Ivn Maj M. Nopuente Judge Dolores Español

HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI and ROSARIO CUARIO vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA S. REYES, et. al.

Facts:

Lourdes Sampayo and Ignacio Conti were co-owners of a parcel of land which is the subject of the

litigation. Rosario Cuario, one of the petitioners, is the wife of Ignacio Conti. Sometime in 1986, Lourdes

Sampayo died and left no descendants. Thereafter, the private respondents filed an action for partition

over the subject property. They now claim to be the collateral relatives of the decedent.

During trial on the action for partition, private respondents presented witnesses Lydia Sampayo Reyes

and Adelaida Sampayo to prove that they (the private respondents) were indeed the collateral relatives of

the deceased since such filiation is material for them to be entitled to ask for partition. Lydia was able to

testify that her mother Josefina was the only living sibling of Lourdes. The other siblings of Lourdes

(Manuel, Luis, and Remedios) were all deceased. But Lydia presented documents such as baptismal

certificates and photocopy of birth certificate of Manuel to prove that they have the same parents as those

of Lourdes, making them siblings.

Petitioners alleged that while it is true that the property was co-owned by Conti and Sampayo, it was only

Conti who paid expenses for the property because Lourders Sampayo promised that she will relinquish

her interest over the land to Conti. However, they failed to present any will to prove this claim

substantially.

The trial court declared the private respondents as the collateral relatives and, hence, the heirs of the

decedent. As a result, they are now entitled to ask for partition since it is one of the rights of Lourdes as a

co-owner and such rights automatically pertain to the heirs upon death.

An appeal was made by the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision,

holding that the filiation was proved by preponderance of evidence. No judicial declaration of heirship is

necessary since the rights of the decedents are automatically transmitted to the heirs upon his or her

death.

Issue:

Whether or not the private respondents are collateral relatives of the decedent and, thus, entitled to ask

for partition immediately.

Discussion:

Filiation was proved by the private respondents. The Supreme Court applied the rule on admissibility in

evidence of documents which are not original copies if such original copies cannot be found or located

without the fault of the offeror. Filiation is material in this case to determine if they are entitled to the right

of partition as heirs of the decedent especially so since the decedent died without issue. Baptismal

certificates may also be presented in the absence of a record of birth or a parent’s admission of such

legitimate filiation in a public or private document duly signed by the parent.

Additionally, the 4 baptismal certificates uniformly show that Lourdes, Josefina, Remedios, Luis, and

Manuel were all siblings.

The Supreme Court also held that all transmissible rights owned by the decedent are automatically

transferred to the heirs upon his or her death. It is as if a deed of transfer was executed by the decedent

right before his/her death.

Conclusion:

The private respondents are collateral relatives of the decedent. The moment Lourdes died, her rights as

a co-owner, including the right to ask for partition, automatically pertain to the private respondents as

heirs of Lourdes. Hence, the petition was denied.