*

G.R. No. 187273.  February 15, 2017.

ROMEO F. ARA and WILLIAM A. GARCIA, petitioners, vs.

DRA. FELY S. PIZARRO and HENRY ROSSI, respondents.

Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Filiation; A person who

seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a puta-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

519

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 519

Ara vs. Pizarro
 tive parent must do so via a record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation.—A
person who seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after the death of a
putative parent must do so via a record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation. In
Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 684 (1989): The following
provision is therefore also available to the private respondent in proving
his illegitimate filiation: Article 172. The filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following: . . . . In the absence of the foregoing
evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
Same; Same; Same; Birth Certificates; Birth certificates offer prima
facie evidence of filiation.—True, birth certificates offer prima facie
evidence of filiation. To overthrow the presumption of truth contained in a
birth certificate, a high degree of proof is needed. However, the
circumstances surrounding the delayed registration prevent us from
according it the same weight as any other birth certificate.
Same; Same; Same; Registration of Birth; Rule 21 of National Statistics
Office (NSO) Administrative Order (AO) No. 1-93, or the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of Act No. 3753, provides that a person’s birth be
registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar General by one of the
individuals enumerated therein.—Rule 21 of National Statistics Office
Administrative Order No. 1-93, or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Act No. 3753, provides that a person’s birth be registered with the Office of
the Civil Registrar General by one of the following individuals: Rule 21.
Persons Responsible to Report the Event.—
(1) When the birth occurred in a hospital or clinic or in a similar
institution, the administrator thereof shall be responsible in causing the
registration of such birth. However, it shall be the attendant at birth who
shall certify the facts of birth. (2) When the birth did not occur in a hospital
or clinic or in a similar institution, the physician, nurse, midwife, “hilot,”
or anybody who attended to the delivery of the child shall be responsible
both in certifying the facts of birth and causing the registration of such
birth. (3) In default of the hospital/clinic administrator or
attendant at birth, either or both parents of the child shall cause the

520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

registration of the birth. (4) When the birth occurs aboard a vehicle,
vessel or airplane while in transit, registration of said birth shall be a joint
responsibility of the driver, captain or pilot and the parents, as the case
may be.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The birth must be registered within thirty
(30) days from the time of birth.—The birth must be registered within 30
days from the time of birth. Thus, generally, the rules require that facts of
the report be certified by an attendant at birth, within 30 days from birth.
The attendant is not only an eyewitness to the event, but also presumably
would have no reason to lie on the matter. The immediacy of the reporting,
combined with the participation of disinterested attendants at birth, or of
both parents, tend to ensure that the report is a factual reporting of birth. In
other words, the circumstances in which registration is made obviate the
possibility that registration is caused by ulterior motives. The law provides
in the case of illegitimate children that the birth certificate shall be signed
and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if
the father refuses. This ensures that individuals are not falsely named as
parents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Late Registration of Birth; National
Statistics Office (NSO) Administrative Order (AO) No. 1-93 also
contemplates that reports of birth may be made beyond the thirty (30)-day
period.—National Statistics Office Administrative Order No. 1-93 also
contemplates that reports of birth may be made beyond the 30-day period:
Rule 25. Delayed Registration of Birth.—(1) The requirements are: a) if
the person is less than eighteen (18) years old, the following shall be
required: i) four (4) copies of the Certificate of Live Birth duly
accomplished and signed by the proper parties; ii) accomplished
Affidavit for Delayed Registration at the back of the Certificate of Live
Birth by the father, mother or guardian, declaring therein, among other
things, the following: > name of child; > date and place of birth; > name of
the father if the child is illegitimate and has been acknowledged by him; >
if legitimate, the date and place of marriage of parents; and > reason for
not registering the birth within thirty (30) days after the date of birth. In
case the party seeking late registration of the birth of an illegitimate child
is not the mother, the party shall, in addition to the foregoing facts, declare
in a sworn statement the present whereabouts of the mother. iii) any two of
the following documentary evidences which may show the

521

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 521

Ara vs. Pizarro

name of the child, date and place of birth, and name of mother (and name
of father, if the child has been acknowledged); > baptismal certificate; >
school records (nursery, kindergarten, or preparatory); > income tax return
of parent/s; > insurance policy;
> medical records; and > others, such as barangay captain’s certification.
iv) affidavit of two disinterested persons who might have witnessed or
known the birth of the child. (46:1aa) b) If the person is eighteen (18) years
old or above, he shall apply for late registration of his birth and the
requirements shall be: i) all the requirements for a child who is less than
eighteen (18) years old; and ii) Certificate of Marriage, if married. (46:1ba)
(2) Delayed registration of birth, like ordinary registration made at the time
of birth, shall be filed at the Office of the Civil Registrar of the place where
the birth occurred. (46:3) (3) Upon receipt of the application for delayed
registration of birth, the civil registrar shall examine the Certificate of Live
Birth presented whether it has been completely and correctly filled up and
all requirements complied with. (47a) (4) In the delayed registration of the
birth of an alien, travel documents showing the origin and nationality of
the parents shall be presented in addition to the requirements mentioned in
Rule 25(1). (49:2a)
 Same; Same; Same; Even without a record of birth appearing in the
civil register or a final judgment, filiation may still be established after the
death of a putative parent through an admission of filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument, signed by the parent
concerned.—Even without a record of birth appearing in the civil register
or a final judgment, filiation may still be established after the death of a
putative parent through an admission of filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument, signed by the parent concerned. However,
petitioners did not present in evidence any admissions of filiation. An
admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party on a relevant fact,
which may be used in evidence against him. The evidence presented by
petitioners such as group pictures with Josefa and petitioners’ relatives,
and testimonies do not show that Josefa is their mother. They do not
contain any acts, declarations, or omissions attributable directly to Josefa,
much less ones pertaining to her filiation with petitioners. Although
petitioner Garcia’s Baptismal Certificate, Certificate of Marriage, and
Certificate of Live Birth obtained via late registration all state that Josefa is
his mother, they do not show any act, declaration, or omission on the part
of Josefa. Josefa did not

