TESTATE ESTATE OF GUILLERMO PUATU Y

CONSTANTINO v. DR. SANTIAGO T. PUATU +

102 Phil. 363

CONCEPCION, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila declaring that appellee Rosario
Campos Fernandez is the widow of Guillermo Puatu y Constantino.

Alfonso Puatu, represented by Atty. Arsenio B. Cruz, instituted this case on June 15, 1953. In the
petition filed therefor, it was alleged that Guillermo Puatu y Constantino had died in Manila, on June
1, 1953; that the deceased was single, of age, Filipino and resident of Manila; that his only heirs are
his nephews, namely, Alfonso (the petitioner), Emiliana and Mateo, all sur-named Puatu, 'and Pedro,
Natividad, Gregorio and Flordeliza, all surnamed Atienza y Puatu; that the deceased had some
properties, but no debts; and that he died intestate. Petitioner prayed that Mateo Puatu be
appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased.

An urgent motion to dismiss, dated September 19, 1953, with alternative motion to revoke the letters
of administration issued to said Mateo Puatu, was filed by Santiago, Victoria, Mariano, Rosario, Luz,
Alejandro, Guillermo, Jr., Nicolas, Emeteria, Hermongenes, Aurora, Soledad, Isabel, Guillerma,
Eugenia, Rosalinda and Felizarda, all surnamed Puatu. The motion alleged that said petitioners are the
acknowledged natural children of the deceased, with whom they had lived continuously, from their
birth up to the time of his death; that they are his sole heirs; that Alfonso Puato did not mention their
names in his petition, dated June 15, 1953, in order to give the impression that he had a right to
institute the proceedings and to avoid service of notice upon the movants; and that there is no need
of said proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased, inasmuch as they had paid the
only obligation left by the latter upon his death, and they are all in agreement as to the partition of
his estate, which they had been administering ever since his last illness. Accordingly, the movants
prayed that the proceedings be dismissed and the letters of administration issued to Mateo Puatu
revoked, or, else, that said letters of administration be revoked, and Alejandro Puatu be appointed, in
lieu of Mateo Puatu, as administrator of the estate of the deceased.

On month later, or on October 19, 1953, said movants hereinafter referred to as children of the
decedent filed a notice of discovery and petition for probate of a will, stating that, after the filing of
their motion of September 19, 1953, they had found a copy of the last will and testament executed by
the decedent on November 12, 1944, bearing a stamp of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
showing, that the original of said document had been filed with said court, on November 16, 1944, for
safekeeping, and praying that said will be admitted to probate and letters of administration issued to
Alejandro T. Puatu, one of the acknowledged natural children of the deceased. The latter's
aforementioned nephews, Mateo, Emiliana and Alfonso, all surnamed Puatu then represented by Atty.
Nicanor S. Sison, who had, meanwhile, substituted Atty. Cruz objected thereto, upon the ground that
the instrument presented for probate is not authentic; that it is not the original will; that it is written
in a language (English) not known to the deceased; and that it had not been executed conformably to
law. Soon, thereafter, Atty. Sison filed a similar opposition to the probate of said instrument, on
behalf of Rosario Campos Fernandez, who claimed to have been married to the deceased in Spain on
May 15, 1896.

After due hearing, the court, by an order dated August 20, 1954, allowed the aforementioned
instrument to probate as the last will and testament of Guillermo Puatu y Constantino, appointed his
son, Alejandro T. Puatu, as administrator of the estate of the decedent, revoked the letters of
administration issued to Hateo Puatu, and ordered him to turn over said estate to Alejandro T. Puatu.
Said nephews of the deceased announced their intention to appeal from this order, but, thereafter,
they withdrew their notice of appeal, and stated that they accepted said order of August 20, 1954,
and had no interest in the properties of the deceased. Thus, said order became final and executory.

As Rosario Campos Fernandez later urged the court to settle her civil status, evidence was taken
thereon and subsequently an order was issued on October 5, 1955, holding that she is the lawful
surviving spouse of the deceased. A reconsideration of this order, as well as a new trial, were,
thereafter, denied, whereupon the children of the deceased perfected their appeal. Our jurisdiction
over the same is due to the fact that the estate of tho decedent is worth more than P50,000.00.

