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; that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during infancy; that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero; that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; that Pascual Santero died in 1!"; Pablo Santero Santero in 1!# and Simona Santero in 1!$; that Pablo Santero% at the time of his death was sur&i&ed by his mother Simona Santero and his si minor natural children to wit( four minor children with Anselma )ia* and two minor children with Feliberta Pacursa. Issue: 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/ Ruling:
Petitioners claim that the amendment of Articles 01 and 0# of the old i&il ode -i&il ode of Spain by Articles " and 2 of the new i&il ode -i&il ode of the Philippines constitute a substantial and not merely a formal change% which grants illegitimate children certain successional successional rights. A careful e&aluation e&aluation of the 3ew i&il ode pro&isions% pro&isions% especially especially Articles Articles "2% 42% 4% and "% claimed by petitioners to ha&e conferred illegitimate children the right to represent their parents in the inheritance of their legitimate grandparents% would in point of fact re&eal that such right to this time does not eist. Arti Articl clee 42 is inap inappl plic icab able le to inst instant ant case case becau because se Arti Articl clee 2 2 proh prohib ibit itss absol absolut utel ely y a succession ab intestato between intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relati&es of the father or mother. 5t may not be amiss to state that Article 42 is the general rule and Article 2 2 the the ece ecept ptio ion. n. Artic rticle less "2% "2% 4% 4% and and " " clea clearl rly y spea spea6 6 of succ succes essi sion onal al righ rights ts of illegitimate of illegitimate children% which rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. 7he desc descen enda dants nts -of -of thes thesee ille illegi giti tima mate te chil childr dren en who who may inher inherit it by &irt &irtue ue of the the right right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate. 5n whate&er manner% one should not o&erloo6 the fact that the persons to be represented are themsel&es illegitimate. themsel&es illegitimate. Article 2 of the 3ew i&il ode pro&ides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relati&es of the father or mother of said illegitimate child. 7hey may ha&e a natural tie of blood% but this is not recogni*ed by law for the purpose of Article 2. 8etween the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an inter&ening antagonism and incompatibility. 7he
illegitimate child is disgracefully loo6ed down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn% hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the pri&ileged condition of the former% and the resources of which it is thereby depri&ed; the former% in turn% sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin% palpable e&idence of a blemish bro6en in life; the law does no more than recogni*e this truth% by a&oiding further ground of resentment. 5t is therefore clear from Article 2 of the 3ew i&il ode that the phrase 9legitimate children and relati&es of his father or mother9 includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word 9relati&e9 is broad enough to comprehend all the 6indred of the person spo6en of. -omment% p. 1# :ollo citing p. 24$2 8ou&ier's aw )ictionary &ol. 11% 7hird :e&ision%
