Rivera v.

Villanueva Facts: Petitioners- half brothers, half sister and children of the half brother of the deceased, Pacita Gonzales. Respondents are the Heirs of Villanueva, represented by Melchor. They were allowed to be substitute for Villanueva upon his death. The remaining respondents are Angelina and her husband Victorino, are allegedly the daughter and son-in-law of the late Villanueva. From 1927 until 1980, Gonzales cohabited with Villanueva without the benefit of marriage because the latter was married to Amanda Musngi who died in 1963. In the course of their cohabitation, they acquired several properties including the properties contested in this case. Gonzales died without a will. In 1980, Villanueva and Angelina executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with sale, that is, an extrajudicial settlement of Gonzales estate comprising a number of the aforementioned properties. In this document, Villanueva, for the amount of P30,000, conveyed his interests in the estate to Angelina. Later on, the Petitioners filed a case for partition of Gonzales estate and annulment of titles and damages with the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. RTC- 2 Findings: 1. Gonzales was never married to Villanueva and 2. Respondent Angelina was her illegitimate child by Villanueva and therefore her sole heir, to the exclusion of petitioners Petitioners appealed to the CA and the latter affirmed the RTC decision. Issue: Whether or not respondent Angelina was the illegitimate daughter of the decedent Gonzales Held: No. According to the assailed decision, the birth certificate clearly discloses that Pacita Gonzales was the mother of Angelina proof that respondent Angelina was Gonzales illegitimate child. It is well-settled that a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. It is not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested parties. Following the logic of Benitez v. CA, respondent Angelina and her co-defendants in SD-857 should have adduced evidence of her adoption, in view of the contents of her birth certificate. The records, however, are bereft of any such evidence. There are several parallels between this case and Benitez-Badua v. CA that are simply too compelling to ignore. First, both Benitez-Badua and respondent Angelina submitted birth certificates as evidence of filiation. Second, both claimed to be children of parents relatively advanced in age. Third, both claimed to have been born after their alleged parents had lived together childless for several years. There are, however, also crucial differences between Benitez-Badua and this case which ineluctably support the conclusion that respondent Angelina was not Gonzales daughter, whether illegitimate or

adopted. Gonzales, unlike Benitez-Baduas alleged mother Chipongian, was not only 36 years old but 44 years old, and on the verge of menopause at the time of the alleged birth. Unlike Chipongian who had been married to Vicente Benitez for only 10 years, Gonzales had been living childless with Villanueva for 20 years. Under the circumstances, we hold that it was not sufficiently established that respondent Angelina was Gonzales biological daughter, nor even her adopted daughter. Thus, she cannot inherit from Gonzales. Since she could not have validly participated in Gonzales estate, the extrajudicial partition which she executed with Villanueva on August 8, 1980 was invalid.