G.R. No. L-66574
de Santero, as well as in
ANSELMA DIAZ, guardian of VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA and
MIGUEL, all surnamed SANTERO, petitioners, and FELIXBERTA
PACURSA guardian of FEDERICO SANTERO, et al.,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELISA PAMUTI
JARDIN, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
Private respondent filed a Petition dated January 23, 1976 with the
Court of First Instance of Cavite in Sp. Proc. Case No. B-21, "In The
Matter of the Intestate Estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero," praying among other things, that the corresponding letters
of Administration be issued in her favor and that she be appointed
as special Administratrix of the properties of the deceased Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
It is undisputed: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana
were the only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and
Petronila Asuncion; 2) that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of
their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died
during infancy; 3) that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow
of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero; 4) that Pablo
Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero
and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; 5) that Pascual Santero died in
1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; 6) that
Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother
Simona Santero and his six minor natural children to wit: four minor
children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta
Pacursa.
Judge Jose Raval in his Orders dated December 1, 1976 1 and
December 9, 1976 2 declared Felisa Pamuti Jardin as the sole
legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Before the trial court, there were 4 interrelated cases filed to wit:
a) Sp. Proc. No. B-4 — is the Petition for the Letters of
Administration of the intestate Estate of Pablo Santero;
b) Sp. Proc. No. B-5 — is the Petition for the Letters of
Administration of the Intestate Estate of Pascual Santero;
c) Sp. Proc. No. B-7 — is the Petition for Guardianship over
the properties of an Incompetent Person, Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero;
d) Sp. Proc. No. B-21 — is the Petition for Settlement of
the Intestate Estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Felisa Jardin upon her Motion to Intervene in Sp. Proceedings Nos.
B-4 and B-5, was allowed to intervene in the intestate estates of
Pablo Santero and Pascual Santero by Order of the Court dated
August 24, 1977.
Petitioner Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children, filed her
"Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti Jardin dated March
13, 1980, from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of
the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda.
the intestate estate of Pascual Santero and Pablo Santero.
Felixberta Pacursa guardian for her minor children, filed thru
counsel, her Manifestation of March 14, 1980 adopting the
Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti, filed by Anselma
Diaz.
On May 20, 1980, Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza issued an order
excluding Felisa Jardin "from further taking part or intervening in the
settlement of the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, as well as in the intestate estates of Pascual Santero and
Pablo Santero and declared her to be, not an heir of the deceased
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero." 3
After her Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial court in
its order dated November 1, 1980, Felisa P. Jardin filed her appeal to
the Intermediate Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. 69814-R. A
decision 4 was rendered by the Intermediate Appellate Court on
December 14, 1983 (reversing the decision of the trial court) the
dispositive portion of which reads —
WHEREFORE, finding the Order appealed from not
consistent with the facts and law applicable, the same is
hereby set aside and another one entered sustaining the
Orders of December 1 and 9, 1976 declaring the petitioner
as the sole heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero and
ordering oppositors-appellees not to interfere in the
proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the estate of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Costs against the oppositors-appellees.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by oppositors-appellees
(petitioners herein) was denied by the same respondent court in its
order dated February 17, 1984 hence, the present petition for
Review with the following:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. The Decision erred in ignoring the right to intestate
succession of petitioners grandchildren Santero as direct
descending line (Art. 978) and/or natural/"illegitimate
children" (Art. 988) and prefering a niece, who is a
collateral relative (Art. 1003);
II. The Decision erred in denying the right of
representation of the natural grandchildren Santero to
represent their father Pablo Santero in the succession to
the intestate estate of their
grandmother Simona Pamuti Vda.de Santero (Art. 982);
III. The Decision erred in mistaking the intestate estate of
the grandmother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the
estate of "legitimate child or relative" of Pablo Santero,
her son and father of the petitioners' grandchildren
Santero;
IV. The Decision erred in ruling that petitioner-
appellant Felisa P. Jardin who is a niece and therefore
a collateral relative of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero
 excludes the natural children of her son Pablo Santero,
who are her direct descendants and/or grand children;
V. The Decision erred in applying Art. 992, when Arts. 988,
989 and 990 are the applicable provisions of law on
intestate succession; and
VI. The Decision erred in considering the orders of
December 1 and December 9, 1976 which are provisional
and interlocutory as final and executory.
