ASG Law

Tag: Baptismal Certificate

  • Proving Legitimate Filiation: Key to Inheritance Claims in Philippine Property Disputes

    Proving Legitimate Filiation is Essential for Inheritance Claims

    Bernardo v. Fernando, G.R. No. 211034 and G.R. No. 211076, November 18, 2020

    Imagine a family torn apart by a dispute over inherited property, where the legitimacy of a child’s birth becomes the crux of the legal battle. In the Philippines, such disputes are not uncommon, and the case of Bernardo v. Fernando illustrates the critical importance of proving legitimate filiation when claiming inheritance rights. At the heart of this case was the question of whether the petitioners could establish their right to inherit five parcels of land left by their alleged grandfather, Jose Chiong.

    The petitioners, Mario Chiong Bernardo and others, claimed to be the legitimate grandchildren of Jose Chiong through his daughter, Barbara. They sought to annul an affidavit that had transferred the properties to the respondents, who were descendants of Jose Chiong Fernando, a cousin of Jose Chiong. The central legal question was whether the petitioners could substantiate their claim of legitimate filiation to Jose Chiong, which would entitle them to the disputed properties.

    Legal Context: Understanding Filiation and Inheritance

    In the Philippines, the concept of filiation is crucial in inheritance disputes. Filiation refers to the relationship between a parent and child, which can be legitimate or illegitimate. Under the Family Code of the Philippines, legitimate filiation can be established through various means, such as a record of birth in the civil register or a final judgment.

    Article 172 of the Family Code outlines the modes of proving legitimate filiation:

    ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

    In the absence of these, legitimate filiation can be proven by open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

    A birth certificate, being a public document, is considered prima facie evidence of filiation. However, to be valid proof of paternity, it must be shown that the alleged father participated in its preparation. This requirement underscores the importance of documentation in legal battles over inheritance.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Bernardo v. Fernando

    The saga began when Mario Chiong Bernardo filed a complaint in 2003, asserting that he and his siblings were the legitimate grandchildren of Jose Chiong through their mother, Barbara. They claimed that the respondents, who had transferred the properties to their names via an affidavit, were not true heirs but merely collateral relatives.

    The petitioners relied heavily on Barbara’s birth and baptismal certificates to prove her legitimate filiation to Jose Chiong. However, the respondents contested these claims, arguing that their predecessor-in-interest, Jose Chiong Fernando, had legally acquired the properties through a deed of donation from Jose Chiong in 1925.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing Barbara’s birth certificate as sufficient proof of her legitimate status. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that the petitioners failed to prove Barbara’s legitimate filiation to Jose Chiong.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence showing Jose Chiong’s involvement in Barbara’s birth certificate:

    Unfortunately for petitioners, however, there was neither Jose Chiong’s signature on Barbara’s certificate of birth, nor any other proof to the effect that although his signature does not appear therein, he had a hand in the preparation of the same.

    The Court further clarified that a baptismal certificate is only evidence of the administration of the sacrament and not proof of the baptized child’s paternity.

    The procedural journey of the case involved:

    • Filing of complaints by the petitioners in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
    • Consolidation of the cases by the RTC, which initially ruled in favor of the petitioners.
    • Appeal by the respondents to the CA, which reversed the RTC’s decision.
    • Consolidation of the petitioners’ appeals to the Supreme Court, which ultimately affirmed the CA’s ruling.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Inheritance Claims

    The Bernardo v. Fernando case underscores the importance of robust evidence in proving legitimate filiation for inheritance claims. Future litigants must ensure they have solid documentation, such as a birth certificate signed by the alleged father or other admissible evidence of filiation.

    For property owners and potential heirs, this ruling highlights the need for meticulous record-keeping and understanding the legal requirements for proving inheritance rights. It also serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property disputes, particularly those involving family ties and inheritance.

    Key Lessons:

    • Ensure that birth certificates and other documents are properly executed and signed by the relevant parties to establish legitimate filiation.
    • Understand the legal standards and requirements for proving inheritance rights under Philippine law.
    • Seek legal advice early in the process to navigate the complexities of property disputes and inheritance claims.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is legitimate filiation?

    Legitimate filiation refers to the legal relationship between a child born within a valid marriage and their parents. It is crucial for establishing inheritance rights.

    How can legitimate filiation be proven in the Philippines?

    Legitimate filiation can be established through a record of birth in the civil register, a final judgment, or an admission of filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent.

    What happens if legitimate filiation cannot be proven?

    If legitimate filiation cannot be proven, the individual may not be entitled to inherit from the alleged parent’s estate, as seen in the Bernardo v. Fernando case.