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

participate in making any of them. The same may be said of the

testimonies presented. Although Josefa may have been in the photographs,
the photographs do not show any filiation. By definition, none of the
evidence presented constitutes an admission of filiation under Article 172
of the Family Code.
Same; Same; Same; An alleged parent is the best person to affirm or
deny a putative descendant’s filiation.—An alleged parent is the best
person to affirm or deny a putative descendant’s filiation. Absent a record
of birth appearing in a civil register or a final judgment, an express
admission of filiation in a public document, or a handwritten instrument
signed by the parent concerned, a deceased person will have no
opportunity to contest a claim of filiation. In truth, it is the mother and in
some cases, the father, who witnesses the actual birth of their children.
Descendants normally only come to know of their parents through nurture
and family lore. When they are born, they do not have the consciousness
required to be able to claim personal knowledge of their parents. It thus
makes sense for the parents to be present when evidence under the second
paragraph of Article 172 is presented.
Same; Same; Same; The limitation that an action to prove filiation as
an illegitimate child be brought within the lifetime of an alleged parent
acknowledges that there may be other persons whose rights should be
protected from spurious claims.—The limitation that an action to prove
filiation as an illegitimate child be brought within the lifetime of an alleged
parent acknowledges that there may be other persons whose rights should
be protected from spurious claims. This includes other children, legitimate
and illegitimate, whose statuses are supported by strong evidence of a
categorical nature.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for petitioners.
Leovigildo D. Tandog, Jr. for respondent Rossi.
Vivencio P. Estrada for respondent Dra. Pizarro.

523

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 523

Ara vs. Pizarro

LEONEN,  J.:

For a claim of filiation to succeed, it must be made within

the period allowed, and supported by the evidence required
under the Family Code.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, asking that the Court of Appeals’
 1 2
Decision dated August 1, 2008 and Resolution dated March 16,
2009, in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 00729 entitled “Romeo F. Ara, Ramon
A. Garcia, William A. Garcia, and Henry A. Rossi v. Dra. Fely S.
3
Pizarro,” which modified the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court in Special Civil Action No. 337-03 entitled “Romeo F. Ara,
Ramon A. Garcia, William A. Garcia and Henry A. Rossi v. Dra.
Fely S. Pizarro” for Judicial Partition, be set aside.
Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia (petitioners), and Dra.
Fely S. Pizarro and Henry A. Rossi (respondents) all claimed to be
children of the late Josefa A. Ara (Josefa), who died on November
4
18, 2002.
Petitioners assert that Fely S. Pizarro (Pizarro) was born to
Josefa and her then husband, Vicente Salgado (Salgado), who died
5
during World War II. At some point toward the end of the war,
Josefa met and lived with an American soldier by the name of
6
Darwin Gray (Gray). Romeo F. Ara (Ara) was born from this
relationship. Josefa later met a certain Alfredo Garcia (Alfredo),
and from this relationship, gave birth to sons Ramon Garcia
7
(Ramon) and William A. Garcia (Garcia).

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion. Associate Justices

Edgardo A. Camello and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., concurred. Rollo, pp. 42-56.
2 Id., at pp. 59-60.
3 RTC Records, pp. 154-160.
4 Rollo, pp. 42-43.
5 Id., at p. 5.
6 Id.
7 Id.

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ara vs. Pizarro
 8
Josefa and Alfredo married on January 24, 1952. After Alfredo
passed away, Josefa met an Italian missionary named Frank Rossi,
9
who allegedly fathered Henry Rossi (Rossi).
Respondent Pizarro claims that, to her knowledge, she is the
10
only child of Josefa. Further, petitioner Garcia is recorded as a
son of a certain Carmen Bucarin and Pedro Garcia, as evidenced
11
by a Certificate of Live Birth dated July 19, 1950; and petitioner
Ara is recorded as a son of spouses Jose Ara and Maria Flores,
12
evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth.
Petitioners, together with Ramon and herein respondent Rossi
(collectively, plaintiffs a quo), verbally sought partition of the
properties left by the deceased Josefa, which were in the
13
possession of respondent Pizarro. The properties are enumerated
as follows:
1. Lot and other improvements located at Poblacion, Valencia City,
Bukidnon with an area of One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Eight
(1,268)-sq. ms. in the name of Josefa Salgado covered by Katibayan ng
Original na Titulo No. T-30333;
2. Tamaraw FX; and
3. RCBC Bank Passbook in the amount of One Hundred Eight Thousand
14
Pesos (P108,000.00) bank deposit.

