SPEC PRO #2

AGAPAY vs PALANG (Digest)

[G.R. No. 116668. July 28, 1997]
FACTS:

Miguel Palang contracted marriage with Carlina in Pangasinan on 1949. He left to work in Hawaii a few months after the
wedding. Their only child Herminia was born in May 1950. The trial court found evident that as early as 1957, Miguel
attempted to Divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned for good in 1972, he refused to lived with Carlina and stayed
alone in a house in Pozzorubio Pangasinan.
The 63 year old Miguel contracted a subsequent marriage with 19 year old Erlinda Agapay, herein petitioner. 2 months
earlier, they jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at Binalonan Pangasinan. A house and lot in the same
place was likewise purchased. On the other hand, Miguel and Carlina executed a Deed of Donation as a form of
compromise agreement and agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of 6 parcels of land to their child
Herminia.
Miguel and Erlinda’s cohabitation produced a son named Kristopher. In 1979, they were convicted of concubinage upon
Carlina’s complaint. 2 years later, Miguel died. Carlina and her daughter instituted this case for recovery of ownership
and possession with damages against petitioner. They sought to get back the land and the house and lot located at
Binalonan allegedly purchase by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. The lower court dismissed the complaint
but CA reversed the decision

ISSUE/S
1. Whether the appellate court erred on not declaring Kristopher A. Palang as Miguel Palangs illegitimate son and
thus entitled to inherit from Miguels estate?
2. Whether respondent court erred, in not finding that there is sufficient pleading and evidence that Kristoffer A.
Palang or Christopher A. Palang should be considered as party-defendant in this civil case?
RULING:
1. The issue concerning Kristopher Palangs status and claim as an illegitimate son and heir to Miguels estate is here
resolved in favor of respondent courts correct assessment that the trial court erred in making pronouncements
regarding Kristophers heirship and filiation inasmuch as questions as to who are the heirs of the decedent, proof
of filiation of illegitimate children and the determination of the estate of the latter and claims thereto should be
ventilated in the proper probate court or in a special proceeding instituted for the purpose and cannot be
adjudicated in the instant ordinary civil action which is for recovery of ownership and possession.
2. As regards the 2nd issue, petitioner contends that Kristopher Palang should be considered as party-defendant in the
case at bar following the trial courts decision which expressly found that Kristopher had not been impleaded as
party defendant but theorized that he had submitted to the courts jurisdiction through his mother/guardian ad
litem. The trial court erred gravely. Kristopher, not having been impleaded, was, therefore, not a party to the case
at bar. His mother, Erlinda, cannot be called his guardian ad litem for he was not involved in the case at bar.
Petitioner adds that there is no need for Kristopher to file another action to prove that he is the illegitimate son of
Miguel, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits Petitioners grave error has been discussed in the preceeding
paragraph where the need for probate proceedings to resolve the settlement of Miguels estate and Kristophers
successional rights has been pointed out.
PETITION DENIED.