De Gala vs. De Gala
GRN L – 15756 February 15, 1992
Plaintiff commenced an action to compel the respondent to recognize the plaintiff as his natural son. Respondent’s son Generoso, the only legitimate son of Pedro testified in court that Sinfroso was his brother by his father. Pedro objected to its admission upon the ground that it was impertinent. The lower court sustained the objection stating that Generoso was not an interested party in the case and his admission that Sinfroso was his brother would not entitle the latter to be recognized as natural son of the defendant.
Whether or not the admission of Generoso be admissible as evidence for the compulsory recognition of the plaintiff.
Generoso, the only legitimate son of the defendant, being a member of the latter’s family, his spontaneous admission, publicly made in open court, that the plaintiff was his brother, cannot be said to be “impertinent” for the purpose of proving the plaintiff’s claim; for that admission was a conduct on his part which tends to confirm the status claimed by the alleged natural child. Neither can it be said that the said only legitimate child was not an interested party in this case for he is a forced heir and his hereditary rights would be diminished with that recognition… while it is true that such admission of the legitimate son would not of itself, be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a compulsory recognition… it should have been admitted in evidence as a factum probandum – the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child. Such status cannot be proved by a single specific act or conduct of defendant’s family. It must necessarily be proved by showing a series of acts, conduct and circumstance indicative of the intention of the prilatine father to acknowledge his alleged natural child. Hence, to reject evidence of a single act or conduct or circumstance as being insufficient to prevent the status claimed, would be to prevent the claimant from proving it at all.
Daanan vs. Aspillera
GRN L-17305 November 28, 1962
Petitioners were holders of a certificate of public convenience for the operation of ice plant issued by Public Service Commission. For non operation, said certificate was cancelled and a new certificate was subsequently issued to cortisan & CO, to install and operate a 100ton ice plant, a motion for consideration by petitioners was denied by PSC, the decision was received on 21 July 1960. A petition for review was filed to SC on August 22, 1960.
Whether or not SC may review the PSC decision after the lapse of 30 days from the date petitioner received the decision.
The petition is denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No 146 which reorganized the PSC provides.
“any order, ruling or decision of the commission may be reviewed… within thirty days from the notification of such order, ruling or decision or in case a petition for the reconsideration of such order, ruling or decision is filed… within 15 days after notice of the order…”