Respondent Pizarro refused to partition these properties. Thus,

plaintiffs a quo referred the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for
15
conciliation and amicable settlement.
_______________

8 Id., at p. 6.
9 Id., at p. 5.
10 Id., at p. 154.
11 Id., at pp. 153-154.
12 Id., at p. 154.
13 Id., at p. 43.
14 Id.
15 Id.
 525

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 525

Ara vs. Pizarro

16
The parties were unable to reach an amicable settlement.
Thus, the Office of the Barangay Captain issued a Certification to
17
File Action dated April 3, 2003.
18
Plaintiffs a quo filed a Complaint dated April 9, 2003 for
judicial partition of properties left by the deceased Josefa, before
the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 9 (Trial
Court). In her Answer, respondent Pizarro averred that, to her
19
knowledge, she was the only legitimate and only child of Josefa.
She denied that any of the plaintiffs a quo were her siblings, for
20
lack of knowledge or information to form a belief on that matter.
Further, the late Josefa left other properties mostly in the
possession of plaintiffs a quo, which were omitted in the properties
to be partitioned by the trial court in Special Civil Action No. 337-
21
03, enumerated in her counterclaim (Additional Properties).
Respondent Pizarro filed her Pretrial Brief dated July 28, 2003,
which contained a proposed stipulation that the Additional
22
Properties also form part of the estate of Josefa. Amenable to this
proposal, plaintiffs a quo moved that the Additional Properties be
included in the partition, in a Motion to Include in the Partition the
23
Proposed Stipulation dated August 31, 2003.
At the pretrial, Ara, Garcia, and Ramon claimed a property of
respondent Rossi as part of the estate of Josefa. This property was
not alleged nor claimed in the original complaint. This compelled
respondent Rossi to engage the services of

_______________

16 Id.
17 Id.
18 RTC Records, p. 1.
 19 Id., at p. 21.
20 Id.
21 Id., at p. 22.
22 Rollo, p. 45.
23 Id.

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

separate counsel, as the claim of his property constituted a conflict

24
of interest among the plaintiffs a quo.
In a Pretrial Order issued by the Trial Court on October 1, 2003,
the following facts were admitted:
4. All the above mentioned fathers of the children in this case, Mr. Vicente
Salgado, Mr. Darwin Grey [sic] and Henry Rosi (sic), are all deceased.
Josefa Ara Salgado is also deceased having died on November 18,
2002.
5. The properties mentioned in Paragraph 9 of the counterclaim mentioned
in the Answer filed by the defendant thru counsel are also admitted by
both counsels to be part of the properties subject of this partition case.
6. The Katibayan Ng Orihinal na Titulo attached thereto as ANNEXES
“C”-“C-1,” are all admitted as the subject properties.
7. Some properties involved maybe covered by the land reform program
of the government and the parties have agreed that only the remainder
thereof or the proceeds of compensation shall be partitioned among
them. All these properties shall be properly determined during the
inventory to be finally submitted to the Court for approval.
8. All the foregoing properties were acquired after the death of Vicente
Salgado and presumably all the exclusive properties of Josefa Ara
25
Salgado.
 After trial, on February 20, 2006, the Trial Court, issued a
Decision. The decretal portion states:
WHEREFORE, the Court renders a DECISION as follows:

_______________

24 Id., at p. 92.
25 Id., at pp. 45-46.

527
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 527

Ara vs. Pizarro

1.  Awarding the Baguio property to Henry Rossi, to be

deducted from his share;
2.  Awarding the Valencia property covered by OCT No. T-
30333; Tamaraw FX and the RCBC Bank Deposit Passbook to
defendant Fely S. Pizarro, to be deducted from her share; and
3.  With respect to the other properties that may not be covered
by the foregoing, the same are declared under the co-ownership of
all the plaintiffs and defendant and in equal shares.
26
SO ORDERED.

Respondent Pizarro appealed the Trial Court Decision, claiming

it erred in finding petitioners Ara and Garcia to be children of
27
Josefa, and including them in the partition of properties.
Petitioners Ara and Garcia, as well as respondent Rossi, also
filed their own respective appeals to the Trial Court Decision.
Respondent Rossi questioned the inclusion of his property in the
28
inventory of properties of the late Josefa. Petitioners questioned
the awarding of particular properties to, and deductions from the
29
respective shares of, respondents Pizarro and Rossi.
30
The Court of Appeals, on August 1, 2008, promulgated its
31
Decision and held that only respondents Pizarro and
Rossi, as well as plaintiff a quo Ramon, were the children of the
late Josefa, entitled to shares in Josefa’s estate:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeals are
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Deci-

_______________

26 Id., at p. 46.
27 Id.
28 Id., at p. 47.
29 Id.
30 Id., at pp. 42-56.
31 Id.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

sion dated 20 February 2006, of the court a quo, is hereby

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The legitimate children of
Josefa Ara, namely, Fely Pizarro and Ramon A. Garcia, are each
entitled to one (1) share, while Henry Rossi, the illegitimate child
of Josefa Ara, is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the share of a
legitimate child, of the total properties of the late Josefa Ara
sought to be partitioned[.]
....
32
SO ORDERED.

In omitting petitioners from the enumeration of Josefa’s

descendants, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of the Trial
Court. The Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court erred in
allowing petitioners to prove their status as illegitimate sons of
Josefa after her death:
In holding that appellants William A. Garcia and Romeo F. Ara are the
illegitimate sons of Josefa Ara, the court a quo
ratiocinated:
Without anymore discussing the validity of their respective
birth and baptismal certificates, there is sufficient evidence to
hold that all the plaintiffs are indeed the children of the said
deceased Josefa Ara for having possessed and enjoyed the
status of recognized illegitimate children pursuant to the first
paragraph of Article 175 of the Family Code which provides:

“Illegitimate children may establish

their filiation in the same way and on
the same evidence as legitimate
children.”

in relation to the second paragraph No. (1) of Article 172 of

the same code (sic), which provides:

_______________

32 Id., at pp. 55-56.

529

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 529

Ara vs. Pizarro

“In the absence of the foregoing

evidence, legitimate filiation shall be
proven by:
(1) the open and continuous
possession of the status of a legitimate
child.”

