G.R. No.

132305

December 4, 2001

LABAGALA vs. SANTIAGO FACTS: Jose T. Santiago owned a parcel of land in Manila. However, his sisters sued him for recovery of 2/3 share of the land alleging that he had fraudulently registered it in his name. The trial court decided in favor of his sisters. Jose died intestate. His sisters then filed a complaint efore the !T" for recovery of the #/3 portion of said property which was in the possession of $da ". %a agala &who claimed to e $da ". Santiago, the daughter of Jose'. The trial court ruled in favor of %a agala. (ccording to the trial court, the said deed constitutes a valid donation. )ven if it were not, petitioner would still e entitled to Jose*s #/3 portion of the property as Jose*s daughter. +hen appealed, the "ourt of (ppeals &"(' reversed the decision of the trial court. $t too, into account that $da was orn of different parents, as indicated her irth certificate. ISSUES: #. +-. respondents may impugn petitioner*s filiation in this action for recovery of title and possession. 2. +-. petitioner is entitled to Jose*s #/3 portion of the property he co/owned with respondents, through succession, sale, or donation. ELD: The "ourt (00$!M)1 the decision of the "(. -n $ssue .o. # 2es. (rticle 233 refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, to assert and prove that a person is not a man*s child y his wife. However, the present respondents are asserting not merely that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Jose, ut that she is not a child of Jose at all.

( aptismal certificate, a private document, is not conclusive proof of filiation. 4se of a family name certainly does not esta lish pedigree. Thus, she cannot inherit from him through intestate succession. -n $ssue .o. 2 .o. The "ourt ruled that there is no valid sale in this case. Jose did not have the right to transfer ownership of the entire property to petitioner since 2/3 thereof elonged to his sisters. 5etitioner could not have given her consent to the contract, eing a minor at the time. "onsent of the contracting parties is among the essential re6uisites of a contract, including one of sale, a sent which there can e no valid contract. Moreover, petitioner admittedly did not pay any centavo for the property which ma,es the sale void. (rticle #78# of the "ivil "ode provides that if the price is simulated, the sale is void, ut the act may e shown to have een in reality a donation, or some other act or contract. .either may the purported deed of sale e a valid deed of donation. )ven assuming that the deed is genuine, it cannot e a valid donation. $t lac,s the acceptance of the donee re6uired y (rt. 829 of the "ivil "ode. :eing a minor, the acceptance of the donation should have een made y her father or mother or her legal representative pursuant to (rt. 87# of the same "ode. .o one of those mentioned in the law accepted the donation for $da.