1|Page

BURDEN OF PROOF CASES G.R. No. 144773. May 16, 2005] AZNAR BROT ERS REA!T" COMPAN", petitioner, vs. !AURENC#O A"#NG, #N #S O$N BE A!F AND #N BE A!F OF T E OT ER E#RS OF EM#!#ANO A"#NG, PAU!#NO A"#NG, #N #S O$N BE A!F AND #N BE A!F OF T E OT ER E#RS OF S#MEON A"#NG, AND $ENCES!AO SUMA!#NOG, #N #S O$N BE A!F AND #N BE A!F OF T E OT ER E#RS OF ROBERTA A"#NG, respondents. DEC#S#ON AUSTR#A%MART#NEZ, J.& This resolves the petition for review on certiorari seeking the modification of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March ! "### which affirmed with modification the Decision of the $egional Trial Court ($TC) of %apu&%apu Cit'! (ranch " in Civil Case )o* "+,#&%- and the $esolution dated August "! "### den'ing petitioner.s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision* The antecedent facts are as follows/ The disputed propert' is %ot )o* 0,++ with an area of ,0!,"1 s2uare meters located at Dapdap! %apu&%apu Cit'* Crisanta Malolo'&on petitioned for the issuance of a cadastral decree in her favor over said parcel of land* After her death in 1+,#! the Cadastral Court issued a Decision directing the issuance of a decree in the name of Crisanta Malolo'&on.s eight children! namel'/ 3uan! Celedonio! 4miliano! 5rancisco! 6imeon! (erna7e! $o7erta and 5austa! all surnamed A'ing* The certificate of title was! however! lost during the war* 6u7se2uentl'! all the heirs of the A'ing si7lings e8ecuted an 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale dated March ,! 1+:0! conve'ing the su7;ect parcel of land to herein petitioner A<nar (rothers $ealt' Compan'* 6aid deed was registered with the $egister of Deeds of %apu&%apu Cit' on March :! 1+:0 under Act )o* ,,00 (the law governing registration for unregistered land)! and since then! petitioner had 7een religiousl' pa'ing real propert' ta8es on said propert'* =n 1+>>! herein petitioner filed a 9etition for $econstitution of the ?riginal Title as the original title over the su7;ect propert' had 7een lost during the war* ?n April 1"! 1+>>! the court granted said petition! there7' directing the $egister of Deeds of %apu&%apu Cit' to issue a reconstituted title in the name of the a7ovementioned A'ing si7lings* Thus! ?riginal Certificate of Title (?CT) )o* $?&">1: was issued* =n 1++1! petitioner! claiming to 7e the rightful owner of the su7;ect propert'! sent out notices to vacate! addressed to persons occup'ing the propert'* @nheeded! petitioner then filed a complaint for e;ectment against the occupants 7efore the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)! %apu&%apu Cit'* ?n 5e7ruar' 1! 1++0! the MTC ordered the occupants to vacate the propert'* The case eventuall' reached this Court! docketed as A*$* )o* 1">1#"! entitled Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Court of Appeals, Luis Aying, Demetrio Sida, Felomino Augusto, Federico A ing, and Romeo Augusto.["] ?n March ! "###! a Decision was promulgated in favor of herein petitioner! declaring it as the rightful possessor of the parcel of land in 2uestion* Meanwhile! herein respondents! along with other persons claiming to 7e descendants of the eight A'ing si7lings! all in all num7ering around ""# persons! had filed a complaint for cancellation of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition with A7solute 6ale! recover' of ownership! in;unction and damages with the $TC of %apu&%apu Cit'* The complaint was dismissed twice without pre;udice* 6aid complaint was re&filed on August 1+! 1++,! docketed as Civil Case )o* "+,#&%* =n their amended complaint! herein respondents (plaintiffs 7efore the $TC) alleged that/ the' are co&owners of su7;ect propert'! 7eing descendants of the registered owners thereof under ?CT )o* $?&">1:- the' had 7een in actual! peaceful! ph'sical! open! adverse! continuous and uninterrupted possession in concept of owner of su7;ect parcel of land since time immemorial- their possession was distur7ed onl' in the last 2uarter of 1++1 when some of them received notices to vacate from petitioner and several weeks thereafter! earthmoving e2uipment entered the disputed land! 7ulldo<ing the same and destro'ing plants! trees and concrete monuments (BmohonC)- respondents discovered that such activities were 7eing undertaken 7' petitioner together with 6ta* %ucia $ealt' and Development! =nc*petitioner claimed to 7e the owner of su7;ect propert' 7' virtue of an e8tra&;udicial partition of real estate with deed of a7solute sale e8ecuted in petitioner.s favor 7' the alleged heirs of Crisanta Malolo'&on- the aforementioned e8tra&;udicial partition of real estate with deed of a7solute sale is a fraud and is null and void a initio7ecause not all the co&owners of su7;ect propert' affi8ed their signature on said document and some of the co&owners who supposedl' signed said document had 7een dead at the time of the e8ecution thereof- petitioner entered su7;ect land in 7ad faith! knowing full' well that it did not have an' right to the land and used force! threat and intimidation against respondents- and the' suffered moral damages*[,] 9etitioner (defendant 7efore the $TC) filed its Answer! den'ing that respondents are the lawful owners of su7;ect parcel of land 7' virtue of their 7eing descendants or heirs of the registered owners of su7;ect propert'* =nstead! petitioner alleged that it had 7een in actual possession of su7;ect land as owner thereof 7' virtue of the e8tra& ;udicial partition of real propert' and deed of a7solute sale e8ecuted in its favor- that in fact! it had 7een pa'ing ta8es thereon religiousl'- that it tolerated a7out : persons to live on said land 7ut said persons were eventuall' e;ected 7' court order* 9etitioner then raised the affirmative defenses of failure to state cause of action and prescription! as it took respondents " 'ears! 1# months and " da's to file the action to recover su7;ect propert'! when an action to recover propert' 7ased on an implied trust should 7e instituted within 0 'ears from discover' of the fraud*[0] =n the 9re&Trial ?rder dated 3anuar' ,#! 1++1 of the $TC! the issues were narrowed down to the following/ 1* Dhether or not the plaintiffs [herein respondents] are the heirs of the registered owners of %ot )o* 0,++* "* Dhether or not plaintiffs are the owners of %ot )o* 0,++* ,* Dhether or not the defendant A<nar [herein petitioner] is estopped to make an' claim on %ot )o* 0,++* 0* Dhether or not the defendant A<nar is a 7uilder in 7ad faith* 1* Dhether or not the defendants are lia7le for damages and attorne'.s fees in favor of the plaintiffs* :* Dhether or not the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale is valid and had! in effect! validl' conve'ed to defendant A<nar %ot )o* 0,++* * Dhether or not the plaintiffs. action has prescri7ed*[1] After trial! the $TC rendered a Decision dated 3ul' 0! 1++ ! ruling that respondents. evidence failed to prove that the e8tra&;udicial partition with deed of a7solute sale was a totall' simulated or fictitious contract and concluded that said document is valid! thus! effectivel' conve'ing to petitioner the propert' in 2uestion* =t

