8/10/2019 Eceta vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eceta-vs 1/1

Eceta vs. EcetaG.R. No. 157037 May 20, 2004

Facts: Petitioner Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta sometime in 1926. During the subsistence of their marriage, they begot a son, Vicente. The couple acquired several properties, among which is the disputed property. Isaac died in 1967 leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as hiscompulsory heirs.

In 1977, Vicente died. During his lifetime, however, he sired Maria Theresa, an illegitimate daughter. Thus at the time of his death, his compulsoryheirs were his mother, Rosalina, and illegitimate child, Maria Theresa.

In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case before the RTC of Quezon City for "Partition and Accounting with Damages" against Rosalina alleging that by virtueof her father’s death, she became Rosalina’s co-heir and co-owner of the property. In her answer, Rosalina alleged that the property is paraphernal innature and thus belonged to her exclusively.

Issue: Whether the certified xerox copy from a xerox copy of the certificate of live birth is competent evidence to prove the alleged filiation of therespondent as an "illegitimate daughter" of her alleged father Vicente Eceta.

Ruling: Notably, what was filed and tried before the trial court and the Court of Appeals is one for partition and accounting with damages only. Thefiliation, or compulsory recognition by Vicente Eceta of Maria Theresa, was never put in issue. In fact, both parties have already agreed and admitted,as duly noted in the trial court’s pre-trial order, that Maria Theresa is Rosalina’s granddaughter. 

Notwithstanding, Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. Vicente himselfsigned Maria Theresa’s birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter. By this act alone, Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged hispaternity over Maria Theresa.

FACTS: 

Rosalina Vda de Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta in 1926. They had a son named Vicente. The husband died in 1967 leaving Rosalina and Vicente ashis compulsory heirs. However, the deceased has an illegitimate daughter named Theresa whose grandmother was Rosalina, the petitioner.

ISSUE: WON the admission made by Rosalina that Theresa was her granddaughter is enough to prove the filiation with the deceased.

HELD: 

The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by:(1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or(2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by:(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or(2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, aconsummated act of acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a groundfor compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. However, what was triedbefore the trial court and CA was for partition and accounting of damages only. The filiation or compusolry recognition by Vicente of Theresa wasnever put in issue. In fact both agreed in the trial court’s pre trial order that Theresa was Rosalina’s granddaughter.  The deceased establishingacknowledgement of his paternity over Theresa nevertheless signed the duly authenticated birth certificate shown by the latter. Hence, the Court

granted 1/8 share of the land to Theresa.

MAQUILAN vs. MAQUILAN Case Digest VIRGILIO MAQUILAN vs. DITA MAQUILANG.R. No. 155409 June 8, 2007

FACTS: Herein petitioner and herein private respondent are spouses who once had a blissful married life and out of which were blessed to have a son.However, their once sugar coated romance turned bitter when petitioner discovered that private respondent was having illicit sexual affair with herparamour, which thus, prompted the petitioner to file a case of adultery against private respondent and the latter's paramour. Consequently, bothaccused were convicted of the crime charged.

Thereafter, private respondent, through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of ConjugalPartnership of Gains and Damages imputing psychological incapacity on the part of the petitioner. During the pre-trial of the said case, petitioner andprivate respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for the repudiation of the AGREEMENT. This motion was denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari andProhibition with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the conviction of the respondent of the crime of adultery disqualify her from sharing in theconjugal property. The Petition was dismissed.

ISSUE: Is the conviction of the respondent of the crime of adultery a disqualification for her to share in the conjugal property?

HELD: No. The conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of civil interdiction. Article 34 of the Revised Penal Code provides for theconsequences of civil interdiction:

 Art. 34. Civil Interdiction.  —  Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, orguardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose ofsuch property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

Under Article 333 of the same Code, the penalty for adultery is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Article 333 should be readwith Article 43 of the same Code. The latter provides:

 Art. 43. Prision correccional — Its accessory penalties.  — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office,from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of saidimprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article although pardoned as to the principalpenalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

It is clear, therefore, and as correctly held by the CA, that the crime of adultery does not carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction which deprivesthe person of the rights to manage her property and to dispose of such property inter vivos.