    Can a baptismal certificate be used to prove filiation?

    A baptismal certificate is generally not considered proof of filiation but rather evidence of the administration of the sacrament of baptism.

    What should I do if I am involved in an inheritance dispute?

    Seek legal advice from a qualified attorney who can guide you through the process and help gather the necessary evidence to support your claim.

    ASG Law specializes in family law and inheritance disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Baptismal Certificates and Inheritance Rights: Proving Filiation in Property Disputes

    In a dispute over land ownership, the Supreme Court clarified that a baptismal certificate alone is insufficient to prove filiation for inheritance purposes. The Court emphasized that while baptismal records can have evidentiary value, they must be considered alongside other evidence to establish a parent-child relationship. This ruling underscores the importance of presenting comprehensive evidence in inheritance cases, especially when relying on religious records to demonstrate family ties.

    Unraveling Marcelino’s Lineage: Can a Baptismal Certificate Secure Inheritance Rights?

    The case of Heirs of Paula C. Fabillar v. Miguel M. Paller arose from a disagreement over a 3.1-hectare parcel of agricultural land in Eastern Samar. The respondents, claiming to be heirs of Marcelino Paller, sought to recover ownership and possession of the land from the petitioners, who were related to Ignacia Paller, another alleged heir of Marcelino. The central issue was whether Ambrosio Paller, the respondents’ father, was indeed a child of Marcelino, entitling his descendants to a share of Marcelino’s estate.

    Respondents presented Ambrosio’s baptismal certificate as evidence of his filiation with Marcelino. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that a baptismal certificate alone is not conclusive proof of filiation. According to the Court, while Article 172 of the Family Code allows the use of baptismal certificates as evidence of filiation, it must be considered alongside other evidence. The Court stated that:

    …it is jurisprudentially settled that a baptismal certificate has evidentiary value to prove filiation only if considered alongside other evidence of filiation. Because the putative parent has no hand in the preparation of a baptismal certificate, the same has scant evidentiary value if taken in isolation; while it may be considered a public document, ‘it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified, but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child’s paternity.’

    The Court noted that the respondents failed to provide additional evidence to support the claim that Marcelino was Ambrosio’s father. The burden of proof rested on the respondents to establish their affirmative allegation, and the baptismal certificate, without more, was insufficient to meet this burden.

    Building on this principle, the Court also found that the respondents failed to adequately prove the identity of the land they were seeking to recover. They presented an unnotarized deed of sale purportedly transferring a portion of the land from Juan Duevo, another heir of Marcelino, to Sabina Macawile, Ambrosio’s wife. However, discrepancies in the names and boundaries, as well as the lack of corroborating evidence, cast doubt on the validity of the transfer. The Court noted that:

    Firstly, the subject land is admittedly covered by TD No. 6618 which remained in the name of Marcelino, but the unnotarized deed of sale bears different boundaries as TD No. 6618.

    Moreover, the Court pointed out that the tax declarations (TDs) presented by the respondents did not align with the boundaries described in the deed of sale or other records. The Municipal Assessor’s testimony further complicated the matter, as it revealed a history of revisions and divisions of the original land tract.

    Due to these evidentiary shortcomings, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the respondents’ complaint. The Court clarified that the respondents’ claim of ownership was not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of whether a separate special proceeding is necessary to declare heirship before an heir can assert ownership rights in an ordinary civil action. While acknowledging the general rule that a declaration of heirship is typically made in a special proceeding, the Court cited an exception:

    …the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship… and ‘the [trial court] had consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it defined during the pre-trial,’ as in this case.