2|Page
further held that respondents. action had prescri7ed in that the action is considered as one for reconve'ance 7ased on implied or constructive trust! it prescri7ed in 1# 'ears from the registration of the deed on March :! 1+:0- and if the action is considered as one for annulment of contract on the ground of fraud! it should have 7een filed within 0 'ears from discover' of the fraud* The trial court also ruled that respondents failed to present an' admissi7le proof of filiation! hence! the' were not a7le to prove that the' are indeed heirs of the eight A'ing si7lings who appear as the registered owners under ?CT )o* $?&">1:* The dispositive portion of the $TC Decision reads as follows/ DE4$45?$4! ;udgment is here7' rendered dismissing the amended complaint on the ground of prescription! and declaring the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale dated March ,! 1+:0 as valid and 7inding! ad;udging that %ot 0,++ with an area of ,0!,"1 s2uare meters located at Dapdap! Mactan! %apu& %apu Cit' had 7een validl' conve'ed to and in favor of A<nar (rothers $ealt' Compan'! and directing the $egister of Deeds of %apu&%apu Cit' to register the a7ove&mentioned deed in accordance with law and to cancel ?riginal Certificate of Title )o* $?&">1:! and to issue a transfer certificate of title in the name of A<nar (rothers $ealt' Compan' upon pa'ment of the necessar' registration fees pursuant thereto* The Drit of 9reliminar' =n;unction issued in this case is here7' ordered dissolved* The Motion for Contempt filed 7' the plaintiffs against defendants is dismissed for want of factual and legal 7asis* Costs against the plaintiffs* 6? ?$D4$4D*[:] Eerein respondents appealed the foregoing decision to the CA and on March ! "###! said court promulgated its Decision! the dispositive portion of which is reproduced hereunder/ TE4 5?$4A?=)A C?)6=D4$4D! the contested Decision while A55=$M4D is here7' M?D=5=4D* The heirs of 4miliano A'ing! 6imeon A'ing and $o7erta A'ing are here7' declared as the lawful owners of the contested propert' 7ut e2uivalent onl' to ,F>* 6? ?$D4$4D* =n modif'ing the $TC ;udgment! the CA ratiocinated that Ban action for recover' of possession of registered land never prescri7es in view of the provision of 6ection 00! Act )o* 0+: (now 6ec* 0 ! 9D 11"#)! to the effect that no title to registered land in derogation to that of a registered owner shall 7e ac2uired 7' prescription*C The CA further ruled that even if the action is deemed to 7e 7ased on implied trust! prescription did not 7egin to run since there is no evidence that positive acts of repudiation were made known to the heirs who did not participate in the e8ecution of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale* Thus! striking down the $TC.s ruling that the respondents. complaint is dismissi7le on the ground of prescription! the CA held instead that herein respondents. action had not prescri7ed 7ut upheld the validit' of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale! e8cept as to the shares of the heirs of 4miliano! 6imeon and $o7erta! who did not participate in the e8ecution of said document* Eerein petitioner.s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was denied per $esolution dated August "! "###* Eence! the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decision on the following grounds/ # TE4 C?@$T ?5 A994A%6 4$$4D =) 5A=%=)A T? A99%G TE4 $@%4 TEAT A) E4=$ ?5 TE4 ?$=A=)A% $4A=6T4$4D ?D)4$ MAG %?64 E=6 $=AET T? $4C?H4$ A T=T%4D 9$?94$TG (G $4A6?) ?5 %ACE46## TE4 C?@$T ?5 A994A%6 4$$4D =) 5A=%=)A T? A99%G TE4 $@%4 TEAT TE4 ACT ?5 $4A=6T$AT=?) ?5 TE4 D44D ?5 9A$T=T=?) D=TE 6A%4 MAG (4 C?)6=D4$4D A) @)4I@=H?CA% $49@D=AT=?) ?5 TE4 T$@6T A=H=)A $=64 T? 9$46C$=9T=?)### TE4 C?@$T ?5 A994A%6 4$$4D =) 5A=%=)A T? A99%G TE4 9$?H=6=?)6 ?5 A$T=C%4 11#0 ?5 TE4 C=H=% C?D4 T? TE4 4554CT TEAT =) TE4 A(64)C4 ?5 (AD 5A=TE ?$ 5$A@D! TE4 9A$T=T=?) D=TE 9$4T4$=T=?) ?5 A)G C?M9@%6?$G E4=$ 6EA%% )?T (4 $46C=)D4D*[ ] =n their Comment! respondents argue that this case is an action to declare as null and void the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale! hence! under Article 101# of the Civil Code! an action for declaration of an ine8istent contract does not prescri7e* $espondents further posit that the principle of laches should 7e applied against petitioner and not against them! as the' (respondents) had 7een in actual possession of the su7;ect propert'! while petitioner merel' 7rought action to e;ect them more than "+ 'ears after the alleged e8ecution of the 48tra& 3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale* The' also refuted petitioner.s arguments regarding the application of the principles of implied and constructive trusts in this case* At the outset! it should 7e stressed that not all the plaintiffs who filed the amended complaint 7efore the trial court had 7een impleaded as respondents in the present petition* The onl' parties impleaded are the heirs of 4miliano! 6imeon and $o7erta A'ing! whom the CA ad;udged as owners of a ,F> portion of the land in dispute for not having participated in the e8ecution of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale* =t is significant to note that herein petitioner does not 2uestion the CA conclusion that respondents are heirs of the aforementioned three A'ing si7lings* Eence! the trial court and appellate court.s findings that the 48tra& 3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale was not forged nor simulated and that the heirs of 4miliano! 6imeon and $o7erta A'ing did not participate in the e8ecution thereof! are now 7e'ond cavil* The issues raised 7' petitioner for the Court.s resolution are (1) whether or not respondents. cause of action is imprescripti7le- and (") if their right to 7ring action is indeed imprescripti7le! ma' the principle of laches appl'* $espondents alleged in their amended complaint that not all the co&owners of the land in 2uestion signed or e8ecuted the document conve'ing ownership thereof to petitioner and made the conclusion that said document is null and void* De agree with the ruling of the $TC and the CA that the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale is valid and 7inding onl' as to the heirs who participated in the e8ecution thereof! hence! the heirs of 4miliano! 6imeon and $o7erta A'ing! who undisputedl' did not participate therein! cannot 7e 7ound 7' said document* Eowever! the facts on record show that petitioner ac2uired the entire parcel of land with the mistaken 7elief that all the heirs have e8ecuted the su7;ect document* Thus! the trial court is correct that the provision of law applica7le to this case is Article 101: of the Civil Code which states/