The record shows that, during his lifetime, Guillermo Puatu y Constantino lived maritally, first in
Plaridel, and then in Baliuag, Bulacan, with Nemesia Talastas now deceased who begot him the
following children, whose ages, in October, 1953; are given after their respective names:

1. Dr. Santiago T. Puatu

41

years

2. Victoria T. Puatu

38

"

3. Mariano T. Puatu

36

"

4. Rosario T. Puatu-Cruz

34

"

5. lira. Luz T. Puatu-Ortencio

82

"

6. Alejandro T. Puatu

28
"

7. Guillermo T. Puatu, Jr

26

"

8. Atty. Nicolas T. Puatu

24

"

9. Emeteria T. Puatu

22

"

10. HermoKencs T. Puatu

19

"

11. Aurora T. Puatu

17

"

Several years after the commencement of said relations with Nemesia Talastas, Guillermo maintained
a house in Manila, where he stayed whenever in the city with Sole-dad Gador, who begot him the
following children, whose ages, in October, 1953, are stated after their respective names:

1. Solcdad G. Puatu

14

years

2. Isabel G. Puatu

13

"

3. Guillerma G. Puatu

"

4. Eugenia G. Puatu

"

5. Rosalinda G. Puatu

"
6. Felizarda G. Puatu

"

These seventeen (17) children bore his surname and were always supported by him. Since their
respective births, they lived with him and enjoyed the status of acknowledged natural children. In
fact, he acknowledged them as such in public instruments and they have been judicially declared by
final judgment as having said status. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether
appellee Rosario Campos Fernandez has ever been married to the deceased, Guillermo Puatu y
Constantino.

In support of the affirmative answer, said appellee introduced evidence to the effect that
Guillermo Puatu y Constantino was in Spain, in 1896; that appellee, a Spanish subject, was then
doing "las labores de casa" in his residence in Madrid, Spain, that Guillermo and she contracted
marriage, on May 15, 1896, before a catholic priest, by the name of Alfonso Garcia, in the parish
church of "Nuestra Señora del Pilar," in said city; that the sponsors to the wedding were Antonio Pueo,
his wife; Manuela Ferrer, and Dr. and Mrs. Dominador Gomez; that there were other persons present
at the wedding, including Juan Pedru, Juan Llusia and Maria Bernat; that, immediately thereafter, the
couple lived publicly as husband and wife in Spain, up to the year 1902, when they came to the
Philippines and continued their marital life in Manila, and, later on, in Baliuag, Bulacan; that, in 1917,
after discovering that he was unfaithful to her, she returned to Spain, where she remained
continuously thereafter; that she never returned to the Philippines; and that they never had any
offspring.

The main evidence for the. appellee consisted of her own deposition, taken in Spain. By way of
corroboration, as regards the wedding and the marital life of Guillermo Puatu and appellee in Spain,
she introduced, also the testimony of Juan Pedru and Juan Llusia, similarly talcen in that State. With
respect to their marital relations in the Philippines, the corroborative evidence consists of the
testimony of Simeon Constantino and that of the nephews of the decedent, Emiliana Puatu and
Mateo Puatu.

The lower court held that appellee is the surviving spouse of the deceased, because they had publicly
lived together as husband and wife in Spain and then in the Philippines for about twenty-one (21)
years; because they are presumed, therefore, to "have entered into a lawful contract of marriage",
pursuant to Rule 123, section 69 (bb), of the Rules of Court; and because this presumption is
bolstered up by the aforementioned testimony of the appellee, corroborated by that of Juan Pedru
and Juan Llusia.

Generally, the findings of fact made in an appealed decision are entitled to great weight, for the lower
court has seen and heard the witnesses during the trial, whereas the appellate court has no
opportunity to observe their behaviour on the witness stand. However, in the case at bar, His Honor
the trial Judge had no such opportunity, as regards the witnesses mentioned in the proceeding
paragraph, their depositions having been taken in Spain. Besides, two (2) of the three (3) witnesses
who testified in the Philippines Emiliana Puatu and Mateo Puatu belong to the group of nephews
whose interest is adverse to that of appellants herein. In fact, Mateo Puatu, was the former
administrator removed upon appellant's petition and the probate likewise, at their instance of the will
of the decedent.
Again, the following circumstances affect adversely the credibility and weight of appellee's evidence,
namely:

Although appellee claims to have had some correspondence with the deceased, she could not
produce a single communication of the latter. Her only explanation, to the effect that "no tiene
costumbre de guardar correspondencia," and that "no puede exhibir correspondencia por no
tenerla," is far from satisfactory.

