rivera vs iac

7/24/2019 Rivera vs IAC

1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 75005-06 February 15, 1990

JOSE R!ER" petitioner,

vs.

NTERME#"TE "PPE$$"TE COURT a%& "#E$"#O J. R!ER", respondents.

Lorenzo O. Navarro, Jr. for petitioner.

Regalado P. Morales for private respondent.

CRU', J.:

as there onl! one Venancio Rivera in Mabalacat, Pa"pan#a, or $ere there t$o%

On Ma! &', ()*+, a pro"inent and $ealth! resident of that to$n na"ed Venancio Rivera died. On ul! -,

()*+, ose Rivera, clai"in# to be the onl! survivin# le#iti"ate son of the deceased, filed a petition for the

issuance of letters of ad"inistration over Venancio/s estate. Doc0eted as SP No. ('*1, this petition $as

opposed b! 2delaido . Rivera, $ho denied that ose $as the son of the decedent. 2delaido averred that

Venancio $as his father and did not die intestate but in fact left t$o holo#raphic $ills.1

On Nove"ber *, ()*+, 2delaido . Rivera filed, also $ith the Re#ional Trial 3ourt of 2n#eles 3it!, a petition for

the probate of the holo#raphic $ills. Doc0eted as SP No. (')(, this petition $as in turn opposed b! oseRivera, $ho reiterated that he $as the sole heir of Venancio/s intestate estate. (

On Nove"ber ((, ()*+, the t$o cases $ere consolidated. 2delaido . Rivera $as later appointed special

ad"inistrator. 2fter 4oint trial, ud#e 5liodoro 6. 7uinto found that ose Rivera $as not the son of the decedent

but of a different Venancio Rivera $ho $as "arried to Maria Vital. The Venancio Rivera $hose estate $as in

8uestion $as "arried to Maria ocson, b! $ho" he had seven children, includin# 2delaido. ose Rivera had no

clai" to this estate because the decedent $as not his father. The holo#raphic $ills $ere also ad"itted to

probate.)

On appeal, the decision of the trial court $as affir"ed b! the then Inter"ediate 2ppellate 3ourt. *Its decision is

no$ the sub4ect of this petition, $hich ur#es the reversal of the respondent court.

In support of his clai" that he $as the sole heir of the late Venancio Rivera, ose sou#ht to sho$ that the said

person $as "arried in ()- to Maria Vital, $ho $as his "other. 9e sub"itted for this purpose 5:hibit 2, the

"arria#e certificate of the couple, and 5:hibit 6, his o$n baptis"al certificate $here the couple $as indicated

as his parents. The petitioner also presented Do"in#o Santos, $ho testified that ose $as indeed the son of

the couple and that he sa$ Venancio and ose to#ether several ti"es. 5ose hi"self stressed that 2delaido

considered hi" a half;brother and 0issed his hand as a si#n of respect $henever the! "et. 9e insisted


2/4

that 2delaido and his brothers and sisters $ere ille#iti"ate children, sired b! Venancio $ith Maria

ocson. 6

2delaido, for his part, "aintained that he and his brothers and sisters $ere born to Venancio Rivera and Maria

ocson, $ho $ere le#all! "arried and lived as such for "an! !ears. 9e e:plained that he could not present his

parents/ "arria#e certificate because the record of "arria#es for ()


3/4

hat this 3ourt considers particularl! intri#uin# is $h!, if it is true that he $as the le#iti"ate son of Venancio

Rivera, ose did not assert his ri#ht as such $hen his father $as still alive. 6! his o$n account, ose supported

hi"self A and presu"abl! also his "other Maria Vital A as a #asoline attendant and driver for "an! !ears. 2ll

the ti"e, his father $as residin# in the sa"e to$n A and obviousl! prosperin# A and available for support. 9is

alle#ed father $as openl! livin# $ith another $o"an and raisin# another fa"il!, but this $as apparentl!

accepted b! ose $ithout protest, ta0in# no step $hatsoever to invo0e his status. If, as he insists, he and

Venancio Rivera $ere on cordial ter"s, there is no reason $h! the father did not help the son and instead leftose to fend for hi"self as a hu"ble $or0er $hile his other children b! Maria ocson en4o!ed a co"fortable

life. Such paternal discri"ination is difficult to understand, especiall! if it is considered A assu"in# the clai"s

to be true A that ose $as the oldest and, b! his o$n account, the onl! le#iti"ate child of Venancio Rivera.

2nd there is also Maria Vital, $hose attitude is no less inco"prehensible. 2s Venancio/s le#iti"ate $ife A if

indeed she $as A she should have ob4ected $hen her husband abandoned her and founded another fa"il! b!

another $o"an, and in the sa"e to$n at that. Seein# that the children of Maria ocson $ere bein# raised $ell

$hile her o$n son ose $as practicall! i#nored and ne#lected, she nevertheless did not de"and for hi" at

least support, if not better treat"ent, fro" his le#iti"ate father. It is unnatural for a la$ful $ife to sa! nothin# if

she is deserted in favor of another $o"an and for a carin# "other not to protect her son/s interests fro" his

$a!$ard father/s ne#lect. The fact is that this forsa0en $ife never de"anded support fro" her $ealth! if errant

husband. She did not file a co"plaint for bi#a"! or concubina#e a#ainst Venancio Rivera and Maria ocson,the alle#ed partners in cri"e and sin. Maria Vital $as co"pletel! passive and co"plaisant.

Si#nificantl!, as noted b! the respondent court, Maria Vital $as not even presented at the trial to support her

son/s alle#ations that she $as the decedent/s la$ful $ife. ose sa!s this $as not done because she $as

alread! old and bedridden then. 6ut there $as no i"pedi"ent to the ta0in# of her deposition in her o$n house.

No effort $as "ade to$ard this end althou#h her testi"on! $as vital to the petitioner/s cause. ose dis"isses

such testi"on! as "erel! cu"ulative, but this 3ourt does not a#ree. 9avin# alle#ed that Maria ocson/s

"arria#e to Venancio Rivera $as null and void, ose had the burden of provin# that serious alle#ation.

e find fro" the evidence of record that the respondent court did not err in holdin# that the Venancio Rivera

$ho "arried Maria ocson in ()


4/4

The fla$ in this ar#u"ent is that, as $e have alread! deter"ined, ose Rivera is not the son of the deceased

Venancio Rivera $hose estate is in 8uestion. 9ence, bein# a "ere stran#er, he had no personalit! to contest

the $ills and his opposition thereto did not have the le#al effect of re8uirin# the three $itnesses. The testi"on!

of =enaida and Venancio Rivera, r., $ho authenticated the $ills as havin# been $ritten and si#ned b! their

father, $as sufficient.

95R5FOR5, the petition is D5NI5D and the challen#ed decision is 2FFIRM5D, $ith costs a#ainst thepetitioner.

SO ORD5R5D.

Narvasa (Cairman!, "an#a$#o, "ri%o&'uino and Medialdea, JJ., #on#ur.

Foo%oes

( Ori#inal Records, Vol. I, pp. ((;(&.

- Ori#inal Records, Vol. II, pp. (+;(1

& Record on 2ppeal, pp. (1(;(*-.

< 3o8uia, .,ponente, $ith 3astro;6artolo"e and urado, ., concurrin#.

+ TSN, March (, ()-, pp. (;-(.

1 )bid.,pp. );(-.

* TSN, Dec. -, ()-, pp. -';-(.

Folder of 5:hibits, pp. (', ((, (&.

) TSN, Sept. (+, ()&, pp.

rivera vs iac

Documents