3|Page
A$T* 101:* =f propert' is ac2uired through mistake or fraud! the person o7taining it is! 7' force of law! considered a trustee of an implied trust for the 7enefit of the person from whom the propert' comes* =n !da. De "sconde vs. Court of Appeals![>] the Court e8pounded thus/ Construing this provision of the Civil Code! in #hilippine $ational Ban% v. Court of Appeals! the Court stated/ A deeper anal'sis of Article 101: reveals that it is not a trust in the technical sense for in a t'pical trust! confidence is reposed in one person who is named a trustee for the 7enefit of another who is called the cestui 2ue trust! respecting propert' which is held 7' the trustee for the 7enefit of the cestui 2ue trust* A constructive trust! unlike an e8press trust! does not emanate from! or generate a fiduciar' relation* Dhile in an e8press trust! a 7eneficiar' and a trustee are linked 7' confidential or fiduciar' relations! in a constructive trust! there is neither a promise nor an' fiduciar' relation to speak of and the so&called trustee neither accepts an' trust nor intends holding the propert' for the 7eneficiar'*[+] The concept of constructive trusts was further elucidated in the same case! as follows/ * * * implied trusts are those which! without 7eing e8pressed! are deduci7le from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the transaction 7' operation of law as matters of e2uit'! independentl' of the particular intention of the parties* =n turn! implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts* These two are differentiated from each other as follows/ $esulting trusts are 7ased on the e2uita7le doctrine that valua7le consideration and not legal title determines the e2uita7le title or interest and are presumed alwa's to have 7een contemplated 7' the parties* The' arise from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction where7' one person there7' 7ecomes invested with legal title 7ut is o7ligated in e2uit' to hold his legal title for the 7enefit of another* ?n the other hand! 'o()*+,'*-./ *+,)*) a+/ '+/a*/0 1y *2/ 'o()*+,'*-o( o3 /4,-*y -( o+0/+ *o )a*-)3y *2/ 0/5a(0) o3 6,)*-'/ a(0 7+/./(* ,(6,)* /(+-'25/(*. T2/y a+-)/ 'o(*+a+y *o -(*/(*-o( a8a-()* o(/ 92o, 1y 3+a,0, 0,+/)) o+ a1,)/ o3 'o(3-0/('/, o1*a-() o+ 2o:0) *2/ :/8a: +-82* *o 7+o7/+*y 92-'2 2/ o,82* (o*, -( /4,-*y a(0 8oo0 'o()'-/('/, *o 2o:0.[1#] (4mphasis supplied) (ased on such concept of constructive trusts! the Court ruled in said case that/ The rule that a trustee cannot ac2uire 7' prescription ownership over propert' entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust! applies to e8press trusts and resulting implied trusts* Eowever! in constructive implied trusts! prescription ma' supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship* )ecessaril'! repudiation of said trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive period*[11] The ne8t 2uestion is! what is the applica7le prescriptive periodJ =n Amerol vs. Bagum aran![1"] the Court e8pounded on the prescriptive period within which to 7ring an action for reconve'ance of propert' 7ased on implied or constructive trust! to wit/ * * * under the present Civil Code! we find that ;ust as an implied or constructive trust is an offspring of the law (Art* 101:! Civil Code)! so is the corresponding o7ligation to reconve' the propert' and the title thereto in favor of the true owner* =n this conte8t! and vis&K&vis prescription! Article 1100 of the Civil Code is applica7le* Article 1100* The following actions must 7e 7rought within ten 'ears from the time the right of action accrues/ (1) @pon a written contract(") @pon an o7ligation created 7' law(,) @pon a ;udgment* 888 888 888 An action for reconve'ance 7ased on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescri7e in ten 'ears and not otherwise* A long line of decisions of this Court! and of ver' recent vintage at that! illustrates this rule* @ndou7tedl'! it is now well&settled that an action for reconve'ance 7ased on an implied or constructive trust prescri7es in ten 'ears from the issuance of the Torrens title over the propert'* [1,] =t has also 7een ruled that the ten&'ear prescriptive period 7egins to run from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the propert'! 7ut if the person claiming to 7e the owner thereof is in actual possession of the propert'! the right to seek reconve'ance! which in effect seeks to 2uiet title to the propert'! does not prescri7e*[10] =n the present case! respondents Denceslao 6umalinog! an heir of $o7erta A'ing- %aurencio A'ing! an heir of 4miliano A'ing- and 9aulino A'ing! an heir of 6imeon A'ing! all testified that the' had never occupied or 7een in possession of the land in dispute*[11] Eence! the prescriptive period of ten 'ears would appl' to herein respondents* The 2uestion then arises as to the date from which the ten&'ear period should 7e reckoned! considering that the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale was registered under Act )o* ,,00 and not under Act )o* 0+: (%and $egistration Act)! despite the fact the land in dispute was alread' titled under Act )o* 0+: in the names of the A'ing si7lings at the time the su7;ect document was e8ecuted* =n Spouses A rigo vs. De !era,[1:] it was held that registration of instruments must 7e done in the proper registr'! in order to affect and 7ind the land and! thus! operate as constructive notice to the world*[1 ] Therein! the Court ruled/ 8 8 8 =f the land is registered under the %and $egistration Act (and has therefore a Torrens Title)! and it is sold 7ut the su7se2uent sale is registered not under the %and $egistration Act 7ut under Act ,,00! as amended! such sale is not considered $4A=6T4$4D 8 8 8 *[1>] =n this case! since the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale was registered under Act )o* ,,00 and not under Act )o* 0+:! said document is deemed not registered* Accordingl'! the ten&'ear prescriptive period cannot 7e reckoned from March :! 1+:0! the date of registration of the su7;ect document under Act )o* ,,00* The prescriptive period onl' 7egan to run from the time respondents had actual notice of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale* The onl' evidence on record as to when such prescriptive period commenced as to each of the respondents are Denceslao 6umalinog.s (heir of $o7erta A'ing) testimon' that a7out three 'ears after 1+:0! the' alread' learned of the e8istence of the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale- [1+] and %aurencio A'ing.s (heir of 4miliano A'ing) admission that he found out a7out the sale of the land in dispute a long time ago and can onl' estimate that it must 7e after martial law*["#] 9aulino A'ing (heir of 6imeon A'ing) gave no testimon' whatsoever as to when the children of 6imeon A'ing actuall' learned of the e8istence of the document of sale* ?n the other hand! petitioner did not present an' other evidence to prove the date when respondents were notified of the e8ecution of the su7;ect document*