According to her own testimony, ever since she returned to Spain, in 1917, the
deceased did not support her. What is more, she never asked or demanded any support from him.
Although she would have us believed that, once in a while, she received money from
him, through an acquaintance coming from the Philippines, there is no documentary
evidence whatsoever in support of this or any other part of her testimony. Thus, there is
absolutely no evidence deserving full faith and credence, bearing out said testimony. On the
contrary, there are records of unimpeachable character pointing in the opposite direction. Thus,
for instance .

Appellee explained her failure to produce the marriage contract with the
deceased by saying that the document was lost during the Spanish civil war, and that, likewise, the
records of the church of "Nuestra Sefiora del Pilar" in Madrid were then destroyed. However, no
entry relative to said marriage appears either in the civil registry of Madrid 1 or in the records of the
diocese to which said church belongs.2 What is more according to a certification attached to
appellants' motion for reconsideration and new trial no priest by the name of Alfonso Garcia who,
allegedly, solemnized the marriage appears in the records of the Bishopric of Madrid.3

Upon the other hand, there are records to the effect that the appellee was considered single in the
Philippines, and that the decedent claimed to be a bachelor and wa3 regarded as such. For
instance

a. In the records of the Spanish Consulate in. Manila, the following entry appears:

"EN MATRICULA No. 121, folio 161, ano 1916, Dona Eosakio Campos ekkanhez natural
do la Zubia, provincia de Granada, (Espafia), soltera, macida en el ano 1871, llego a Filipinas en el aho
1902, y en su fecha de inscripcion en este Consulado, fue el 27 de Abril de 1916." (Exhibit
13-A; italics ours.)

It is true that appellee does not appear to have given the foregoing data. The same, however,
were furaished personally by Ramon Abril Llullas, who signed on her behalf. Hence, she
presumably authorized him to do so. At any rate, said records of the Spanish Consulate in the
Philippines are public official records, which are over forty (40) years old. As such,
they are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Rule 128, sections 35, 38 and 39,
Rules of Court.)

b. The petition of Alfonso Puatu, with which this proceedings was commenced,
states that the decedent was, at the time of his death, "single", and Alfonso Puatu so
testified at the hearing of said petition before the appellants' intervention in this ease.

c. Original certificates of title Nos. 12968, 15809 and 14758 of the office of the register of
deeds of Eulacan (Exhibits 10, 11 and 14), were issued in favor of "Guillermo Puatu, single, of Baliuag,
province of Bul'acan, P. I.", on August 18, September 17 and September 8,
1930, respectively.
d. The same status is given in a deed of lease, executed by GuilJermo Puatu in favor of
Felipe Bernardino, in November 13, 1946 (Exhibit 5).

e. To the same effect is the death certificate of the decedent (Exhibit B).

f. In the public instruments, Exhibits X and Y (marked, also, as Exhibits 8 and 9) dated, respectively,
November 12, 1944 and May 20, 1948, whereby the decedent acknowledged appellants herein as his
natural children, he stated that his status was "single."

g. This status was confirmed by the decision in Civil Case No. 25519 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, dated February 6, 1954, approving said acknowledgment of appellants herein as the natural
children of Guillermo Puatu, which decision is already final and executory. 4

h. In his last will and testament (Exhibit 7) which has already been allowed to probate the deceased
described appellants herein as his acknowledged natural children and named them as his heirs.

In the light of these facts, and of the circumstance that, admittedly, the appellee and the decedent
had, since 1917, lived separately from each other not only in different houses, but thousands of miles
away from each other for thirty five (35) years, the least we can say is that the presumption of
marriage, relied upon in the decision appealed from, has been sufficiently offset. Indeed, some
members of the Court are inclined to believe that the preponderance of the evidence militates in
favor of appellants herein. Considering, however, that the certification by the Bishopric of
Madrid-Alcala, relative to the non-existence of a Father Alfonso Garcia, and the decision approving
the acknowledgment of appellants herein as natural children of the deceased, are not, as yet, part of
the evidence in connection with the incident under consideration said documents being those relied
upon in support of the motion for new trial, which was denied by the lower court and in order to
avoid any possible injustice to the parties herein, resulting, either from the application of technical
legal rules, or from the handicaps under which they may find themselves, owing to the problems of
distance and time they have to overcome, and to other factors having analogous effects, this Court
believes that it would be best to remand the records to the lower court for a new trial and the
reception, not only of the evidence aforementioned, but, also, of such other evidence as may be
pertinent, relevant and material to the issue under consideration.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside, and the records remanded to the lower
court for new trial, with costs against the appellee. It is so ordered.