The real issue in this case may be briefly stated as follows — who are
the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa
Pamuti Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo
Santero)?
The dispute at bar refers only to the intestate estate of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero and the issue here is whether oppositors-
appellees (petitioners herein) as illegitimate children of Pablo
Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, by right
of representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a legitimate
child of Simona Pamuti Vda, de Santero.
Now then what is the appropriate law on the matter? Petitioners
contend in their pleadings that Art. 990 of the New Civil Code is the
applicable law on the case. They contend that said provision of the
New Civil Code modifies the rule in Article 941 (Old Civil Code) and
recognizes the right of representation (Art. 970) to descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate and that Art. 941, Spanish Civil
Code denied illegitimate children the right to represent their
deceased parents and inherit from their deceased grandparents, but
that Rule was expressly changed and/or amended by Art. 990 New
Civil Code which expressly grants the illegitimate children the right
to represent their deceased father (Pablo Santero) in the estate of
their grandmother Simona Pamuti)." 5
Petitioners' contention holds no water. Since the heridatary conflict
refers solely to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, who is the legitimate mother of Pablo Santero, the
applicable law is the provision of Art. 992 of the Civil Code which
reads as follows:
ART. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives
inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
(943a)
Pablo Santero is a legitimate child, he is not an illegitimate child. On
the other hand, the oppositors (petitioners herein) are the
illegitimate children of Pablo Santero.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in
that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie
of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Art.
992, Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there
is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility.
The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the
legitimate family; the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child;
the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the
resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in
the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable
evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than
recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment. 6
Thus, petitioners herein cannot represent their father Pablo Santero
in the succession of the letter to the intestate estate of his
legitimate mother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, because of the
barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the New Civil Code.
In answer to the erroneous contention of petitioners that Article 941
of the Spanish Civil Code is changed by Article 990 of the New Civil
Code, We are reproducing herewith the Reflections of the Illustrious
Hon. Justice Jose B.L. Reyes which also finds full support from other
civilists, to wit:
In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of
representation was admitted only within the legitimate
family; so much so that Article 943 of that Code prescribed
that an illegitimate child can riot inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of his father and
mother. The Civil Code of the Philippines apparently
adhered to this principle since it reproduced Article 943 of
the Spanish Code in its own Art. 992, but with fine
inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990, 995 and 998)
our Code allows the hereditary portion of the illegitimate
child to pass to his own descendants, whether legitimate
or illegitimate. So that while Art. 992 prevents the
illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from representing
him in the intestate succession of the grandparent, the
illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so. This
difference being indefensible and unwarranted, in the
future revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a
choice and decide either that the illegitimate issue enjoys
in all cases the right of representation, in which case Art.
992 must be suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said
article and modify Articles 995 and 998. The first solution
would be more in accord with an enlightened attitude vis-
a-vis illegitimate children. (Reflections on the Reform of
Hereditary Succession, JOURNAL of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, First Quater, 1976, Volume 4, Number 1,
pp. 40-41).
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the
phrase "legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother"
includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word "relative"
includes all the kindred of the person spoken of. 7 The record shows
that from the commencement of this case the only parties who
claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor natural or
illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are
barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti-
Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the
late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Lastly, petitioners claim that the respondent Intermediate Appellate
Court erred in ruling that the Orders of the Court a quo dated
December 1, 1976 and December 9, 1976 are final and executory.
Such contention is without merit. The Hon. Judge Jose Raval in his
order dated December 1, 1976 held that the oppositors (petitioners
herein) are not entitled to intervene and hence not allowed to
intervene in the proceedings for the declaration of the heirship in
the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Subsequently, Judge Jose Raval issued an order, dated December 9,
1976, which declared Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole legitimate
heir of Simona Pamuti. The said Orders were never made the
subjects of either a motion for reconsideration or a perfected
appeal. Hence, said orders which long became final and executory
are already removed from the power of jurisdiction of the lower
court to decide anew. The only power retained by the lower court,
after a judgment has become final and executory is to order its
execution. The respondent Court did not err therefore in ruling that
the Order of the Court a quo dated May 30, 1980 excluding Felisa
Pamuti Jardin as intestate heir of the deceased Simona Pamuti Vda.
de Santero "is clearly a total reversal of an Order which has become
final and executory, hence null and void. "

WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed

decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.