4|Page
=n view of the lack of unam7iguous evidence of when the heirs of 4miliano A'ing and 6imeon A'ing discovered the e8istence of the document of sale! it must 7e determined which part' had the 7urden of proof to esta7lish such fact* The test for determining where the 7urden of proof lies is to ask which part' to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the 7asis for the relief he seeks to o7tain* ["1] Moreover! one alleging a fact that is denied has the 7urden of proving it and unless the part' asserting the affirmative of an issue sustains the 7urden of proof of that issue 7' a preponderance of the evidence! his cause will not succeed* [""] Thus! the defendant 7ears the 7urden of proof as to all affirmative defenses which he sets up in answer to the plaintiff.s claim or cause of action- he 7eing the part' who asserts the truth of the matter he has alleged! the 7urden is upon him to esta7lish the facts on which that matter is predicated and if he fails to do so! the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict or decision in his favor*[",] =n the case at 7ar! it was petitioner! as the defendant 7efore the $TC! which set up in its Answer the affirmative defense of prescription* =t was! therefore! incum7ent upon petitioner to prove the date from which the prescriptive period 7egan to run* 4vidence as to the date when the ten&'ear prescriptive period 7egan e8ists onl' as to the heirs of $o7erta A'ing! as Denceslao 6umalinog admitted that the' learned of the e8istence of the document of sale in the 'ear 1+: * As to the heirs of 4miliano A'ing and 6imeon A'ing! there is no clear evidence of the date when the' discovered the document conve'ing the su7;ect land to petitioner* 9etitioner misera7l' failed to adduce proof of when the heirs of 4miliano A'ing and 6imeon A'ing were notified of the su7;ect document* Eence! with regard to said heirs! the Court ma' consider the admission in the amended complaint that the' learned of the conve'ance of the disputed land onl' in 1++1 when petitioner sent notices to vacate to the occupants of the su7;ect land! as the date from which the ten&'ear prescriptive period should 7e reckoned* $espondents filed their Amended Complaint on Decem7er :! 1++,* ["0] Thus! with regard to respondent heirs of $o7erta A'ing who had knowledge of the conve'ance as far 7ack as 1+: ! their cause of action is alread' 7arred 7' prescription when said amended complaint was filed as the' onl' had until 1+ within which to 7ring action* As to the respondent heirs of 4miliano and 6imeon A'ing! the' were a7le to initiate their action for reconve'ance of propert' 7ased on implied or constructive trust well within the ten&'ear prescriptive period reckoned from 1++1 when the' were sent 7' petitioner a notice to vacate the su7;ect propert'* 4videntl'! laches cannot 7e applied against respondent heirs of 4miliano and 6imeon A'ing! as the' took action to protect their interest well within the period accorded them 7' law* Dith regard to petitioner.s argument that the provision of Article 11#0 of the Civil Code! stating that a partition made with preterition of an' of the compulsor' heirs shall not 7e rescinded! should 7e applied! suffice it to sa' that the 48tra&3udicial 9artition of $eal 4state with Deed of A7solute 6ale is not 7eing rescinded* =n fact! its validit' had 7een upheld 7ut onl' as to the parties who participated in the e8ecution of the same* As discussed a7ove! what was conve'ed to petitioner was ownership over the shares of the heirs who e8ecuted the su7;ect document* Thus! the law! particularl'! Article 101: of the Civil Code! imposed the o7ligation upon petitioner to act as a trustee for the 7enefit of respondent heirs of 4miliano and 6imeon A'ing who! having 7rought their action within the prescriptive period! are now entitled to the reconve'ance of their share in the land in dispute* #N ;#E$ OF T E FOREGO#NG! the petition is 9A$T=A%%G A$A)T4D and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March ! "### is M?D=5=4D! as follows/ The amended complaint of the heirs of $o7erta A'ing is D=6M=664D on the ground of prescription* Eowever! the heirs of 4miliano A'ing and 6imeon A'ing! having instituted the action for reconve'ance within the prescriptive period! are here7' D4C%A$4D as the %AD5@% ?D)4$6 of a "F> portion of the parcel of land covered 7' ?riginal Certificate of Title )o* $?&">1:* SO ORDERED. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< G.R. No. 123450. A,8,)* 31, 2005] GERARDO B. CONCEPC#ON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEA!S a(0 MA. T ERESA A!MONTE, respondents. D4C=6=?) C?$?)A! &*/ The child! 7' reason of his mental and ph'sical immaturit'! needs special safeguard and care! including appropriate legal protection 7efore as well as after 7irth*[1] =n case of assault on his rights 7' those who take advantage of his innocence and vulnera7ilit'! the law will rise in his defense with the single&minded purpose of upholding onl' his 7est interests* This is the stor' of petitioner Aerardo (* Concepcion and private respondent Ma* Theresa Almonte! and a child named 3ose Aerardo* Aerardo and Ma* Theresa were married on Decem7er "+! 1+>+*["] After their marriage! the' lived with Ma* Theresa.s parents in 5airview! Iue<on Cit'* [,] Almost a 'ear later! on Decem7er >! 1++#! Ma* Theresa gave 7irth to 3ose Aerardo*[0] Aerardo and Ma* Theresa.s relationship turned out to 7e short&lived! however* ?n Decem7er 1+! 1++1! Aerardo filed a petition to have his marriage to Ma* Theresa annulled on the ground of 7igam'*[1] Ee alleged that nine 'ears 7efore he married Ma* Theresa on Decem7er 1#! 1+>#! she had married one Mario Aopiao! which marriage was never annulled*[:] Aerardo also found out that Mario was still alive and was residing in %o'ola Eeights! Iue<on Cit'*[ ] Ma* Theresa did not den' marr'ing Mario when she was twent' 'ears old* 6he! however! averred that the marriage was a sham and that she never lived with Mario at all*[>] The trial court ruled that Ma* Theresa.s marriage to Mario was valid and su7sisting when she married Aerardo and annulled her marriage to the latter for 7eing 7igamous* =t declared 3ose Aerardo to 7e an illegitimate child as a result* The custod' of the child was awarded to Ma* Theresa while Aerardo was granted visitation rights*[+] Ma* Theresa felt 7etra'ed and humiliated when Aerardo had their marriage annulled* 6he held him responsi7le for the L7astardi<ation. of Aerardo* 6he moved for the reconsideration of the a7ove decision B=)6?5A$ ?)%G as that portion of the M decision which grant(ed) to the petitioner so&called Lvisitation rights.M 7etween the hours of > in the morning to 1"/## p*m* of an' 6unda'*C [1#] 6he argued that there was nothing in the law granting Bvisitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child*C[11] 6he further maintained that 3ose Aerardo.s surname should 7e changed from Concepcion to Almonte! her maiden name! following the rule that an illegitimate child shall use the mother.s surname* Aerardo opposed the motion* Ee insisted on his visitation rights and the retention of LConcepcion. as 3ose Aerardo.s surname* Appl'ing the B7est interest of the childC principle! the trial court denied Ma* Theresa.s motion and made the following o7servations/