All the plaintiffs and defendant were taken care of and

supported by their mother Josefa Ara, including their
education, since their respective birth and were all united and
lived as one family even up to the death and burial of their
said mother, Josefa Ara. Their mother had acknowledged all
of them as her children throughout all her life directly,
33
continuously, spontaneously and without concealment.
(Emphasis omitted)
 Petitioners, together with Garcia, and respondent Rossi filed
separate Motions for Reconsideration, which were both denied by the
34
Court of Appeals on March 16, 2009.
35
Petitioners bring this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Respondents Pizarro and Rossi filed their respective Comments
36
on the Petition. Petitioners filed a Reply to respondents’
Comments, as well as a Motion to Submit Parties to DNA
37
Testing, which this Court denied. Memoranda were submitted by
all the parties.
Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied
Article 285 of the Civil Code, which requires that an action for the
recognition of natural children be brought during the lifetime of the
presumed parents, subject to certain

_______________

33 Id., at p. 48.
34 Id., at p. 59.
35 Id., at pp. 3-40.
36 Id., at pp. 90-103 and 105-111.
37 Id., at pp. 114-116.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

38
exceptions. Petitioners assert that during Josefa’s lifetime, Josefa
acknowledged all of them as her children directly, continuously,
39
spontaneously, and without concealment.
Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals did not apply the
second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, which states
that filiation may be established even without the record of birth
appearing in the civil register,
 40
or an admission of filiation in a public or handwritten document.
Further, petitioners aver that the Court of Appeals erred in its
asymmetric application of the rule on establishing filiation. Thus,
the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Pizarro was a
daughter of Josefa Ara and Vicente Salgado, asserting there was no
basis for the same. Petitioners claim that, in her Formal Offer of
Exhibits dated May 26, 2005, respondent Pizarro offered as
evidence only a Certificate of Marriage of Salgado and Josefa to
41
support her filiation to Josefa.
On respondent Rossi, petitioners claim that there is no direct
evidence to prove his filiation to Josefa, except for his Baptismal
42
Certificate, which was testified to only by respondent Rossi.
The primordial issue for this Court to resolve is whether
petitioners may prove their filiation to Josefa through their open
and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children,
found in the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code.
This Petition is denied.

_______________

38 Id., at p. 34.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id., at pp. 34-35.
42 Id., at p. 196.

531

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 531

Ara vs. Pizarro

I
On establishing the filiation of illegitimate children, the
Family Code provides:
 Article  175.  Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in
Article 173, except when the action is based on the second
paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

Articles 172 and 173 of the Family Code provide:

Article  172.  The filiation of legitimate children is established

by any of the following:
(1)The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or
(2)An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
shall be proved by:
(1)The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
(2)Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
Article  173.  The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by
the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the
heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In
these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which
to institute the action.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

The action already commenced by the child shall survive

notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties. (268a)
 Thus, a person who seeks to establish illegitimate filiation after
the death of a putative parent must do so via a record of birth
appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission
43
of legitimate filiation. In Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals:
The following provision is therefore also available to the private
respondent in proving his illegitimate filiation:
Article  172.  The filiation of legitimate children is established
by any of the following:
....
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
shall be proved by:
(1)The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
(2)Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.
While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of
the documents mentioned in the first paragraph (which are
practically the same documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil
Code except for the “private handwritten instrument signed by the
parent himself), he insists that he has nevertheless been “in open
and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,”
which is now also admissible as evidence of filiation.

_______________

43 258-A Phil. 467; 178 SCRA 684 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].

533

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 533

Ara vs. Pizarro

Thus, he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973,
receiving support from him during that time; that he has been using
the surname Uyguangco without objection from his father and the
petitioners as shown in his high school diploma, a
special power of attorney executed in his favor by Dorotea Uyguangco,
and another one by Sulpicio Uyguangco; that he has shared in the profits of
the copra business of the Uyguangcos, which is a strictly family business;
that he was a director, together with the petitioners, of the Alu and Sons
Development Corporation, a family corporation; and that in the addendum
to the original extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners he was
given a share in his deceased father’s estate.
It must be added that the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish
his claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws,” like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family
Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds
of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
The problem of the private respondent, however, is that, since he seeks
to prove his filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the
Family Code, his action is now barred because of his alleged father’s death
in 1975. The second paragraph of this Article 175 reads as follows:
The action must be brought within the same period specified in
Article 173, except when the action is based on the second
paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this
time to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of
the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no

44
longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son’s illegitimate filiation.
 Petitioners did not present evidence that would prove their
illegitimate filiation to their putative parent, Josefa, after her death
as provided under Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code.
To recall, petitioners submitted the following to establish their
filiation:
(1) Garcia’s Baptismal Certificate listing Josefa as his mother,
showing that the baptism was conducted on June 1, 1958, and
45
that Garcia was born on June 23, 1951;
(2) Garcia’s Certificate of Marriage, listing Josefa as his mother;46
(3) A picture of Garcia’s wedding, with Josefa and other
47
relatives;
(4) Certificate of Marriage showing that Alfredo and Josefa
48
were married on January 24, 1952;
(5) Garcia’s Certificate of Live Birth from Paniqui, Tarlac,
49
issued on October 23, 2003, under Registry No. 2003-1447,
which is a late registration of his birth, showing he was born on
50
June 23, 1951 to Alfredo and Josefa;
(6) A group picture of all the parties in the instant case;
51

_______________

44 Id., at pp. 471-473; p. 690.

45 Rollo, p. 188.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id., at p. 154.
50 Id., at pp. 188-189.
51 Id., at p. 190.

