Tison vs. Court of Appeals

The presumption of legitimacy is firmly established and cannot be collaterally attacked; the burden of proof to rebut it rests on the party asserting illegitimacy. Further, a decedent’s declaration concerning pedigree is admissible without independent proof of the declarant’s relationship when the claimant asserts a right directly against the declarant’s estate, grounded on necessity to avoid failure of justice.

Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died intestate on March 5, 1983 without ascendants or descendants. She was survived by her husband Martin Guerrero and by petitioners Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene R. Dezoller, the children of her predeceased brother Hermogenes Dezoller. The property in controversy was a parcel of land with improvements in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, originally conjugal property of the spouses.

• The Parties and Property: Teodora Dezoller Guerrero and Martin Guerrero were spouses who owned a conjugal parcel of land with improvements in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 66886. Teodora died on March 5, 1983 without ascendants or descendants. She was survived by her husband Martin and by petitioners Corazon Dezoller Tison and Rene R. Dezoller, the children of her brother Hermogenes Dezoller, who had predeceased her on October 3, 1973. Petitioners sought to inherit from Teodora by right of representation.
• Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale: On September 15, 1986, Martin Guerrero executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating the entire property to himself as sole heir. TCT No. 358074 was issued in his name. On January 2, 1988, Martin sold the lot to private respondent Teodora Domingo, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 374012 in the latter’s name. Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988.
• The Complaint: On November 2, 1988, petitioners filed an action for reconveyance, claiming entitlement to one-half of the property by right of representation. At pre-trial, the parties stipulated on issues including whether petitioners were the niece and nephew of Teodora, whether they were entitled to inherit by right of representation, and whether the property was conjugal.
• Trial and Evidence: Petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was the sole witness. She testified that in 1946, Teodora Dezoller Guerrero declared that Corazon was her niece. The following documentary evidence was offered: a family picture; baptismal certificates of Teodora and Hermogenes Dezoller; certificates of destroyed records of birth of Teodora and Hermogenes; death certificates of Hermogenes and Teodora; certifications of destroyed records of live birth of Corazon and Rene; joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar attesting to petitioners’ parentage; a joint affidavit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela Cariaga attesting to the marriage of Martin and Teodora; and the marriage certificate. Private respondent cross-examined Corazon on these documents but raised no objection at the time of their offering. A written comment on the offer of exhibits was subsequently filed.
• Demurrer and Dismissal: Private respondent filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Evidence, arguing that petitioners failed to prove legitimate filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code; that the testimony was self-serving, uncorroborated, and incompetent; and that the joint affidavits were hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint on December 3, 1992. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the documentary evidence inadmissible and insufficient to establish filiation.

• Presumption of Legitimacy: Petitioners argued that as children born in wedlock, they enjoy the conclusiveness of the presumption of legitimacy, which cannot be collaterally attacked in a reconveyance suit, and that private respondent is not a proper party to impugn their legitimacy.
• Proof of Filiation: Petitioners maintained that the decedent’s statement identifying Corazon as her niece was a declaration about pedigree admissible under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. They asserted that independent proof of the declarant’s relationship was unnecessary because the claim was made directly against the decedent’s estate.
• Waiver of Objections: Petitioners contended that private respondent failed to object to the documentary evidence at the time it was offered and had even cross-examined the witness on those documents, thereby waiving any objections to admissibility.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Respondent countered that petitioners failed to meet the quantum of proof mandated by Article 172 of the Family Code to establish legitimate filiation. The baptismal certificates, family picture, and joint affidavits were inadmissible and insufficient to prove pedigree.
• Hearsay and Incompetence: Respondent argued that the certifications of destroyed records did not establish filiation, and that the joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar were hearsay because the affiants were never presented for cross-examination.

• Collateral Attack on Legitimacy: Whether the issue of petitioners’ legitimacy may be validly controverted in an action for reconveyance.
• Burden of Proof on Legitimacy: Whether petitioners bore the burden of proving their legitimacy despite the presumption in their favor, especially upon a demurrer to evidence.
• Admissibility of the Pedigree Declaration: Whether the decedent’s declaration that petitioner Corazon was her niece was admissible to prove filiation, and whether independent evidence aliunde of the declarant’s relationship was required.
• Waiver of Objections: Whether private respondent waived objections to the documentary evidence by failing to object at the time of their offer and by conducting cross-examination on them.