    In this case, because both parties voluntarily submitted the issue of Ambrosio’s heirship to the trial court and presented evidence, the Court found that a separate special proceeding was unnecessary. This exception allows courts to resolve heirship issues within the context of an ordinary civil action, promoting judicial efficiency.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Heirs of Paula C. Fabillar v. Miguel M. Paller highlights the importance of providing sufficient and credible evidence in property disputes involving inheritance claims. It clarifies that baptismal certificates, while admissible as evidence of filiation, must be corroborated by other supporting evidence. Additionally, the Court reiterates the exception to the general rule requiring a separate special proceeding for declaration of heirship, allowing courts to resolve such issues within the context of an ordinary civil action when the parties voluntarily submit the issue and present evidence.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a baptismal certificate alone is sufficient to prove filiation for inheritance purposes in a property dispute. The Court also addressed whether a separate special proceeding is necessary to declare heirship before an heir can assert ownership rights in an ordinary civil action.
    What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the baptismal certificate? The Supreme Court ruled that a baptismal certificate alone is insufficient to prove filiation. It must be considered alongside other evidence to establish the parent-child relationship.
    What other evidence could be used to prove filiation? Other evidence includes records of birth, admission of filiation in public documents, family bibles, common reputation, testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under the Rules of Court.
    Is a separate special proceeding always required to declare heirship? No, the Court noted an exception where parties voluntarily submit the issue of heirship to the trial court in a civil case and present evidence. In such cases, a separate special proceeding is unnecessary.
    What was the basis for the Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint? The Court dismissed the complaint because the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove Ambrosio’s filiation with Marcelino and failed to adequately prove the identity of the land they were seeking to recover.
    What is the significance of proving the identity of the land? Proving the identity of the land is crucial because it establishes that the property being claimed is indeed the same property to which the claimant has a right through inheritance or other means. Discrepancies in boundaries and tax declarations can undermine the claim.
    What is the burden of proof in establishing filiation? The burden of proof rests on the party asserting the filiation. They must present sufficient evidence to convince the court that the alleged relationship exists.
    What is the role of tax declarations in property disputes? Tax declarations can serve as evidence of ownership or possession, but they are not conclusive proof. They must align with other evidence and be consistent over time to support a claim of ownership.
    What is the effect of an unnotarized deed of sale? An unnotarized deed of sale is still binding between the parties, but it does not bind third persons unless it is registered, if it involves real property. The notarization of a document gives it a presumption of regularity and authenticity.

    This case illustrates the complexities of proving inheritance rights and the importance of presenting a well-supported claim with credible evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that reliance on a single piece of evidence, such as a baptismal certificate, is often insufficient to establish filiation. Litigants should gather and present a comprehensive range of evidence to support their claims in property disputes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: HEIRS OF PAULA C. FABILLAR VS. MIGUEL M. PALLER, G.R. No. 231459, January 21, 2019

  • Baptismal Certificates and Filiation: Proving Parentage in Inheritance Disputes

    The Supreme Court clarified in this case that baptismal certificates alone are insufficient to conclusively establish filiation (parentage) for inheritance purposes. While such certificates can be considered alongside other evidence, they cannot be the sole basis for determining hereditary rights. The Court emphasized the need for more substantial proof, especially when legitimacy is contested, to ensure fair distribution of inherited properties and prevent unwarranted claims based on incomplete documentation. This ruling underscores the importance of comprehensive evidence in establishing legal parentage.

    Family Secrets and Inheritance Rights: Who Can Claim a Share of Natalia’s Land?

    The case of Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan revolves around a dispute over Lot No. 4696, originally owned by Natalia Magtulis. Natalia had two children from her first marriage, Gilberto and Silvela Roldan, and allegedly, Leopoldo Magtulis, her child with another man. After Natalia’s death, her descendants disputed the rightful heirs to her land.

    The heirs of Gilberto Roldan argued that Leopoldo was not Natalia’s child and that Silvela had already sold her share to Gilberto. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled that the heirs of Gilberto, Silvela, and Leopoldo were all co-owners, each entitled to a one-third share of the property. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, relying on Leopoldo’s Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract as proof of his filiation with Natalia. Dissatisfied, the heirs of Gilberto Roldan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    At the heart of the legal matter was the evidentiary value of baptismal certificates and marriage contracts in proving filiation. The Supreme Court emphasized that while these documents can be considered as evidence, they are not conclusive proof of parentage, especially when other substantial evidence is lacking. The Court referred to Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code to highlight the requirements for establishing filiation:

    Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

    (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
    (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

    In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

    (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
    (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

    Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

    The Court noted that there was no record of Leopoldo’s birth. This absence prompted the lower courts to rely on his Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract, which both indicated Natalia as his mother. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, citing jurisprudence that diminishes the probative value of baptismal certificates when used in isolation.

    The Supreme Court referenced Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, stating that because the putative parent has no hand in preparing a baptismal certificate, that document has scant evidentiary value. The canonical certificate is simply a proof of the act to which the priest may certify, i.e., the administration of the sacrament. In other words, a baptismal certificate is “no proof of the declarations in the record with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior and distinct facts which require separate and concrete evidence.”

    Building on this principle, the Court clarified that a baptismal certificate could have evidentiary value if considered alongside other evidence of filiation, such as testimonial evidence, family pictures, or family books. Without such corroborating evidence, the baptismal certificate alone is insufficient to establish legal parentage.