535

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 535

Ara vs. Pizarro
(7) In the Comment of Rossi to the Formal Offer of Exhibits of
Pizarro, Rossi stated:
1.  That William Garcia and Romeo Flores Ara are half brothers
of Dr. Henry Rossi their mother being Josefa Ara, who did not
register them as her children for fear of losing her pension from the
52
U.S. Veterans Office.

(8) Ara testified that he was a son of the late Josefa and Gray, and
that his record of birth was registered at camp Murphy, Quezon
53
City; and
(9) Nelly Alipio, first degree cousin of Josefa, testified that Ara
54
was a son of Josefa and Gray.
None of the foregoing constitutes evidence under the first
paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code.
Although not raised by petitioners, it may be argued that
petitioner Garcia’s Certificate of Live Birth obtained in 2003
through a late registration of his birth is a record of birth appearing
in the civil register under Article 172 of the Family Code.
True, birth certificates offer prima facie evidence of filiation.
To overthrow the presumption of truth contained in a birth
55
certificate, a high degree of proof is needed. However, the
circumstances surrounding the delayed registration prevent us from
according it the same weight as any other birth certificate.
There is a reason why birth certificates are accorded such high
evidentiary value. Act No. 3753, or An Act to Establish a Civil
Register, provides:

_______________

52 Id., at p. 192.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Heirs of Pedro Cabais v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 681, 688; 316 SCRA
338, 343 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].

536
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara
vs. Pizarro

Section  5.  Registration and Certification of Births.—The

declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or,
in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn
child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil
register. Such declaration shall be exempt from the documentary
stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than
thirty days after the birth, by the physician, or midwife in attendance
at the birth or by either parent of the newly born child.

In such declaration, the persons above mentioned shall certify to

the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality
of infant; (c) names, citizenship, and religion of parents or, in case
the father is not known, of the mother alone;
(d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; (f)
and such other data may be required in the regulation to be issued.

In the case of an exposed child, the person who found the same
shall report to the local civil registrar the place, date and hour of
finding and other attendant circumstances.
In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed
and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if
the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not be permissible to
state or reveal in the document the name of the father who refuses
to acknowledge the child, or to give therein any information by which
such father could be identified.
Any foetus having human features which dies after twenty-four
hours of existence completely disengaged from the maternal womb
shall be entered in the proper registers as having been born and
having died.

Further, Rule 21 of National Statistics Office Administrative

Order No. 1-93, or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act
No. 3753, provides that a person’s birth be registered with the
Office of the Civil Registrar General by one of the following
individuals:
 537

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 537

Ara vs. Pizarro

Rule  21.  Persons Responsible to Report the Event.—(1) When the

birth occurred in a hospital or clinic or in a similar institution, the
administrator thereof shall be responsible in causing the registration
of such birth. However, it shall be the attendant at birth who shall
certify the facts of birth.
(2) When the birth did not occur in a hospital or clinic or in a
similar institution, the physician, nurse, midwife, “hilot,” or anybody
who attended to the delivery of the child shall be responsible both in
certifying the facts of birth and causing the registration of such birth.

(3) In default of the hospital/clinic administrator or attendant at

birth, either or both parents of the child shall cause the registration
of the birth.
(4) When the birth occurs aboard a vehicle, vessel or airplane
while in transit, registration of said birth shall be a joint responsibility
of the driver, captain or pilot and the parents, as the case may be.

Further, the birth must be registered within 30 days from the time
56
of birth. Thus, generally, the rules require that facts of the report be
certified by an attendant at birth, within 30 days from birth. The
attendant is not only an eyewitness to the event, but also presumably
would have no reason to lie on the matter. The immediacy of the
reporting, combined with the participation of disinterested attendants
at birth, or of both parents, tend to ensure that the report is a factual
reporting of birth. In other words, the circumstances in which
registration is made obviate the possibility that registration is caused
by ulterior motives. The law provides in the case of illegitimate
children that the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn to jointly
by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if the father refuses.
This ensures that individuals are not falsely named as parents.
_______________

56 NSO Adm. O. No. 1-93 (1992), Rule 19.

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

National Statistics Office Administrative Order No. 1-93 also

contemplates that reports of birth may be made beyond the 30-day
period:
Rule  25.  Delayed Registration of Birth.—(1) The
requirements are:
a) if the person is less than eighteen (18) years old, the
following shall be required:
i) four (4) copies of the Certificate of Live Birth duly
accomplished and signed by the proper parties;
ii) accomplished Affidavit for Delayed Registration at the
back of the Certificate of Live Birth by the father,
mother or guardian, declaring therein, among other
things, the following:
> name of child;
> date and place of birth;
> name of the father if the child is illegitimate and
has been acknowledged by him;
> if legitimate, the date and place of marriage of
parents; and
> reason for not registering the birth within thirty
(30) days after the date of birth.
In case the party seeking late registration of the birth of an
illegitimate child is not the mother, the party shall, in addition
to the foregoing facts, declare in a sworn statement the
present whereabouts of the mother.
iii) any two of the following documentary evidences which
may show the name of the child, date and place of
birth, and name of mother (and name of father, if the
child has been acknowledged);
 539

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 539

Ara vs. Pizarro

> baptismal certificate;

