 |
|||
|
| |||
On June 22, 2009, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 contending that the CA failed to act on her application for DNA Testing despite its previous Resolution on February 10, 2009 that it would treat the same as one of the assigned errors in the appeal. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution22 dated August 25, 2009. The Issues Undaunted, the petitioner urges the allowance of her Petition for Review on Certiorari enumerating the following as errors committed by the CA:
Ruling of the Court The Court denies the instant petition and upholds the assailed decision and resolution of the CA. The petitioner calls for the relaxation of the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. It is a well-settled principle that the findings of fact of the CA especially those upholding the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The following are the recognized exceptions to the said rule:
None of these enumerated exceptions exists in the case at bar. Nonetheless, the Court will take up the petitioner's other assignment of errors to the extent that they touch upon legal issues and in order to support the Court's ruling that the RTC and CA's factual findings are sufficiently justified by evidence and jurisprudence. At the center of the present controversy are the documents executed by Louis evidencing his voluntary recognition of Teodoro and Ernesto as his illegitimate children. The petitioner, in an effort to oppose the judicial approval of Teodoro and Ernesto's status as illegitimate children, mainly argued that the subject documents are spurious. The legitimate filiation of a child may be established by any of the following:
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proven by:
These requirements likewise apply to establish the filiation of illegitimate children. 26 In order to cast doubt as to the · authenticity of the documentary evidence presented by Ernesto, the petitioner purported that the circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of the said documents are highly suspicious thereby warranting the overturn of the presumption of regularity in favor of these documents. The petitioner claimed that during the execution and notarization of the documents, Louis could still write, rendering incredible the mere affixing of his thumbprints to the contested documents.27 However, Ernesto testified before the RTC that Louis was no longer capable of writing his name as he was already blind and bedridden at the time he affixed his thumb mark to the document dated November 11, 1980. The witnesses to the document were Margarita Almeda, the hairdresser of Louis' sister, and Romeo Gadones, Teodoro's acquaintance.28 A thumb mark has been repeatedly considered as a valid mode of signature. The Court, in the case of Dr. Yason v. Arciaga,29 held that a signature may be made by a person's cross or mark.30 There being no cogent reason to deviate from the conclusion of the RTC finding the testimony of Ernesto worthy of belief, the Court adopts such testimony and considers it against the contention of the petitioner. It is settled in a catena of cases that the findings of fact of trial courts are given weight on appeal because they are in a better position to examine the real evidence, and observe the demeanor of the witnesses and therefore discern whether they are telling the truth. 31 The other inconsistencies cited by the petitioner are of no importance and insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in favor of the notarized documents.1âwphi1 A notarized document is a public document and as such it enjoys the presumption of regularity which can only be overthrown by clear and convincing evidence. 32 It serves as a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. 33 The bare allegations of the petitioner cannot qualify as clear and convincing evidence to overturn such presumption. The petitioner maintained that the real father of Teodoro and Ernesto is Corpus. She presented various evidence like school report card and death certificate wherein Teodoro's surname followed that of Corpus. The use of Corpus' surname by Teodoro does not in itself negate the illegitimate filiation of Teodoro and Ernesto. As correctly observed by the CA, Louis' existing marriage to Marie Louise must have prevented him from making any declaration that would have exposed his relationship with Epitacia. The use of 1,ouis' surname by his children during the lifetime of Marie Louise would run counter to his intention to cover such relationship. It is no less than the putative father who voluntary recognized that Teodoro and Ernesto are his illegitimate children. It is emphatically underscored that it is the law and only the law that determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for one's legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised. 34 All told, the authenticity of the documents of recognition executed by Louis which is the core of the present controversy, as well as the credibility of the expert witness in the person of Palad, are questions of fact for they involve the examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. There exists a question of law when the doubt arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts while a question of fact concerns itself with the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 35 To reiterate, a petition for review on certiorari covers only questions of law. The petitioner sought the conduct of DNA Testing to resolve the issue of paternity. However, the RTC already arrived at a definitive conclusion that Teodoro and Ernesto are the illegitimate children of the deceased Louis rendering the petitioner's request for DNA Testing immaterial. WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2009 and the Resolution dated August 25, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90302 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. BIENVENIDO L. REYES WE CONCUR: PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes 1 Rollo, pp. 10-52. 2 Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court) concurring; id. at 54-66. 3 Id. at 68-68A. 4 Id. at 18 and 463. 5 Died on January 1, 1987. 6 Died on October 23, 1983. 7 Rollo, pp. 157-158. 8 Id. at 158 and 464. 9 Id. at 159-I 60. 10 Id. at 465. 11 Id. 12 Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos, with Associate Justices B. A. Adefuin-De La Cruz and Jose C. Mendoza (now a Member of this Court) concurring; id. at 463-468. 13 Id. at 467. 14 Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Dy; id. at 157-174. 15 Id. at 174. 16 Id. at 175-193. 17 Id. at 194-205. 18 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Sesinando E. Villon concurring; id. at 207-208. 19 Id. at 54-66. 20 Id. at 65-66. 21 Id. at 69-82. 22 Id. at 68-68A. 23 Id. at 27. 24 Republic of the Philippines v. Hon. Mangotara, et al., 638 Phil. 353, 421-422 (2010). 25 FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Title IV (Paternity and Filiation), Chapter 2 (Proof of Filiation), Article 172. 26 FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Title IV (Paternity and Filiation), Chapter 3 (Illegitimate Children), Article 175. 27 Rollo, p. 59. 28 Id. at 58. 29 490 Phil. 338 (2005). 30 Id. at 351. 31 Castillo v. CA, 329 Phil. 150, 160 (1996), citing People v. Cabalhin, 301 Phil. 494, 504 (1994 ). 32 Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 560 (2008). 33 Chua v. Westmont Bank, et al., 683 Phil. 56, 66 (2012). 34 Concepcion v. CA, 505 Phil. 529, 537 (2005). 35 Sps. Bernales v. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88, 97 (2010). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
