IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE LA ROSAvs.HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIANFACTS:The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado and Lucio Campo, both of whom were never married. Five other children were born to the couple who are full-blood siblings of Josefa and natural children of Felisa. Felisa also had another son with another man (Ramon Osorio) named Luis Delgado. Josefa Delgado died on September 1972 without a will. She was survived by Guillermo Rustia and some collateral relatives.

Sometime in 1917, Guillermo proposed marriage to Josefa but whether a marriage in fact took place is disputed. According to petitioners, the two eventually lived together as husband and wife but were never married. Petitioners point out that no record of the contested marriage existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of the sponsors referred to her as an unmarried woman. They never had any children but took into their home Guillermina and Nanie. They were never legally adopted but was known in the local dialect as ampun-ampunan. Guillermina was alleged to be the illegitimate child of Guillermo with another woman.

Respondents, on the other hand, insist that the absence of a marriage certificate did not mean that no marriage transpired and that Guillermina was never duly acknowledged as an illegitimate child and such right had prescribed upon the death of Guillermo. They maintain that Guillermo and Josefa were married on June 3, 1919 and from then on lived together as husband and wife until the death of Josefa. During this period spanning more than half a century, they were known among their relatives and friends to have in fact been married. To support their proposition, they presented the following pieces of evidence:

1. Certificate of Identity dated December 1, 1944 issued to Mrs. Guillermo J. Rustia; 2. Philippine Passport No. 4767 issued to Josefa D. Rustia on June 25, 1947; 3. Veterans Application for Pension or Compensation filed with the Veterans Administration of the United States of America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia himself swore to his marriage to Josefa Delgado in Manila on 3 June 1919; 4. Titles to real properties in the name of Guillermo Rustia indicated that he was married to Josefa Delgado.

Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, the daughter of Luis Delgado, filed the original petition for letters of administration of the intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia" with the RTC of Manila. This petition was opposed by the following: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia; (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustias late brother, Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia. The opposition was grounded on the theory that Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants were barred under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa Delgado. Guillerma Rustia filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, claiming she was the only surviving descendant in the direct line of Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of the oppositors, the motion was granted.

The RTC ruled that petitioner and her co-claimants are entitled to the estate of the late Josefa Delgado and declared as the only legal heirs of the said Josefa Delgado. Similarly, the intervenor Guillerma Rustia is hereby declared as the sole and only surviving heir of the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia, and thus, entitled to the entire estate of the said decedent, to the exclusion of the oppositors and the other parties hereto. As the estates of both decedents have not as yet been settled, a single administrator was appointed in the petitioner Carlota Delgado Vda. de dela Rosa. LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION were issued to CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA upon her filing of the requisite bond in the sum of P500,000.00.

Upon appeal in the CA said court reversed the decision.

The issues for our resolution are:

1. whether there was a valid marriage between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado; 2. who the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado are; 3. who should be issued letters of administration.

First issue: The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado

Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;

In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be married. Their reputed status as husband and wife was such that even the original petition for letters of administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to them as "spouses." These arguments are very persuasive.

Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place. Once the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof. Here, the certificate of identity issued to Josefa Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia, the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia, the declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado and the titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa Delgado," more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public documents which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. No clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was presented by petitioners. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.

Second Issue: The Lawful Heirs Of Josefa Delgado

Since Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, all the children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed Delgado, were her natural children.

The SC ruled that succession should be allowed, even when the illegitimate brothers and sisters are only of the half-blood. The reason impelling the prohibition on reciprocal successions between legitimate and illegitimate families does not apply to the case under consideration. That prohibition has for its basis the difference in category between illegitimate and legitimate relatives. There is no such difference when all the children are illegitimate children of the same parent, even if begotten with different persons. They all stand on the same footing before the law, just like legitimate children of half-blood relation. The court ruled that the rules regarding succession of legitimate brothers and sisters should be applicable to them.

The Lawful Heirs Of Guillermo Rustia

Intervenor Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. As such, she may be entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity. She, however, claimed the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia only after the death of the latter on February 28, 1974 at which time it was already the new Civil Code that was in effect.

Under the new law, recognition may be compulsory or voluntary. Recognition is compulsory in any of the following cases:

(2) when the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father (or mother) by the direct acts of the latter or of his family;

On the other hand, voluntary recognition may be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing.

Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on two grounds: first, compulsory recognition through the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and second, voluntary recognition through authentic writing. There was apparently no doubt that she possessed the status of an illegitimate child from her birth until the death of her putative father Guillermo Rustia. However, this did not constitute acknowledgment but a mere ground by which she could have compelled acknowledgment through the courts. Furthermore, any judicial action for compulsory acknowledgment has a dual limitation: the lifetime of the child and the lifetime of the putative parent. On the death of either, the action for compulsory recognition can no longer be filed. Therefore the right to claim compulsory acknowledgment prescribed upon the death of Guillermo Rustia.

Third Issue: Entitlement To Letters Of Administration

An administrator is a person appointed by the court to administer the intestate estate of the decedent. Rule 78, Section 6 of the Rules of Court prescribes an order of preference in the appointment of an administrator:

Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give a bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that the administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select.

In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators, specially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates, a situation which obtains here.

The SC found it fit to appoint joint administrators, in the persons of Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and a nominee of the nephews and nieces of Guillermo Rustia. They are the next of kin of the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia, respectively.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:

Letters of administration over the still unsettled intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado shall issue to Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and to a nominee from among the heirs of Guillermo Rustia, as joint administrators, upon their qualification and filing of the requisite bond in such amount as may be determined by the trial court.