> school records (nursery, kindergarten, or
preparatory);
> income tax return of parent/s;
> insurance policy;
> medical records; and
> others, such as barangay captain’s certification.
iv) affidavit of two disinterested persons who might have
witnessed or known the birth of the child. (46:1aa)
b) If the person is eighteen (18) years old or above, he shall apply for
late registration of his birth and the requirements shall be:
i) all the requirements for a child who is less than eighteen (18)
years old; and
ii) Certificate of Marriage, if married. (46:1ba)
(2)Delayed registration of birth, like ordinary registration made at the time
of birth, shall be filed at the Office of the Civil Registrar of the place
where the birth occurred. (46:3)
(3)Upon receipt of the application for delayed registration of birth, the
civil registrar shall examine the Certificate of Live Birth presented
whether it has been completely and correctly filled up and all
requirements complied with. (47a)
(4)In the delayed registration of the birth of an alien, travel documents
showing the origin and nationality of the parents shall be presented in
addition to the requirements mentioned in Rule 25(1). (49:2a)

Thus, petitioners submitted in evidence a delayed registration of

birth of Garcia, pursuant to this rule. Petitioners point out that a
hearing on the delayed
registration was held at the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar
of Paniqui, Tarlac. No

540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

one appeared to oppose the delayed registration, despite a notice of

57
hearing posted at the Office of the Civil Registrar.
It is analogous to cases where a putative father’s name is
written on a certificate of live birth of an illegitimate child, without
any showing that the putative father participated in preparing the
58
certificate. In Fernandez v. Court of Appeals:
Fourth, the certificates of live birth (Exh. “A”; Exh. “B”) of the
petitioners identifying private respondent as their father are not also
competent evidence on the issue of their paternity. Again, the records do
not show that private respondent had a hand in the preparation of said
certificates. In rejecting these certificates, the ruling of the respondent
court is in accord with our pronouncement in Roces v. Local Civil
Registrar, 102 Phil. 1050 (1958), viz.:
“. . . Section 5 of Act No. 3793 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines explicitly prohibited, not only the naming of the father
or the child born outside wedlock, when the birth certificates, or the
recognition, is not filed or made by him, but, also, the statement of any
information or circumstances by which he could be identified.
Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to make or
record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a
third person and the certificate of birth of an illegitimate child, when
signed only by the mother of the latter, is incompetent evidence of
fathership of said child.
We reiterated this rule in Berciles, op. cit., when we held that “a birth
certificate not signed by the alleged fa-
_______________

57 Rollo, p. 178.
58 300 Phil. 131; 230 SCRA 130 (1994) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

541

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 541

Ara vs. Pizarro

59
ther therein indicated is not competent evidence of paternity.” (Emphasis
in the original)

60
In Berciles v. Government Service Insurance System:
The evidence considered by the Committee on Claims Settlement as basis
of its finding that Pascual Voltaire Berciles is an acknowledged natural child
of the late Judge Pascual Berciles is the birth certificate of said Pascual
Voltaire Berciles marked Exh. “6.” We have examined carefully this birth
certificate and We find that the same is not signed by either the father or the
mother; We find no participation or intervention whatsoever therein by the
alleged father, Judge Pascual Berciles. Under our jurisprudence, if the alleged
father did not intervene in the birth certificate, the putting of his name by the
mother or doctor or registrar is null and void. Such registration would not be
evidence of paternity. (Joaquin P. Roces, et al. v. Local Civil Registrar of
Manila, 102 Phil. 1050) The mere certificate by the registrar without the
signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on his part.
(Dayrit v. Piccio, 92 Phil.
729) A birth certificate does not constitute recognition in a public
instrument. (Pareja v. Pareja, et al., 95 Phil. 167) A birth certificate, to
evidence acknowledgment, must, under Section 5 of Act 3753, bear the
signature under oath of the acknowledging parent or parents.
(Vidaurrazaga v. Court of Appeals and Francisco Ruiz, 91 Phil. 492)
....
In the case of Mendoza, et al. v. Mella, 17 SCRA 788, the Supreme
Court speaking through Justice Makalintal who later
became chief Justice, said:
It should be noted, however, that a Civil Registry Law was
passed in 1930 (Act No. 3753) containing provisions for the
registra-

_______________

59 Id., at pp. 137-138; p. 137.

60 213 Phil. 48; 128 SCRA 53 (1984) [Per J. Guerrero, En Banc].

542

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

tion of births, including those of illegitimate parentage; and the record of

birth under such law, if sufficient in contents for the purpose, would meet
the requisites for voluntary recognition even under Article 131. Since
Rodolfo was born in 1935, after the registry law was enacted, the question
here really is whether or not his birth certificate (Exhibit 1), which is
merely a certified copy of the registry record, may be relied upon as
sufficient proof of his having been voluntarily recognized. No such
reliance, in our judgment, may be placed upon it. While it contains the
names of both parents, there is no showing that they signed the original, let
alone swore to its contents as required in Section 5 of Act No. 3753.
(Vidaurrazaga v. Court of Appeals, 91 Phil. 493; In re Adoption of Lydia
Duran, 92 Phil. 729) For all that might have happened, it was not even
they or either of them who furnished the data to be entered in the civil
register. Petitioners say that in any event the birth certificate is in the
nature of a public document wherein voluntary recognition of a natural
child may also be made, according to the same Article 131. True enough,
but in such a case there must be a clear statement in the document that the
parent recognizes the child as his or her own (Madridejo v. De Leon, 55
Phil. 1); and in Exhibit 1 no such statement appears. The claim of
61
voluntary recognition is without basis.
 62
Further, in People v. Villar, this Court sustained the Trial
Court’s rejection of a delayed registration of birth as conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein:

_______________

61 Id., at pp. 49-72; p. 78.

62 193 Phil. 203; 105 SCRA 797 (1981) [Per J. Abad Santos, Second Division].

