Dear PAO,
My mother passed away some 13 years ago. When she was still a baby, she
was already under the care of my grandparents. They are not her
biological parents, no legal adoption transpired. She is actually the
daughter of my grandmother’s sister but they took care of her because
they had no child of their own. She has been using my grandparents’
names in all her records.
Can she be considered as a legally adopted child? The reason why I am
asking is because the conjugal property of my grandparents are now
being claimed by their relatives, and according to them my mother is not
entitled to any share of the legitime as she is not a legally adopted
child of my grandparents. But my grandfather left a will prior to his
demise bequeathing all their properties to my mother. Can my mother be
considered as a rightful heir? Your guidance will be highly appreciated.
ME
Dear ME,
In the situation that you have presented, we submit that your mother
cannot be considered as a legally adopted child. First and foremost, we
want to emphasize that there is no such thing as adoption by
prescription. Accordingly, even if your mother was under the care of
your alleged grandparents, that she has long presented herself as their
daughter, and that all her records appear under their names, such will
not suffice to declare her as a legally adopted child.
It is necessary that your mother and your alleged grandparents have
undergone the process of adoption and that a competent court has
declared her to have been legally adopted by her qualified adoptive
parents. Absent these, their relationship remains to only be that of
aunt-and-niece and uncle-in-law-and-niece.
Insofar as your mother’s right over the properties of her aunt and
uncle-in-law is concerned, the claim of the latter’s relatives that your
mother is not entitled to a legitime is correct. Legitime, as defined
under the law, “is that part of the testator’s property which he cannot
dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are,
therefore, called compulsory heirs” (Article 886, New Civil Code of the
Philippines). Pursuant to Article 887 of the said Code, only the
following are compulsory heirs: (1) Legitimate children and descendants,
with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; (2) In default
of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to
their legitimate children and descendants; (3) The widow or widower; (4)
Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. Since your
mother is only the niece of the decedents, she is not considered as one
of their compulsory heirs, and thus, not entitled to any legitime.
However, as a devisee or legatee, your mother is entitled to receive
the properties left by her uncle. It bears stressing that her uncle
executed a last will and testament bequeathing in her favor those
properties. Accordingly, the provisions thereof must be enforced. It is
only essential that her uncle had no compulsory heir living at the time
of his demise and that your mother did not predeceased him. Should there
be a compulsory heir living at the time of his demise, only the
properties which form part of the free portion of his estate may be
transmitted to your mother, in accordance with the provisions of Section
5, Chapter 2, Title IV of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded
that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our
appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are
changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times Column of Atty Persida Acosta
No comments:
Post a Comment