi%self,alle$edl! as sole heir, the land in dispute -hich is covered b! ransfer Certificate of itle No. ;;22;,as a conse

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

2/9

>? -hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit b! ri$ht of representation fro%the estate of the late eodora De0oller@

>(? -hether or not defendant >herein private respondent? %ust reconve! the reservedparticipation of the plaintiffs to the estate of the late eodora De0oller under Section5, Rule 95 of the Rules of Court -hich -as dul! annotated on the title of the

defendant@

>5? -hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to da%a$es, %oral and e:e%plar!, plusattorne!3s fees for the -illful and %alicious refusal of defendant to reconve! theparticipation of plaintiffs in the estate of eodora De0oller, despite de%ands and"no-in$ full! -ell that plaintiffs are the niece and nephe- of said deceased@ and

>? -hether or not the sub#ect propert! no- in liti$ation can be considered as con#u$alpropert! of the spouses Martin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller 7uerrero.3

Durin$ the hearin$, petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison -as presented as the lone -itness, -ith thefollo-in$ docu%entar! evidence offered to prove petitioners3 filiation to their father and their aunt, to

-it= a fa%il! picture@ baptis%al certificates of eodora and 8er%o$enes De0oller@ certificates ofdestro!ed records of birth of eodora De0oller and 8er%o$enes De0oller@ death certificates of8er%o$enes De0oller and eodora De0oller 7uerrero@ certification of destro!ed records of live birthof Cora0on and Rene De0oller@ #oint affidavits of Pablo Ver0osa and Meliton Sit#ar attestin$ to theparents, date and place of birth of Cora0on and Rene De0oller@ #oint affidavit of 'uliana Caria$a andManuela Caria$a attestin$ to the fact of %arria$e bet-een Martin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller@and the %arria$e certificate of Martin and eodora 7uerrero.#Petitioners thereafter rested their caseand sub%itted a -ritten offer of these e:hibits to -hich a Co%%ent $-as filed b! herein privaterespondent.

Subse

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

3/9

on petitioner3s le$iti%ac!, andsecond is the &rticle ((? -hich provides= he contest of the le$iti%ac! of a child b! thehusband or his heirs %ust be %ade b! proper co%plaint before the co%petent court@an! contest %ade in an! other -a! is void. his principle applies under our 6a%il!Code. &rticles *9) and *9* of the code confir% this vie-, because the! refer to theaction to i%pu$n the le$iti%ac!. his action can be brou$ht onl! b! the husband orhis heirs and -ithin the periods fi:ed in the present articles.

pon the e:piration of the periods provided in &rticle *9), the action to i%pu$n thele$iti%ac! of a child can no lon$er be brou$ht. he status conferred b! thepresu%ption, therefore, beco%es fi:ed, and can no lon$er be

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

4/9

he issue, therefore, as to -hether petitioners are the le$iti%ate children of 8er%o$enes De0ollercannot be properl! controverted in the present action for reconve!ance. his is aside, of course,fro% the further consideration that private respondent is not the proper part! to i%pu$n thele$iti%ac! of herein petitioners. he presu%ption conse

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

5/9

here is no dispute -ith respect to the first, second and fourth ele%ents. Bhat re%ains for anal!sisis the third ele%ent, that is, -hether or not the other docu%ents offered in evidence sufficientl!corroborated the declaration %ade b! eodora De0oller 7uerrero in her lifeti%e re$ardin$ thepedi$ree of petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison or, if at all, it is necessar! to present evidence otherthan such declaration.

&%erican #urisdiction has it that a distinction %ust be %ade as to -hen the relationship of thedeclarant %a! be proved b! the ver! declaration itself, or b! other declarations of said declarant, and-hen it %ust be supported b! evidence aliunde. he rule is stated thus=

One situation to be noted is that -here one see"s to set up a clai% throu$h, but not fro%,the declarant and to establish the ad%issibilit! of a declaration re$ardin$ clai%ant3spedi$ree, he %a! not do b! declarant3s o-n state%ents as to declarant3s relationship tothe particular fa%il!. he reason is that declarant3s declaration of his o-n relationship isof a self4servin$ nature. &ccordin$l! there %ust be precedent proof fro% other sourcesthat declarant is -hat he clai%ed to be, na%el!, a %e%ber of the particular fa%il!@other-ise the re