543

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 543

Ara vs. Pizarro

In the resolution of the sole assignment of error we find as well-

taken and accordingly adopt as our own the lower court’s
ratiocination, thus:
After going over the evidence in support of the alleged
minority of the accused Francisco Villar when he committed
the crime on or about August 24, 1977, the Court finds that
Exhibit 1 and the testimonies of the defense witnesses can
not have more probative value than the written statement of
Francisco Villar, Exhibit E. It is to be noted that Exhibit 1 is a
delayed registration of a supposed birth accomplished and
submitted only on January 12, 1979 to the Local Civil
Registrar of Caloocan City by the witness Leonor Villar, long
after the offense was committed and after the prosecution
finally rested its case on November 21, 1978, thus exposing
the basis of Exhibit 1 to be resting on a slender and shaky
foundation, and more so, in the absence of explanation from
the defense of the reason for said late registration. Hence, the
Court rejects Exhibit 1. . . .

The appellant invokes Art. 410 of the Civil Code which reads:

Art.  410.  The books making up the civil register and all
documents relating thereto shall be considered public
 documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts herein
contained.
Suffice it to say that the above quoted provision makes the information
given in Exhibit 1 only prima facie but not conclusive evidence. This must be
so because the Local Civil Registrar merely receives the information
submitted to him; he does not inquire into its veracity. Moreover, to regard as
conclusive the content of a certificate of live birth can lead to absurd results.
Supposing that Leonor had given John F. Kennedy as the father of Francisco,
are we to accept that as an incontestable fact?

544

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

In the light of the circumstances already narrated concerning the

preparation and submission of Exhibit 1, the lower court committed no
63
error in disregarding it.

A delayed registration of birth, made after the death of the

putative parent, is tenuous proof of filiation.
Thus, we are unable to accord petitioner Garcia’s delayed
registration of birth the same evidentiary weight as regular birth
certificates.
Even without a record of birth appearing in the civil register or
a final judgment, filiation may still be established after the death of
a putative parent through an admission of filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument, signed by the parent
64
concerned. However, petitioners did not present in evidence any
admissions of filiation.
An admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party on a
65
relevant fact, which may be used in evidence against him.
The evidence presented by petitioners such as group pictures
with Josefa and petitioners’ relatives, and testimonies do not show
that Josefa is their mother. They
do not contain any acts, declarations, or omissions attributable
directly to Josefa, much less ones pertaining to her filiation with
petitioners. Although petitioner Garcia’s Baptismal Certificate,
Certificate of Marriage, and Certificate of Live Birth obtained via
late registration all state that Josefa is his mother, they do not show
any act, declaration, or omission on the part of Josefa. Josefa did
not participate in making any of them. The same may be said of the
testimonies presented. Although Josefa may have been in the
photographs, the photographs do not show any filiation. By
definition, none of the evidence

_______________

63 Id., at pp. 207-208; p. 801.

64 Family Code, Art. 172.
65 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 26.

545
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 545

Ara vs. Pizarro

presented constitutes an admission of filiation under Article 172 of

the Family Code.

II

The Trial Court bypassed the issue of the birth certificates and
did not consider the first paragraph of Article 172 of the Family
Code. Instead, it ruled only on the open and continuous possession
of status of filiation:
Without anymore discussing the validity of their respective birth and
baptismal certificates, there is sufficient evidence to hold that all the
plaintiffs are indeed the children of the said deceased Josefa Ara for having
possessed and enjoyed the status of recognized illegitimate children
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 175 of the Family Code[.]
....
All the plaintiffs and defendant were taken care of and supported
by their mother Josefa Ara, including their education, since their
respective birth and were all united and lived as one family even up
to the death and burial of their said mother, Josefa Ara. Their
mother had acknowledged all of them as her children throughout all
her life directly, continuously, spontaneously and without
66
concealment.

Thus, the Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court had erred
in allowing petitioners to prove their illegitimate filiation through
the open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate
children after the death of the putative parent:
However, the trial court’s finding cannot be sustained. Even
granting for the sake of argument that appellants Romeo F. Ara and
William Garcia did enjoy open

_______________

66 RTC Records, pp. 158-159.

546

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, still,

they should have proven this during the lifetime of the putative
parent. Article 285 of the Civil Code provides the period for filing and
(sic) action for recognition as follows:
ART.  285.  The action for the recognition of natural
children may be brought only during the lifetime of the
presumed parents, except in the following cases:
(1)If the father or mother died during the minority of the
child, in which case the latter may file the action
 before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his
majority;
(2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document
should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which
either or both parents recognize the child.
In this case, the action must be commenced within four years
from the finding of the document.
The two exceptions provided under the foregoing provision, have
however been omitted by Articles 172, 173 and 175 of the Family Code,
which We quote:
...
The law is very clear. If filiation is sought to be proved under the
second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, the action must be
brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. It is evident that
appellants Romeo F. Ara and William Garcia can no longer be allowed at
this time to introduce evidence of their open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child or prove their alleged filiation through
any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The
simple reason is that Josefa Ara is already dead and can

547

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 547

Ara vs. Pizarro

67
no longer be heard on the claim of her alleged sons’ illegitimate filiation.

