Ferrer v de Inchausti TUAZONjaigest

Ferrer v. De Inchausti

•

•

•

ZZZZ I tried. What you need to remember: Entries in family bibles/other family books/charts, engravings on rings, family family portraits portraits and the like, like, to be admissible admissible as an evidence of pedigree, need NOT be proven to have been made at the same time as the occurrence of the events documented . Rafael Ferrer and Maria Angelina Ferrer (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in Manila FI! praying for the rendition of a "udgment declaring that: o Rosa #iademonte (mother of plaintiffs) had the right to succeed to Isabel $on%ale% in the same proportion and capacity as the other & children 'Ramon R (dead%)! Rafael (dead%)! oauin! and lotilde*+ o ,laintiffs are the only legitimate heirs of deceased Rosa and entitled to recei-e her share of the inheritance left by Isabel (/0 part of estate)+ ,laintiffs allege that: 1hey are the legitimate children of Rosa (died on 2o-ember 34! 565). o Isabel $on%ale% 7as married first to Ramon #iademonte 8R! 7ith 7hom she had 3 children! Ramon R and o Rosa. o  After the death of Ramon! Isabel then married 9on ose de Inchausti 7ith 7hom she had  children: Rafael! oauin! and lotilde. o ;n her death! Isabel left a certain property in her marriage 7ith 9on ose (approF>29A218: lotilde: o 8he said she spent all her share and she no longer has any part of it. 2either the plaintiffs nor Rosa had e-er possessed or en"oyed the said sum+ 9enies that: () Rosa had e-er married 7ith plaintiffs= father (?enigno Ferrer)+ (3) Rosa e-er had the surname of @#iademonte or #iademonte y $on%ales+ () Rosa 7as a daughter of Isabel. Rosa in her lifetime ne-er claimed from lotilde and that more than thirty years had elapsed! so prescribed. Maria onsolacion de Inchausti (recogni%ed natural daughter of Rafael) and oauin: o Ramon R died in 640 and beueathed by 7ill to his brother Rafael all his property 9enied that any part of has e-er been beueathed to Rafael=s children 1he property recei-ed by Rafael 7as a land in 8ta. Ana (Bacienda de Camayan) and 7as registered in accordance 7ith the Cand Registration Act 1his 7as! in turn! inherited by Maria from Rafael and she appears in the registry of property as o7ner. laim prescribed. o Maria de la onsolacion Rico (7ido7 of Rafael): 8ame as the other Maria! plus: 9enies that Rosa 7as a daughter of Isabel and/or Ramon+ Isabel e,CD of ,CAI21IFF8: o 9enied ne7 facts alleged in the ans7ers. o Will of Isabel is -oid! inasmuch as Rosa ha-ing eual rights as her other children+ o 9efendants are estopped from denying that the surname of Rosa is #iademonte y $on%ales since they and their predecessors in interest ha-e pre-iously made declarations and formal affirmations! 7ritten and oral! recogni%ing that such is Rosa=s surname. o Rosa 7as legitimate daughter of Isabel and Ramon and that the plaintiffs are legitimate children of Rosa and ?enigno. FI: Rosa could not ha-e been legitimate daughter of the deceased Isabel. ,laintiffs cannot inherit. 

•

  



  

•



  

•

•

Did the CFI err in its decision?—NO. CFI Decision affirmed.

•

FIR81! the e-idence concerning 7/n plaintiffs are legitimate children of Rosa and ?enigno is inconclusi-e. While it appears that Rosa has! on -arious occasions! stated that she 7as unmarried and ne-er contracted a marriage! she has made entirely different statements on other occasions.

o

o

o

•

In proceedings instituted by Rosa Matilde against Rafael! it 7as disclosed in documents that she had ne-er  been married and that if her children 7ith ?enigno 7ere bapti%ed as legitimate children! it 7as so done in order  to conceal her dishonor. In the same proceedings! Rosa stated under oath before a "udge that she had ne-er  married. In another case! the same declaration 7as made by her. In a document! Rosa stated that she 7as a 7ido7+ but! in other documents! she stated that she 7as unmarried. Rosa Matilde perhaps made these contradictions due to e