Lim v.

Court of Appeals (1975) Petition: Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Petitioner: Felisa Lim Respondent: Guadalupe Enriquez Uy Ponente: Castro, J. Date: 18 July 1875 Facts:

Lim v. Court of Appeals (1975) Petition: Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Petitioner: Felisa Lim Respondent: Guadalupe Enriquez Uy Ponente: Castro, J. Date: 18 July 1875 Facts:

Felisa originally brought suit against Francisco Miguel Romualdez Uy Chen Hong o She claimed that she was heir of Susana Lim as her natural daughter o She prayed that a lot that used to be Susanas be adjudicated to her instead of Francisco To support her claim, she presented: o Baptismal certificate o Marriage contract, stating that Susana gave consent to her marriage Felisa also claims continuous possession of the status of a natural child Uy claimed to be the only son and heir of Susana and presented: o Application for alien registration o Order of Bureau of Immigration cancelling his ACR o Identification certificate *The last two detail Uy as a Filipino citizen by derivation from his mother, Susana Lim TC found in favor of Felisa, but judgment reversed by CA ruling that: o Neither of them were entitled to the inheritance o Neither of them had been recognized as Susana Lims child by the means provided for by law o Neither of them had been declared in a judicial proceeding to be a child of Susana Lim Felisa claims that: o Consent to her marriage amounted to recognition by Susana o Records pertaining to marriage license were destroyed during the liberation Guadalupe substituted for her husband, claiming that although CA declared him non entitled to the inheritance, the same is of no moment because he: o Bought the property with his own money o Placed the lot in his mothers name

Felisa originally brought suit against Francisco Miguel Romualdez Uy Chen Hong o She claimed that she was heir of Susana Lim as her natural daughter o She prayed that a lot that used to be Susanas be adjudicated to her instead of Francisco To support her claim, she presented: o Baptismal certificate o Marriage contract, stating that Susana gave consent to her marriage Felisa also claims continuous possession of the status of a natural child Uy claimed to be the only son and heir of Susana and presented: o Application for alien registration o Order of Bureau of Immigration cancelling his ACR o Identification certificate *The last two detail Uy as a Filipino citizen by derivation from his mother, Susana Lim TC found in favor of Felisa, but judgment reversed by CA ruling that: o Neither of them were entitled to the inheritance o Neither of them had been recognized as Susana Lims child by the means provided for by law o Neither of them had been declared in a judicial proceeding to be a child of Susana Lim Felisa claims that: o Consent to her marriage amounted to recognition by Susana o Records pertaining to marriage license were destroyed during the liberation Guadalupe substituted for her husband, claiming that although CA declared him non entitled to the inheritance, the same is of no moment because he: o Bought the property with his own money o Placed the lot in his mothers name

Pertinent laws/provisions: 131, Civil Code of 1889 Recognition of a natural child must be made in the record of birth, in a will or some public document. Issues: 1. 2.

Pertinent laws/provisions: 131, Civil Code of 1889 Recognition of a natural child must be made in the record of birth, in a will or some public document. Issues: 3. 4.

WoN petitioner is a natural child of Susana Lim WoN respondent is a natural child of Susana Lim

WoN petitioner is a natural child of Susana Lim WoN respondent is a natural child of Susana Lim

Ruling + Ratio: 1. NO. Marriage contract presented by Felisa is not a public document o Not notarized o A mere declaration that two people take each other as husband and wife 2. NO. Guadalupe alleges an implied trust exists but was not sufficiently proved. o An implied trust exists where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another o In this case, Susana may have given Uy money to complete the purchase but the latter really intended the purchase for his own benefit o Also, the Court finds that two circumstances militate against this theory: Only brought up in MFR Evidence unconvincing

Ruling + Ratio: 3. NO. Marriage contract presented by Felisa is not a public document o Not notarized o A mere declaration that two people take each other as husband and wife 4. NO. Guadalupe alleges an implied trust exists but was not sufficiently proved. o An implied trust exists where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another o In this case, Susana may have given Uy money to complete the purchase but the latter really intended the purchase for his own benefit o Also, the Court finds that two circumstances militate against this theory: Only brought up in MFR Evidence unconvincing

Disposition: Judgment appealed from affirmed.

Disposition: Judgment appealed from affirmed.

Ish Guidote

Ish Guidote