The Court of Appeals did not adopt the Trial Court’s

appreciation of evidence. It ruled that, because petitioners’ putative
parent Josefa had already passed away, petitioners were proscribed
from proving their filiation under the second paragraph of Article
172 of the Family Code.
The Court of Appeals properly did not give credence to the
evidence submitted by petitioners regarding their
status.
68
Josefa passed away in 2002. After her death, petitioners could
no longer be allowed to introduce evidence of open and continuous
illegitimate filiation to Josefa. The only evidence allowed under
the law would be a record of birth appearing in the civil register or
a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private signed, handwritten instruction by Josefa.
An alleged parent is the best person to affirm or deny a putative
descendant’s filiation. Absent a record of birth appearing in a civil
register or a final judgment, an express admission of filiation in a
public document, or a handwritten instrument signed by the parent
concerned, a deceased person will have no opportunity to contest a
claim of filiation.
In truth, it is the mother and in some cases, the father, who
witnesses the actual birth of their children. Descendants normally
only come to know of their parents through nurture and family
lore. When they are born, they do not have the consciousness
required to be able to claim personal knowledge of their parents. It
thus makes sense for the parents to be present when evidence
under the second paragraph of Article 172 is presented.

_______________

67 Rollo, pp. 48-50.

68 Id., at p. 43.

548

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

The limitation that an action to prove filiation as an illegitimate

child be brought within the lifetime of an alleged parent
acknowledges that there may be other persons whose rights should
be protected from spurious
claims. This includes other children, legitimate and illegitimate,
whose statuses are supported by strong evidence of a categorical
nature.
Respondent Pizarro has submitted petitioners’ certificates of
live birth to further disprove petitioners’ filiation with Josefa. A
Certificate of Live Birth issued in Paniqui, Tarlac on July 19, 1950
shows that Garcia’s parents are Pedro Garcia and Carmen
69
Bugarin while another Certificate of Live Birth issued in
petitioner Ara’s birthplace, Bauang, La Union, shows that he is the
70
son of spouses Jose Ara and Maria Flores.
The Court of Appeals gave credence to these birth certificates
submitted by respondent Pizarro:
The trustworthiness of public documents and the value given to the
entries made therein could be grounded on 1) the sense of official duty in
the preparation of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually
affixed to a breach of that duty, 3) the routine and disinterested origin of
most such statements, and 4) the publicity of record which makes more
likely the prior exposure of such errors as might have occurred.
Therefore, this Court upholds the birth certificates of William Garcia
and Romeo F. Ara, as issued by the Civil Registry, in line with Legaspi v.
Court of Appeals, where the High Court ruled that the evidentiary nature of
public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and
conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity. Consequently, appellants Romeo
F. Ara and William

_______________

69 Id., at p. 190.
70 Id., at p. 154.

549

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 549

Ara vs. Pizarro
 71
Garcia are deemed not to be the illegitimate sons of the late Josefa Ara.

Thus, the Court of Appeals made a determination on the

evidence and found that the birth certificates submitted by
respondent Pizarro belong to petitioners Garcia and Ara. These
72 73
birth certificates name Carmen Bugarin and Maria Flores, as
the respective mothers of petitioners Garcia and Ara. Considering
that these birth certificates do not name Josefa as a parent of either
petitioner, petitioners are properly determined not to be Josefa’s
children.
Petitioners point out that the Certificate of Birth does not
contain petitioner Garcia’s correct birth date. They claim that the
birth date of petitioner Garcia as recorded in his baptismal
certificate is June 23, 1951. This birth date is also reflected on his
Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Paniqui, Tarlac, as well as in the Notice of Hearing of the delayed
registration of birth certificate of petitioner Garcia. Thus,
petitioners speculate that the birth certificate submitted by
respondent Pizarro is of a different “William Garcia”:
Perhaps, defendant-appellant Fely Pizarro obtained a Certificate of Live
Birth and Cedula de Baotismo of a wrong person bearing the same name
William Garcia which always happened (sic) in our country considering
that the family name Garcia is very much common because in the said
documents the birthdate of a certain William Garcia was June 23, 1950 not
74
June 23, 1951, the actual birth of William Garcia.

On this point, respondent Pizarro argues:

_______________

71 Id., at p. 51.
72 Id., at p. 190.
73 Id., at p. 154.
74 Id., at p. 181.
 550

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ara

vs. Pizarro

It may be noted that William Garcia obtained said Certificate more than six
(6) months after he, with his co-plaintiffs, had filed the case of judicial
partition on 9 April 2003. Obviously, he found the need to apply for the
late registration of his birth when he learned from respondent’s Answer
that from her knowledge she is the only child of Josefa Ara. Very likely,
William Garcia already knew that he already has a record of birth in the
municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac, showing that her mother was not Josefa
75
Ara.

These are matters of appreciation of evidence, however, which

cannot be subject of inquiry in a petition for review under Rule 45.
Nonetheless, considering that there were two reports of birth for
William Garcia, and considering further that one of the reports was
made only after initiating a case which would directly use said
report, we cannot find error in the Court of Appeals’ decision to
disregard the delayed registration.
Finally, petitioners’ claim that there was no basis for the Court
of Appeals to find that respondents are the children of Josefa is
untenable. Respondents’ filiation with Josefa was not put in
question before the Trial Court. Even petitioners admitted in their
76
Complaint that respondents were Josefa’s children. Further, on
appeal, no party questioned the Trial Court’s determination that
respondents Pizarro and Rossi were the children of Josefa.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining these
findings without requiring further proof.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED. The August 1, 2008 Decision and the March 16, 2009
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 00729 are
AFFIRMED.
 _______________

75 Id., at p. 154.
76 RTC Records, p. 1.

551

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 551

Ara vs. Pizarro

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza and Jardeleza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—A birth certificate, being a public document, serves as

prima facie evidence of filiation, and the making of a false
statement therein constitutes dishonesty and falsification of a
public document. (Anonymous vs. Curamen, 621 SCRA 212
[2010])
Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines,
illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the
same evidence as legitimate children. (Salas vs. Matusalem, 705
SCRA 560 [2013])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.