• Collateral Attack on Legitimacy: The presumption of legitimacy is one of the most firmly established presumptions in law and cannot be attacked collaterally. Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code provide that an action to impugn legitimacy may be brought only by the husband or, exceptionally, his heirs, in a direct proceeding within the statutory periods. In a reconveyance suit, the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock cannot be contested as a defense or collateral issue. Private respondent was not the proper party to impugn petitioners’ legitimacy.
• Burden of Proof on Legitimacy: The presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the party asserting illegitimacy. Because presumptions stand in lieu of evidence unless rebutted, petitioners did not have to introduce evidence to prove their legitimate status. By filing a demurrer to evidence instead of adducing countervailing proof, private respondent left the presumption unrebutted, effectively admitting the facts presumed.
• Admissibility of the Pedigree Declaration: The decedent’s declaration in 1946 that Corazon was her niece qualified as a declaration about pedigree under Section 39, Rule 130. The requisites — death of declarant, relationship to the person whose pedigree is in issue, and ante litem motam timing — were undisputed. As for the third element — independent proof of the declarant’s relationship — an exception applies when the claimant asserts a right directly against the declarant’s own estate. In such a case, the declaration itself is sufficient, grounded on necessity to avoid failure of justice, and no preliminary evidence aliunde is required. Here, petitioners claimed against Teodora’s estate, making her declaration admissible without other proof of her relationship to them.
• Waiver of Objections: Even assuming the documentary evidence was hearsay, private respondent’s failure to interpose a timely objection at the time the documents were offered, coupled with unrestricted cross-examination on their contents, constituted a waiver of any ground for exclusion. An objection made only in a subsequent comment to the formal offer is too late. The evidence was therefore properly admitted and could be considered as proof of the facts asserted.

• Presumption of Legitimacy — Children born in wedlock are presumed legitimate; this presumption cannot be attacked collaterally and may be impugned only in a direct action by the husband or his heirs within the periods fixed by Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code. The presumption operates to shift the burden of persuasion to the party asserting illegitimacy. In the absence of competent contrary evidence, the presumed fact stands as proved.
• Pedigree Declaration — Exception to Hearsay — Under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a declaration about pedigree is admissible if: (1) the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) the declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is in question; (3) the relationship is shown by evidence other than the declaration; and (4) the declaration was made ante litem motam. As an exception to the third requirement, when the claim is made directly against the declarant’s estate, the declaration itself suffices to prove the relationship; no independent proof aliunde is necessary. The doctrine rests on necessity to prevent a failure of justice.
• Waiver of Objection to Evidence — Objections to documentary or testimonial evidence must be raised at the time the evidence is offered or as soon as the ground becomes apparent. Failure to do so, and especially cross-examination on the evidence without objection, results in waiver. A belated objection in a comment to the formal offer of exhibits cannot cure the waiver.
• Effect of Reversed Demurrer to Evidence — Under Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court (and its successor provision), if an order granting a demurrer to evidence is reversed on appeal, the movant is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence in his or her behalf.

• “There is no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate.”
• “The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose.”
• “Ordinarily, when a fact is presumed, it implies that the party in whose favor the presumption exists does not have to introduce evidence to establish that fact, and in any litigation where that fact is put in issue, the party denying it must bear the burden of proof to overthrow the presumption.”
• “As an exception, the requirement that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of some other member of the family.”
• “It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in evidence, otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.”

• Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., 34 Phil. 745 (1916) — Followed for the rule that an objection to evidence must be made at the proper time or be deemed waived.
• Conlu vs. Araneta, et al., 15 Phil. 387 (1910) — Cited to reinforce the rule that objections made after testimony has been given are too late.
• People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754 — Referred to for the principle that failure to object constitutes a waiver of statutory provisions on evidence.
• Talosig vs. Vda. de Nieba, et al., G.R. No. L-29557, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 472 — Cited for the rule that failure to object to parol evidence at the time it is given operates as a waiver.
• Fulkerson, et al. vs. Holmes, et al., 117 U.S. 389 — Relied on for the proposition that only slight proof of relationship is required as a prima facie showing for pedigree declarations.

• Articles 170 and 171, Family Code — Govern the exclusive right of the husband or his heirs to impugn legitimacy in a direct action within prescribed periods. The Court applied these provisions to bar the collateral attack on petitioners’ legitimacy in the reconveyance case.
• Article 172, Family Code — Enumerates the means of proving filiation. The lower courts erroneously required strict compliance here, overlooking the applicable presumptions and exceptions.
• Articles 975, 995, and 1001, Civil Code — Rules on intestate succession: representation of nephews and nieces concurring with a surviving spouse, and the division of inheritance (one-half to the surviving spouse, one-half to brothers and sisters or their children). The Court applied these to declare the parties co-owners in proportionate shares.
• Section 39, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Hearsay exception for declarations about pedigree. The decedent’s statement qualified, and the requirement of independent proof was relaxed under the exception for claims against the declarant’s own estate.
• Sections 35 and 36, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Timing of offer of evidence and objections thereto. Private respondent’s failure to object timely resulted in waiver.
• Section 1, Rule 35, Rules of Court — Effect of granting demurrer to evidence reversed on appeal; the movant loses the right to present evidence. The Court invoked this rule to preclude private respondent from offering further evidence.

Justices Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Justice Torres, Jr. was on leave.