    In analyzing the evidence, the Court found that the Marriage Contract of Leopoldo, like his baptismal certificate, lacked probative value because it was prepared without Natalia’s participation. The Court emphasized that such documents cannot be taken as evidence of filiation unless signed or acknowledged by the alleged parent. This aligns with the principle established in Reyes v. Court of Appeals, where a marriage contract stating the alleged father of the bride was not accepted as evidence of filiation because it was not signed by him.

    Regarding the alleged sale of Silvela’s share to Gilberto, the Court upheld the factual finding of the lower courts that no evidence supported this claim. The petitioners failed to provide any document or witness to prove the sale, leading the Court to conclude that Silvela remained a co-owner of Lot No. 4696.

    Finally, the petitioners argued that prescription and laches barred the respondents from claiming co-ownership due to their prolonged occupation of the property. The Court rejected this argument, stating that prescription cannot be appreciated against co-owners absent a conclusive act of repudiation made clearly known to the other co-owners. Moreover, the petitioners raised this argument for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest it.

    In summary, the Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decision, declaring that only the heirs of Gilberto Roldan and Silvela Roldan were co-owners of the land. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in proving filiation and clarified the limited evidentiary value of baptismal certificates and marriage contracts when not supported by other corroborating evidence. The court underscored that there was failure on the part of petitioners to substantiate their allegation of laches by proving that respondents slept on their rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether baptismal certificates and marriage contracts alone are sufficient to prove filiation (parentage) for inheritance purposes, specifically whether Leopoldo Magtulis was the son of Natalia Magtulis.
    Why did the Supreme Court reject the baptismal certificate as sole proof of filiation? The Supreme Court has consistently held that baptismal certificates have scant evidentiary value when used alone because the putative parent has no direct involvement in their preparation, making them insufficient to prove parentage.
    What other types of evidence can be used to prove filiation? Besides a birth certificate or a parent’s admission, filiation can be proven through testimonial evidence, family pictures, family books or charts, and other relevant documents that, when considered together, establish a clear lineage.
    What was the outcome regarding the alleged sale of Silvela’s share? The Court upheld the factual finding that there was no evidence to support the claim that Silvela Roldan sold her share of the property to Gilberto Roldan, thus, she remained a co-owner.
    What is the significance of repudiation in co-ownership disputes? Repudiation is a clear and unequivocal act by one co-owner that demonstrates their intention to exclude other co-owners from the property, which is a prerequisite for prescription to apply and for a co-owner to claim sole ownership.
    Why did the Court reject the arguments of prescription and laches? The Court rejected these arguments because the petitioners failed to provide evidence of repudiation and raised the issues for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest them.
    What does this case mean for proving parentage in inheritance cases? This case reinforces the need for comprehensive and reliable evidence when establishing filiation in inheritance cases, highlighting that single documents like baptismal certificates are not sufficient on their own.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court ruled that only the heirs of Gilberto Roldan and Silvela Roldan are the rightful co-owners of the land, each entitled to one-half share, excluding the heirs of Leopoldo Magtulis.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of presenting solid evidence to establish filiation in inheritance disputes. While baptismal certificates and marriage contracts may offer some clues, they are not definitive proof of parentage. This case serves as a reminder to gather comprehensive documentation to support claims of inheritance rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Heirs of Gilberto Roldan, G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017

  • Baptismal Certificates and Filiation: Establishing Legal Parentage in Inheritance Disputes

    The Supreme Court, in Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan, clarified the evidentiary value of baptismal certificates in proving filiation for inheritance purposes. The Court ruled that a baptismal certificate, by itself, is insufficient to establish legal parentage. Additional evidence is required to substantiate the claim of filiation, especially when contesting inheritance rights. This decision underscores the importance of presenting comprehensive documentation and evidence when asserting familial relationships in legal proceedings.

    Inheritance Battle: Can Baptismal Records Alone Determine Heirship?

    This case revolves around a dispute over Lot No. 4696, an agricultural land originally owned by Natalia Magtulis. After Natalia’s death in 1961, her estate became the subject of contention among her alleged heirs: the children from her first marriage, Gilberto and Silvela Roldan, and Leopoldo Magtulis, purportedly her child from another relationship. The heirs of Gilberto Roldan possessed the property and excluded the other claimants, leading the heirs of Silvela and Leopoldo to file a complaint for partition and damages.

    The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly recognized Leopoldo Magtulis as Natalia’s son based solely on his baptismal and marriage certificates. This issue directly impacted the determination of rightful heirs to Natalia’s property. The petitioners, heirs of Gilberto, argued that these documents were insufficient to prove filiation, challenging the CA’s decision to include Leopoldo’s heirs in the property distribution.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of all three sets of heirs, granting each a one-third share of the property. The RTC based its decision regarding Leopoldo’s filiation on his Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract, which both indicated Natalia as his mother. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling, leading the heirs of Gilberto Roldan to appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the evidence used to establish Leopoldo’s parentage.

