ROMEO F. ARA vs. DRA. FELY S. PIZARRO

FACTS: Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia (petitioners), and Dra. Fely S. Pizarro and Henry A. Rossi (respondents) all claimed to be children of the late Josefa A. Ara, who died on November 18, 2002. Petitioners assert that Fely S. Pizarro was born to Josefa and her then husband, Vicente Salgado, who died during World War II. At some point toward the end of the war, Josefa met and lived with an American soldier by the name of Darwin Gray. Romeo F. Ara was born from this relationship. Josefa later met a certain Alfredo Garcia, and, from this relationship, gave birth to sons Ramon Garcia and William A. Garcia. Josefa and Alfredo married on January 24, 1952.8 After Alfredo passed away, Josefa met an Italian missionary named Frank Rossi, who allegedly fathered Henry Rossi.

Respondent Pizarro claims that, to her knowledge, she is the only child of Josefa. Further, petitioner Garcia is recorded as a son of a certain Carmen Bucarin and Pedro Garcia, as evidenced by a Certificate of Live Birth dated July 19, 1950; and petitioner Ara is recorded as a son of spouses Jose Ara and Maria Flores, evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth.

Petitioners, together with Ramon and herein respondent Rossi, verbally sought partition of the properties left by the deceased Josefa, which were in the possession of respondent Pizarr. Plaintiffs a quo filed a Complaint for judicial partition of properties left by the deceased Josefa, before the Regional Trial Court. In her Answer, respondent Pizarro averred that, to her knowledge, she was the only legitimate and only child of Josefa. She denied that any of the plaintiffs a quo were her siblings, for lack of knowledge or information to form a belief on that matter. Further, the late Josefa left other properties mostly in the possession of plaintiffs a quo, which were omitted in the properties to be partitioned by the trial court in Special Civil Action No.

337-03, enumerated in her counterclaim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents can be considered legitimate children of Josefa A. Ara and are entitled of partition of the properties left by the deceased Josefa.

HELD: No. The law is very clear. If filiation is sought to be proved under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, the action must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. It is evident that appellants Romeo F. Ara and William Garcia can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of their open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove their alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Josefa Ara is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of her alleged sons' illegitimate filiation.