You are on page 1of 2

SAYSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR Nos.

89224-25 January 23, 1992 DOCTRINE: Adopted child/ children has no right of representation FACTS: Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died on November 10, 1952, and Rafaela on May 15,1976. Teodoro, who had married Isabel Bautista, died on March 23, 1972. His wife died nine years later. Their properties were left in the possession of Delia, Edmundo, and Doribel, all surnamed Sayson, who claim to be their children. Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, and Remedios, together with Juana C. Bautista, Isabel's mother, filed a complaint for partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. Delia, Edmundo and Doribel filed their own complaint, this time for the accounting and partition of the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, against the couple's four surviving children. Both cases filed on the Lower Court were decided in favor Delia, et al. on the basis of practically the same evidence. The Lower Court declared that Delia and Edmundo were the legally adopted children of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson by virtue of the decree of adoption. Doribel was their legitimate daughter as evidenced by her birth certificate. Consequently, the three children were entitled to inherit from Eleno and Rafaela by right of representation. Both cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals, where they were consolidated. The appellate court affirmed that Delia, et al. are entitled to the intestate estate of spouses Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. However, Delia and Edmundo are disqualified from inheriting from the estate of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson. ISSUE: W /N CA is correct in holding that Delia and Edmundo are disqualified to inherit from the estate of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson. HELD: A different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents were total strangers. W hile it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, these rights do not include the right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party. In sum, we agree with the lower courts that Delia and Edmundo as the adopted children and Doribel as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are their exclusive heirs and are under no obligation to share the estate of their parents with the petitioners. The Court of Appeals was correct, however, in holding that only Doribel has the right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents' intestate estate, the other private respondents being only the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.

HIYAS SAVINGS vs. ACUA GR No. 154132 August 31, 2004 DOCTRINE: when a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same family, the law no longer makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper and stranger may not invoke Art. 151 of the Civil Code. FACTS: Private respondent filed with the RTC of Caloocan City a complaint against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (petitioner), his wife Remedios, the spouses Owe and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage contending that he did not secure any loan from petitioner, nor did he sign or execute any contract of mortgage in its favor; that his wife, acting in conspiracy with Hiyas and the spouses Owe, who were the ones that benefited from the loan, made it appear that he signed the contract of mortgage; that he could not have executed the said contract because he was then working abroad. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that private respondent failed to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code wherein it is provided that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. The lower court agrees with private respondent that earnest efforts towards a compromise is not required before the filing of the instant case considering that the above-entitled case involves parties who are strangers to the family. Additionally, the court agrees with plaintiff that inasmuch as it is defendant Remedios Moreno who stands to be benefited by Art. 151 of the Family Code, being a member of the same family as that of plaintiff, only she may invoke said Art. 151. ISSUE: W /N the lower court is correct in its ruling. HELD: In applying the case of Magbaleta vs. Gonong, the Supreme Court, taking into consideration the explanation made by the Code Commision in its report, ruled that: once a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same family, the law no longer makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper. Petitioner also contends that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that petitioner, not being a member of the same family as respondent, may not invoke the provisions of Article 151 of the Family Code. Suffice it to say that since the Court has ruled that the requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is applicable only in cases which are exclusively between or among members of the same family, it necessarily follows that the same may be invoked only by a party who is a member of that same family.