5|Page
=t is a pit' that the parties herein seem to 7e using their son to get at or to hurt the other! something the' should never do if the' want to assure the normal development and well&7eing of the 7o'* The Court allowed visitorial rights to the father knowing that the minor needs a father! especiall' as he is a 7o'! who must have a father figure to recogni<e N something that the mother alone cannot give* Moreover! the Court 7elieves that the emotional and ps'chological well&7eing of the 7o' would 7e 7etter served if he were allowed to maintain relationships with his father* There 7eing no law which compels the Court to act one wa' or the other on this matter! the Court invokes the provision of Art* >! 9D :#, as amended! otherwise known as the Child and Gouth Delfare Code! to wit/ B=n all 2uestions regarding the care! custod'! education and propert' of the child! his welfare shall 7e the paramount consideration*C DE4$45?$4! the respondent.s Motion for $econsideration has to 7e! as it is here7' D4)=4D*[1"] Ma* Theresa elevated the case to the Court of Appeals! assigning as error the ruling of the trial court granting visitation rights to Aerardo* 6he likewise opposed the continued use of Aerardo.s surname (Concepcion) despite the fact that 3ose Aerardo had alread' 7een declared illegitimate and should therefore use her surname (Almonte)* The appellate court denied the petition and affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court*[1,] ?n the issue raised 7' Ma* Theresa that there was nothing in the law that granted a putative father visitation rights over his illegitimate child! the appellate court affirmed the B7est interest of the childC polic' invoked 7' the court a 'uo* =t ruled that B[a]t 7ottom! it (was) the child.s welfare and not the convenience of the parents which (was) the primar' consideration in granting visitation rights a few hours once a week*C[10] The appellate court likewise held that an illegitimate child cannot use the mother.s surname motu proprio* The child! represented 7' the mother! should file a separate proceeding for a change of name under $ule 1#, of the $ules of Court to effect the correction in the civil registr'*[11] @ndaunted! Ma* Theresa moved for the reconsideration of the adverse decision of the appellate court* 6he also filed a motion to set the case for oral arguments so that she could 7etter ventilate the issues involved in the controvers'* After hearing the oral arguments of the respective counsels of the parties! the appellate court resolved the motion for reconsideration* =t reversed its earlier ruling and held that 3ose Aerardo was not the son of Ma* Theresa 7' Aerardo 7ut 7' Mario during her first marriage/ =t is! therefore! undenia7le N esta7lished 7' the evidence in this case N that the appellant [Ma* Theresa] was married to Mario Aopiao! and that she had never entered into a lawful marriage with the appellee [Aerardo] since the so&called BmarriageC with the latter was void a7 initio* =t was [Aerardo] himself who had esta7lished these facts* =n other words! [Ma* Theresa] was legitimatel' married to Mario Aopiao when the child 3ose Aerardo was 7orn on Decem7er >! 1++#* Therefore! the child 3ose Aerardo N under the law N is the legitimate child of the legal and su7sisting marriage 7etween [Ma* Theresa] and Mario Aopiao- he cannot 7e deemed to 7e the illegitimate child of the void and non&e8istent Lmarriage. 7etween [Ma* Theresa] and [Aerardo]! 7ut is said 7' the law to 7e the child of the legitimate and e8isting marriage 7etween [Ma* Theresa] and Mario Aopiao (Art* 1:0! 5amil' Code)* Conse2uentl'! [she] is right in firml' sa'ing that [Aerardo] can claim neither custod' nor visitorial rights over the child 3ose Aerardo* 5urther! [Aerardo] cannot impose his name upon the child* )ot onl' is it without legal 7asis (even supposing the child to 7e his illegitimate child [Art* 10:! The 5amil' Code])- it would tend to destro' the e8isting marriage 7etween [Ma* Theresa] and Aopiao! would prevent an' possi7le rapproachment 7etween the married couple! and would mean a ;udicial seal upon an illegitimate relationship*[1:] The appellate court 7rushed aside the common admission of Aerardo and Ma* Theresa that 3ose Aerardo was their son* =t gave little weight to 3ose Aerardo.s 7irth certificate showing that he was 7orn a little less than a 'ear after Aerardo and Ma* Theresa were married/ De are not unaware of the movant.s argument that various evidence e8ist that appellee and the appellant have ;udiciall' admitted that the minor is their natural child* (ut! in the same vein! De cannot overlook the fact that Article 1: of the 5amil' Code mandates/ BThe child shall 7e considered legitimate although the mother ma' have declared against its legitimac' or ma' have 7een sentenced as an adulteress*C (underscoring ours) Thus! implicit from the a7ove provision is the fact that a minor cannot 7e deprived of hisFher legitimate status on the 7are declaration of the mother andFor even much less! the supposed father* =n fine! the law and onl' the law determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for one.s legitimac' or illegitimac' cannot ever 7e compromised* )ot even the 7irth certificate of the minor can change his status for the information contained therein are merel' supplied 7' the mother andFor the supposed father* =t should 7e what the law sa's and not what a parent sa's it is* [1 ] (4mphasis supplied) 6hocked and stunned! Aerardo moved for a reconsideration of the a7ove decision 7ut the same was denied*[1>] Eence! this appeal* The status and filiation of a child cannot 7e compromised*[1+] Article 1:0 of the 5amil' Code is clear* A child who is conceived or 7orn during the marriage of his parents is legitimate*["#] As a guarant' in favor of the child["1] and to protect his status of legitimac'! Article 1: of the 5amil' Code provides/ Article 1: * The child shall 7e considered legitimate although the mother ma' have declared against its legitimac' or ma' have 7een sentenced as an adulteress* The law re2uires that ever' reasona7le presumption 7e made in favor of legitimac'* [""] De e8plained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Ca atania v. Court of Appeals[",]/ The presumption of legitimac' does not onl' flow out of a declaration in the statute 7ut is 7ased on the 7road principles of natural ;ustice and the supposed virtue of the mother* =t is grounded on the polic' to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimac'* Aerardo invokes Article 1:: (1)(7)["0] of the 5amil' Code* Ee cannot* Ee has no standing in law to dispute the status of 3ose Aerardo* ?nl' Ma* Theresa.s hus7and Mario or! in a proper case!["1] his heirs! who can contest the legitimac' of the child 3ose Aerardo 7orn to his wife*[":]=mpugning the legitimac' of a child is a strictl' personal right of the hus7and or! in e8ceptional cases! his heirs*[" ] Since the marriage of (erardo and )a. *heresa +as void from the very eginning, he never ecame her hus and and thus never ac'uired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child * The presumption of legitimac' proceeds from the se8ual union in marriage! particularl' during the period of conception*[">] To overthrow this presumption on the 7asis of Article 1:: (1)(7) of the 5amil' Code! it must 7e shown 7e'ond reasona7le dou7t that there was no access that could have ena7led the hus7and to father the