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

6/9

&ppl!in$ the $eneral rule in the present case -ould nonetheless produce the sa%e result. 6or -hilethe docu%entar! evidence sub%itted b! petitioners do not strictl! confor% to the rules on theirad%issibilit!, -e are ho-ever of the considered opinion that the sa%e %a! be ad%itted b! reason ofprivate respondent3s failure to interpose an! ti%el! ob#ection thereto at the ti%e the! -ere bein$offered in evidence. 22It is ele%entar! that an ob#ection shallbe %ade at the ti%e -hen an alle$ed inad%issible docu%ent is offered in evidence, 23other-ise, the

ob#ection shall be treated as -aived,2#

since the ri$ht to ob#ect is %erel! a privile$e -hich the part!%a! -aive. 2$

&s e:plained inAbrenica vs. Gonda, et al., 2%it has been repeatedl! laid do-n as a rule of evidencethat a protest or ob#ection a$ainst the ad%ission of an! evidence %ust be %ade at the proper ti%e,other-ise it -ill be dee%ed to have been -aived. he proper ti%e is -hen fro% the E:hibits N and P?, to prove that herein petitioners arethe children of 8er%o$enes De0oller these can be dee%ed to have sufficientl! established the

relationship bet-een the declarant and herein petitioners. his is in consonance -ith the rule thataprima facie sho-in$ is sufficient and that onl! sli$ht proof of the relationship is re

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

7/9

&rt. +9. Bhen children of one or %ore brothers or sisters of the deceased survive,the! shall inherit fro% the latter b! representation, if the! survive -ith their uncles oraunts. 1ut if the! alone survive, the! shall inherit in e(G5? share thereof, respectivel!.

&ll told, on the basis of the fore$oin$ considerations, the de%urrer to plaintiff3s evidence should havebeen, as it is hereb!, denied. Nonetheless, private respondent %a! no lon$er be allo-ed to presentevidence b! reason of the %andate under Section * of revised Rule ( of the Rules of Court -hichprovides that if the %otion is $ranted but on appeal the order of dis%issal is reversed he shall bedee%ed to have -aived the ri$ht to present evidence. 33

B8ERE6ORE, the *G5? and three4fourths >(G5? share therein, respectivel!.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Puno and endo!a, ""#, concur#

$orres, "r#, "#, is on leave#

"oo'o'()

* Penned b! &ssociate 'ustice 7loria C. Paras, -ith &ssociate 'ustices /uirino &badSantos, 'r. and Delilah Vidallon Ma$tolis, concurrin$@ &nne: F@ Petition, Rollo, 95.

&nne: 1, id.@ ibid., 5*.

( Ori$inal Record, )94)2.

5 Ibid., 54+.

Ibid., ((4(5.

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

8/9

; Ibid., +4;9.

9 Ibid., 9.

2 'ones, Co%%entaries on Evidence, Vol. *, nd ed., **24**+.

+ olentino, &., Civil Code of the Philippines, Co%%entaries and 'urisprudence, Vol.*, *++) ed., (4(9.

*) %p. cit., (.

** 'ones on Evidence, Vol. *, th ed., *92.

* + &AR 22(.

*( (*& C'S, Evidence, Sec. **5, *+.

*5 Ibid., Sec. **+, *;.

* 1ra-sell vs. indall, +5 SB d ;2.

*; SN, 6ebruar! *5, *++, 42.

*9 'ones, Co%%entaries on Evidence, Vol. (, nd ed., )+54)+.

*2 %p. cit., )+;.

*+ %p. cit., )+2.

) In re Clar"3s Estate, **) P 22.

* 8art%an3s Estate, *)9 P *), cited in Moran, Co%%ents on the Rules of Court,Vol. , *+2) ed., (.

On offer of evidence, the Rules of Court pertinentl! provide=

Sec. (. Bhen to %a"e offer. . . .

Docu%entar! and ob#ect evidence shall be offered after the presentation of apart!3s testi%onial evidence. Such offer shall be done orall! unless allo-edb! the Court to be done b! -ritin$.

Sec. (;. Ob#ection. Ob#ection to evidence offered orall! %ust be %adei%%ediatel! after the offer is %ade.

Ob#ection to a

8/13/2019 05. Tison vs. CA

9/9

5 People vs. De la Cru0, 7.R. No. *)2*2), 6ebruar! 2, *++5, + SCR& 95.

Moran, Co%%ents on the Rules of Court, Vol. ;, *+2) ed., *.

; (5 Phil. 95 >*+*;?.

9 Conlu vs. &raneta, et al., * Phil. (29 >*+*)?.

2 &ee alosi$ vs. Vda. De Nieba, et al., 7.R. No. A4+9, 6ebruar! +, *+9, 5(SCR& 59.

+ %p cit., *2.

() his parochial record is an official docu%ent, havin$ been %ade prior to thepassa$e of 7.O. No. ;2 and &ct No. *+) >.S. vs. Evan$elista, + Phil. * >*+*?,and cases therein cited?.

(* 6ul"erson, et alvs. 8ol%es, et al., **9 S (2+.

( 6rancisco, Rules of Court, Vol. 9, *+9( ed., 5+5.

(( his a%endator! provision under the *++9 Rules of Civil Procedure, -hich too"effect on 'ul! *, *++9, is substantiall! the sa%e as the antecedent provision in Sec.*, Rule (= 8o-ever, if the %otion is $ranted and the order of dis%issal is reversedon appeal, the %ovant loses his ri$ht to present evidence in his behalf.