6|Page
child*["+] 6e8ual intercourse is to 7e presumed where personal access is not disproved! unless such presumption is re7utted 7' evidence to the contrar'* [,#] The presumption is 2uasi&conclusive and ma' 7e refuted onl' 7' the evidence of ph'sical impossi7ilit' of coitus 7etween hus7and and wife within the first 1"# da's of the ,## da's which immediatel' preceded the 7irth of the child*[,1] To re7ut the presumption! the separation 7etween the spouses must 7e such as to make marital intimac' impossi7le*[,"] This ma' take place! for instance! when the' reside in different countries or provinces and the' were never together during the period of conception*[,,] ?r! the hus7and was in prison during the period of conception! unless it appears that se8ual union took place through the violation of prison regulations*[,0] Eere! during the period that Aerardo and Ma* Theresa were living together in 5airview! Iue<on Cit'! Mario was living in %o'ola Eeights which is also in Iue<on Cit'* 5airview and %o'ola Eeights are onl' a scant four kilometers apart* )ot onl' did 7oth Ma* Theresa and Mario reside in the same cit' 7ut also that no evidence at all was presented to disprove personal access 7etween them* Considering these circumstances! the separation 7etween Ma* Theresa and her lawful hus7and! Mario! was certainl' not such as to make it ph'sicall' impossi7le for them to engage in the marital act* 6e8ual union 7etween spouses is assumed* 4vidence sufficient to defeat the assumption should 7e presented 7' him who asserts the contrar'* There is no such evidence here* Thus! the presumption of legitimac' in favor of 3ose Aerardo! as the issue of the marriage 7etween Ma* Theresa and Mario! stands* Aerardo relies on Ma* Theresa.s statement in her answer[,1] to the petition for annulment of marriage[,:] that she never lived with Mario* Ee claims this was an admission that there was never an' se8ual relation 7etween her and Mario! an admission that was 7inding on her* Aerardo.s argument is without merit* First! the import of Ma* Theresa.s statement is that 3ose Aerardo is not her legitimate son with Mario 7ut her illegitimate son with Aerardo* This declaration O an avowal 7' the mother that her child is illegitimate O is the ver' declaration that is proscri7ed 7' Article 1: of the 5amil' Code* The language of the law is unmistaka7le* An assertion 7' the mother against the legitimac' of her child cannot affect the legitimac' of a child 7orn or conceived within a valid marriage* Second! even assuming the truth of her statement! it does not mean that there was never an instance where Ma* Theresa could have 7een together with Mario or that there occurred a7solutel' no intercourse 7etween them* All she said was that she never lived with Mario* 6he never claimed that nothing ever happened 7etween them* Telling is the fact that 7oth of them were living in Iue<on Cit' during the time material to 3ose Aerardo.s conception and 7irth* 5ar from foreclosing the possi7ilit' of marital intimac'! their pro8imit' to each other onl' serves to reinforce such possi7ilit'* Thus! the impossi7ilit' of ph'sical access was never esta7lished 7e'ond reasona7le dou7t* *hird! to give credence to Ma* Theresa.s statement is to allow her to arrogate unto herself a right e8clusivel' lodged in the hus7and! or in a proper case! his heirs*[, ] A mother has no right to disavow a child 7ecause maternit' is never uncertain* [,>] Eence! Ma* Theresa is not permitted 7' law to 2uestion 3ose Aerardo.s legitimac'* Finally! for reasons of pu7lic decenc' and moralit'! a married woman cannot sa' that she had no intercourse with her hus7and and that her offspring is illegitimate*[,+] The proscription is in consonance with the presumption in favor of famil' solidarit'* =t also promotes the intention of the law to lean toward the legitimac' of children*[0#] Aerardo.s insistence that the filiation of 3ose Aerardo was never an issue 7oth in the trial court and in the appellate court does not hold water* The fact that 7oth Ma* Theresa and Aerardo admitted and agreed that 3ose Aerardo was 7orn to them was immaterial* That was! in effect! an agreement that the child was illegitimate* =f the Court were to validate that stipulation! then it would 7e tantamount to allowing the mother to make a declaration against the legitimac' of her child and consenting to the denial of filiation of the child 7' persons other than her hus7and* These are the ver' acts from which the law seeks to shield the child* 9u7lic polic' demands that there 7e no compromise on the status and filiation of a child*[01] ?therwise! the child will 7e at the merc' of those who ma' 7e so minded to e8ploit his defenselessness* The reliance of Aerardo on 3ose Aerardo.s 7irth certificate is misplaced* =t has no evidentiar' value in this case 7ecause it was not offered in evidence 7efore the trial court* The rule is that the court shall not consider an' evidence which has not 7een formall' offered*[0"] Moreover! the law itself esta7lishes the status of a child from the moment of his 7irth* [0,] Although a record of 7irth or 7irth certificate ma' 7e used as primar' evidence of the filiation of a child![00] as the status of a child is determined 7' the law itself! proof of filiation is necessar' onl' when the legitimac' of the child is 7eing 2uestioned! or when the status of a child 7orn after ,## da's following the termination of marriage is sought to 7e esta7lished*[01] Eere! the status of 3ose Aerardo as a legitimate child was not under attack as it could not 7e contested collaterall' and! even then! onl' 7' the hus7and or! in e8traordinar' cases! his heirs* Eence! the presentation of proof of legitimac' in this case was improper and uncalled for* =n addition! a record of 7irth is merel' prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein*[0:] As prima facie evidence! the statements in the record of 7irth ma' 7e re7utted 7' more preponderant evidence* =t is not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness of the statements made therein 7' the interested parties*[0 ] (etween the certificate of 7irth which is prima facie evidence of 3ose Aerardo.s illegitimac' and the 2uasi&conclusive presumption of law (re7utta7le onl' 7' proof 7e'ond reasona7le dou7t) of his legitimac'! the latter shall prevail* )ot onl' does it 7ear more weight! it is also more conducive to the 7est interests of the child and in consonance with the purpose of the law* =t perple8es us wh' 7oth Aerardo and Ma* Theresa would doggedl' press for 3ose Aerardo.s illegitimac' while claiming that the' 7oth had the child.s interests at heart* The law! reason and common sense dictate that a legitimate status is more favora7le to the child* =n the e'es of the law! the legitimate child en;o's a preferred and superior status* Ee is entitled to 7ear the surnames of 7oth his father and mother! full support and full inheritance*[0>] ?n the other hand! an illegitimate child is 7ound to use the surname and 7e under the parental authorit' onl' of his mother* Ee can claim support onl' from a more limited group and his legitime is onl' half of that of his legitimate counterpart*[0+] Moreover (without unwittingl' e8acer7ating the discrimination against him)! in the e'es of societ'! a L7astard. is usuall' regarded as 7earing a stigma or mark of dishonor* )eedless to state! the legitimac' presumptivel' vested 7' law upon 3ose Aerardo favors his interest* =t is unfortunate that 3ose Aerardo was used as a pawn in the 7itter s2ua77le 7etween the ver' persons who were passionatel' declaring their concern for him* The parado8

7|Page
was that he was made to suffer supposedl' for his own sake* This madness should end* This case has 7een pending for a ver' long time alread'* Dhat is speciall' tragic is that an innocent child is involved* 3ose Aerardo was 7arel' a 'ear old when these proceedings 7egan* Ee is now almost fifteen and all this time he has 7een a victim of incessant 7ickering* The law now comes to his aid to write finis to the controvers' which has unfairl' hounded him since his infanc'* Eaving onl' his 7est interests in mind! we uphold the presumption of his legitimac'* As a legitimate child! 3ose Aerardo shall have the right to 7ear the surnames of his father Mario and mother Ma* Theresa! in conformit' with the provisions of the Civil Code on surnames*[1#] A person.s surname or famil' name identifies the famil' to which he 7elongs and is passed on from parent to child*[11] Eence! Aerardo cannot impose his surname on 3ose Aerardo who is! in the e'es of the law! not related to him in an' wa'* The matter of changing 3ose Aerardo.s name and effecting the corrections of the entries in the civil register regarding his paternit' and filiation should 7e threshed out in a separate proceeding* =n case of annulment or declaration of a7solute nullit' of marriage! Article 0+ of the 5amil' Code grants visitation rights to a parent who is deprived of custod' of his children* 6uch visitation rights flow from the natural right of 7oth parent and child to each other.s compan'* There 7eing no such parent&child relationship 7etween them! Aerardo has no legall' demanda7le right to visit 3ose Aerardo* ?ur laws seek to promote the welfare of the child* Article > of 9D :#,! otherwise known as the Child and Gouth Delfare Code! is clear and une2uivocal/ Article >* Child,s -elfare #aramount* N =n all 2uestions regarding the care! custod'! education and propert' of the child! his welfare shall 7e the paramount consideration* Article , (1) of the @nited )ations Convention on the $ights of a Child of which the 9hilippines is a signator' is similarl' emphatic/ Article , 1* =n all actions concerning children! whether undertaken 7' pu7lic or private social welfare institutions! courts of law! administrative authorities or legislative 7odies! the 7est interests of the child shall 7e a primar' consideration* The 6tate as parens patriae affords special protection to children from a7use! e8ploitation and other conditions pre;udicial to their development* =t is mandated to provide protection to those of tender 'ears*[1"] Through its laws! the 6tate safeguards them from ever' one! even their own parents! to the end that their eventual development as responsi7le citi<ens and mem7ers of societ' shall not 7e impeded! distracted or impaired 7' famil' acrimon'* This is especiall' significant where! as in this case! the issue concerns their filiation as it strikes at their ver' identit' and lineage* DE4$45?$4! the petition is here7' D4)=4D* The 6eptem7er 10! 1++1 and 3anuar' 1#! 1++: resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA&A*$* CH )o* 0#:11 are here7' A55=$M4D* Costs against petitioner* SO ORDERED* PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP Co('/7'-o( .). CA Ca)/ D-8/)* Co('/7'-o( .). CA G.R. No. 123450 A,8,)* 31, 2005 Fa'*)& Ma* Theresa Almonte married Aerardo Concepcion! which the' 7egot a child named 3ose Aerardo* Aerardo Concepcion found out that his wife was still married to Mario Aopiao* Eence! he filed for annulment on the ground of 7igam'* Theresa averred that he married Mario 7ut that was onl' a sham and she never lived with him at all* $TC ruled that Theresa.s marriage with Mario Aopiao is still valid and su7sisting thus the marriage with Aerardo is 7igamous and the child 7orn was condemned illegitimate* Custod' was then given to Theresa* Theresa felt 7etra'ed and humiliated when Aerardo had their marriage annulled* 6he argued that a putative father cannot have visitation rights over the illegitimate child and the child.s surname 7e changed to the mother.s maiden name* Aerardo opposed the motion and insisted on the visitation rights and retention of the father.s surname to the child* #)),/& Dhether or not the child 7orn out of a 7igamous marriage is considered legitimate* R,:-(8& 3ose Aerardo is deemed 7orn legitimate although the mother ma' have declared against its legitimac' or ma' have 7een sentenced as an adulteress* The fact that the child was conceived and 7orn at the time the spouses had lived together* The law and onl' the law determine! who are the legitimate or illegitimate children! for one.s legitimac' or illegitimac' cannot ever 7e compromised* )ot even the 7irth certificate of the minor can change his status for the information contained therein is merel' supplied 7' the mother andFor the supposed father* =t should 7e what the law sa's and not what a parent sa's it is* PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PRESUMPT#ON OF DEAT B!UE CROSS #NC., P/*-*-o(/+, EA!T CARE, P+/)/(*& G.R. No. 16=737

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDO;A!%GUT#ERREZ, %./+),)% CORONA, AZCUNA a(0 !EONARDO%DE CASTRO, JJ. NEOM#> a(0 DAN#!O O!#;ARES, R/)7o(0/(*). F/1+,a+y 12, 200? @% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % @ D4C=6=?) P+o5,:8a*/0&

8|Page
=n a decision dated August 1! "##,! the MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action* =t held/ 888 the 7est person to determine whether or not the stroke she suffered was not caused 7' Bpre&e8isting conditionsC is her attending ph'sician Dr* 6aniel who treated her and conducted the test during her confinement* 888 (ut since the evidence on record reveals that it was no less than [respondent )eomi] herself who prevented her attending ph'sician from issuing the re2uired certification! petitioner cannot 7e faulted from suspending pa'ment of her claim! for until and unless it can 7e shown from the findings made 7' her attending ph'sician that the stroke she suffered was not due to pre&e8isting conditions could she demand entitlement to the 7enefits of her polic'* [1,] ?n appeal! the $TC! in a decision dated 5e7ruar' "! "##0! reversed the ruling of the MeTC and ordered petitioner to pa' respondents the following amounts/ (1) 9,0!"1 *"# representing the medical 7ill in Medical Cit' and 91!### as reim7ursement for consultation fees! with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until full' paid- (") 9"#!### as moral damages- (,) 9"#!### as e8emplar' damages(0) 9"#!### as attorne'Qs fees and (1) costs of suit*[10] The $TC held that it was the 7urden of petitioner to prove that the stroke of respondent )eomi was e8cluded from the coverage of the health care program for 7eing caused 7' a pre&e8isting condition* =t was not a7le to discharge that 7urden*[11] Aggrieved! petitioner filed a petition for review under $ule 0" of the $ules of Court in the CA* =n a decision promulgated on 3ul' "+! "##1! the CA affirmed the decision of the $TC* =t denied reconsideration in a resolution promulgated on 6eptem7er "1! "##1* Eence this petition which raises the following issues/ (1) whether petitioner was a7le to prove that respondent )eomiQs stroke was caused 7' a pre& e8isting condition and therefore was e8cluded from the coverage of the health care agreement and (") whether it was lia7le for moral and e8emplar' damages and attorne'Qs fees* The health care agreement defined a Bpre&e8isting conditionC as/ 8 8 8 a disa7ilit' which e8isted 7efore the commencement date of mem7ership whose natural histor' can 7e clinicall' determined! whether or not the Mem7er was aware of such illness or condition* 6uch conditions also include disa7ilities e8isting prior to reinstatement date in the case of lapse of an Agreement* )otwithstanding! the following disa7ilities 7ut not to the e8clusion of others are considered pre&e8isting conditions including their complications when occurring during the first 'ear of a Mem7er.s coverage/ =* ==* ===* =H* H* H=* H==* H===* Tumor of =nternal ?rgans EemorrhoidsFAnal 5istula Diseased tonsils and sinus conditions re2uiring surger' CataractFAlaucoma 9athological A7normalities of nasal septum or tur7inates Aoiter and other th'roid disorders EerniaF(enign prostatic h'pertroph' 4ndometriosis

C?$?)A, &*/ This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of a decision["] and resolution[,] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 3ul' "+! "##1 and 6eptem7er "1! "##1! respectivel'! in CA&A*$* 69 )o* >01:, which affirmed the decision of the $egional Trial Court ($TC)! Makati Cit'! (ranch :1 dated 5e7ruar' "! "##0 in Civil Case )o* #,&111,![0] which in turn reversed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)! Makati Cit'! (ranch :: dated August 1! "##, in Civil Case )o* >#>: *[1] $espondent )eomi T* ?livares applied for a health care program with petitioner (lue Cross Eealth Care! =nc*! a health maintenance firm* 5or the period ?cto7er 1:! "##" to ?cto7er 11! "##,![:] she paid the amount of 911!11 * 5or the same period! she also availed of the additional service of limitless consultations for an additional amount of 91!###* 6he paid these amounts in full on ?cto7er 1 ! "##"* The application was approved on ?cto7er ""! "##"* =n the health care agreement! ailments due to Bpre&e8isting conditionsC were e8cluded from the coverage*[ ] ?n )ovem7er ,#! "##"! or 7arel' ,> da's from the effectivit' of her health insurance! respondent )eomi suffered a stroke and was admitted at the Medical Cit' which was one of the hospitals accredited 7' petitioner* During her confinement! she underwent several la7orator' tests* ?n Decem7er "! "##"! her attending ph'sician! Dr* 4dmundo 6aniel![>] informed her that she could 7e discharged from the hospital* 6he incurred hospital e8penses amounting to 9,0!"1 *"#* Conse2uentl'! she re2uested from the representative of petitioner at Medical Cit' a letter of authori<ation in order to settle her medical 7ills* (ut petitioner refused to issue the letter and suspended pa'ment pending the su7mission of a certification from her attending ph'sician that the stroke she suffered was not caused 7' a pre&e8isting condition*[+] 6he was discharged from the hospital on Decem7er ,! "##"* ?n Decem7er 1! "##"! she demanded that petitioner pa' her medical 7ill* Dhen petitioner still refused! she and her hus7and! respondent Danilo ?livares! were constrained to settle the 7ill* [1#] The' thereafter filed a complaint for collection of sum of mone' against petitioner in the MeTC on 3anuar' >! "##,*[11] =n its answer dated 3anuar' "0! "##,! petitioner maintained that it had not 'et denied respondentsQ claim as it was still awaiting Dr* 6anielQs report* =n a letter to petitioner dated 5e7ruar' 10! "##,! Dr* 6aniel stated that/ This is in response to 'our letter dated 5e7ruar' 1,! "##,* [$espondent] )eomi T* ?livares called 7' phone on 3anuar' "+! "##,* 6he stated that she is invoking patient& ph'sician confidentialit'* That she no longer has an' relationship with [petitioner]* And that = should not release an' medical information concerning her neurologic status to an'one without her approval* Eence! the same da' = instructed m' secretar' to inform 'our office thru Ms* (ernie regarding [respondentQs] wishes* 888 888 888[1"]

9|Page
=R* R* R=* R==* R===* R=H* RH* RH=* RH==* RH===* R=R* RR* AsthmaFChronic ?7structive %ung disease 4pileps' 6choliosisFEerniated disc and other 6pinal column a7normalities Tu7erculosis Cholec'sitis Aastric or Duodenal ulcer Eallu8 valgus E'pertension and other Cardiovascular diseases Calculi Tumors of skin! muscular tissue! 7one or an' form of 7lood d'scracias Dia7etes Mellitus CollagenFAuto&=mmune disease

888 (e)

888

888

That evidence willfull' suppressed would 7e adverse if produced*

6uffice it to sa' that this presumption does not appl' if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of 7oth parties- (7) the suppression was not willful- (c) it is merel' corro7orative or cumulative and (d) the suppression is an e8ercise of a privilege* [""] Eere! respondentsQ refusal to present or allow the presentation of Dr* 6anielQs report was ;ustified* =t was privileged communication 7etween ph'sician and patient* 5urthermore! as alread' stated! limitations of lia7ilit' on the part of the insurer or health care provider must 7e construed in such a wa' as to preclude it from evading its o7ligations* Accordingl'! the' should 7e scrutini<ed 7' the courts with Be8treme ;ealous'C[",] and BcareC and with a B;aundiced e'e*C["0] 6ince petitioner had the 7urden of proving e8ception to lia7ilit'! it should have made its own assessment of whether respondent )eomi had a pre&e8isting condition when it failed to o7tain the attending ph'sicianQs report* =t could not ;ust passivel' wait for Dr* 6anielQs report to 7ail it out* The mere reliance on a disputa7le presumption does not meet the strict standard re2uired under our ;urisprudence* )e8t! petitioner argues that it should not 7e held lia7le for moral and e8emplar' damages! and attorne'Qs fees since it did not act in 7ad faith in den'ing respondent )eomiQs claim* =t insists that it waited in good faith for Dr* 6anielQs report and that! 7ased on general medical findings! it had reasona7le ground to 7elieve that her stroke was due to a pre&e8isting condition! considering it occurred onl' ,> da's after the coverage took effect*["1] De disagree* The $TC and CA found that there was a factual 7asis for the damages ad;udged against petitioner* The' found that it was guilt' of 7ad faith in den'ing a claim 7ased merel' on its own perception that there was a pre&e8isting condition/ [$espondents] have sufficientl' shown that [the'] were forced to engage in a dispute with [petitioner] over a legitimate claim while [respondent )eomi was] still e8periencing the effects of a stroke and forced to pa' for her medical 7ills during and after her hospitali<ation despite 7eing covered 7' [petitioner.s] health care program! there7' suffering in the process e8treme mental anguish! shock! serious an8iet' and great stress* [The'] have shown that 7ecause of the refusal of [petitioner] to issue a letter of authori<ation and to pa' [respondent )eomiQs] hospital 7ills! [the' had] to engage the services of counsel for a fee of 9"#!###*##* 5inall'! the refusal of petitioner to pa' respondent )eomiQs 7ills smacks of 7ad faith! as its refusal [was] merel' 7ased on its own perception that a stroke is a pre&e8isting condition* (emphasis supplied) This is a factual matter 7inding and conclusive on this Court*[":] De see no reason to distur7 these findings*

After the Mem7er has 7een continuousl' covered for 1" months! this pre&e8isting provision shall no longer 7e applica7le e8cept for illnesses specificall' e8cluded 7' an endorsement and made part of this Agreement*[1:] @nder this provision! disa7ilities which e8isted 7efore the commencement of the agreement are e8cluded from its coverage if the' 7ecome manifest within one 'ear from its effectivit'* 6tated otherwise! petitioner is not lia7le for pre&e8isting conditions if the' occur within one 'ear from the time the agreement takes effect* 9etitioner argues that respondents prevented Dr* 6aniel from su7mitting his report regarding the medical condition of )eomi* Eence! it contends that the presumption that evidence willfull' suppressed would 7e adverse if produced should appl' in its favor*[1 ] $espondents counter that the 7urden was on petitioner to prove that )eomiQs stroke was e8cluded from the coverage of their agreement 7ecause it was due to a pre& e8isting condition* =t failed to prove this*[1>] De agree with respondents* =n #hilamcare .ealth Systems, /nc. v. CA![1+] we ruled that a health care agreement is in the nature of a non&life insurance*["#] =t is an esta7lished rule in insurance contracts that when their terms contain limitations on lia7ilit'! the' should 7e construed strictl' against the insurer* These are contracts of adhesion the terms of which must 7e interpreted and enforced stringentl' against the insurer which prepared the contract* This doctrine is e2uall' applica7le to health care agreements* ["1] 9etitioner never presented an' evidence to prove that respondent )eomiQs stroke was due to a pre&e8isting condition* =t merel' speculated that Dr* 6anielQs report would 7e adverse to )eomi! 7ased on her invocation of the doctor&patient privilege* This was a disputa7le presumption at 7est* 6ection , (e)! $ule 1,1 of the $ules of Court states/ 6ec* ,* Disputa7le presumptions* O The following presumptions are satisfactor' if uncontradicted! 7ut ma' 7e contradicted and overcome 7' other evidence/

10 | P a g e
DE4$45?$4! the petition is here7' D4)=4D* The 3ul' "+! "##1 decision and 6eptem7er "1! "##1 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA&A*$* 69 )o* >01:, are A55=$M4D* Tre7le costs against petitioner* SO ORDERED. <<<<<<<<<<<<< # 'a(A* 3-(0 *2/ o*2/+ 'a)/ -( P+/),57*-o( o3 D/a*2