    The Supreme Court carefully examined the issue of filiation, referencing Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, which outline the acceptable means of establishing legitimate and illegitimate filiation. The court noted that Leopoldo’s birth was not registered in the National Statistics Office or the local civil registry. Therefore, the lower courts relied on the baptismal and marriage certificates to prove his status as Natalia’s son. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this approach.

    Building on this principle, the Court cited established jurisprudence, including Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, which clarified the limited evidentiary value of baptismal certificates. The Court emphasized that baptismal certificates primarily serve as proof of the administration of the sacrament and not as conclusive evidence of parentage. The rationale behind this is that the putative parent typically does not participate in the preparation of the certificate, making it unreliable as a declaration of filiation.

    In essence, the Supreme Court reiterated that a baptismal certificate should not be considered sufficient proof of filiation unless supported by other corroborating evidence. Documents like testimonial evidence, family photos, and family books can provide additional context and support the claims made in a baptismal certificate. The Court found that the lower courts had not considered any such additional evidence in this case, relying solely on the baptismal and marriage certificates.

    The Marriage Contract of Leopoldo Magtulis was also deemed insufficient to prove filiation, as it was prepared without Natalia’s participation. The Court referenced Reyes v. Court of Appeals, which held that a marriage contract stating the bride’s alleged father’s name could not be taken as evidence of filiation if the alleged father did not sign it. This further reinforces the principle that documents prepared without the involvement of the alleged parent lack the necessary probative value to establish filiation.

    Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the RTC and CA erred in determining that Leopoldo Magtulis was Natalia’s son based solely on the baptismal and marriage certificates. The Court emphasized that without additional supporting evidence, these documents were inadequate to prove his filiation and grant his heirs a one-third share of Natalia’s property. As the court stated in Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, a baptismal certificate is not proof of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

    The petitioners also raised the issues of prescription and laches, arguing that the respondents had lost their rights to the property due to the extended period of occupation by the heirs of Gilberto Roldan. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, citing the absence of any conclusive act of repudiation made known to the other co-owners. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had raised these issues for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest these claims.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that prescription cannot be appreciated against co-owners without clear evidence of repudiation. Additionally, the Court reiterated that issues like estoppel, laches, and fraud require the presentation of evidence and the determination of facts. Since the petition before the Court primarily entertained questions of law, the claims of prescription and laches could not be sustained.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether baptismal and marriage certificates alone are sufficient to prove filiation for inheritance purposes, especially when contesting the rights of other potential heirs.
    What did the Supreme Court rule regarding baptismal certificates? The Supreme Court ruled that a baptismal certificate, by itself, is insufficient to establish legal parentage. It serves primarily as proof of the administration of the sacrament, not as conclusive evidence of filiation.
    What other evidence can be used to prove filiation? Besides a birth certificate, other evidence that can be used includes testimonial evidence, family photos, family books, and other documents that corroborate the claim of parentage.
    Why were the marriage certificates deemed insufficient? The marriage certificates were deemed insufficient because they were prepared without the participation or consent of the alleged parent, Natalia Magtulis, making them unreliable as evidence of filiation.
    What is the significance of Article 172 of the Family Code? Article 172 of the Family Code outlines the means by which the filiation of legitimate children can be established, including birth records, public documents, and open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child.
    What is the relevance of the Fernandez v. Court of Appeals case? The Fernandez v. Court of Appeals case established the principle that baptismal certificates have limited evidentiary value in proving filiation, as they primarily serve as proof of the administration of the sacrament.
    What does it mean to “repudiate” co-ownership in the context of prescription? To repudiate co-ownership means to openly and clearly deny the co-owner’s rights to the property, making it known to all other co-owners that you are claiming sole ownership.
    Why were the arguments of prescription and laches rejected in this case? The arguments of prescription and laches were rejected because there was no evidence of a clear act of repudiation, and the issues were raised for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest them.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan serves as a critical reminder of the importance of substantiating claims of filiation with comprehensive evidence, especially in inheritance disputes. While baptismal and marriage certificates can be informative, they cannot serve as the sole basis for establishing legal parentage. This ruling emphasizes the need for thorough documentation and corroborating evidence when asserting familial relationships in legal proceedings, ensuring that inheritance rights are justly determined.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Heirs of Gilberto Roldan, G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017

  • Heirship and Filiation: Proving Inheritance Rights in Property Disputes

    This case clarifies the process for establishing heirship rights in property disputes, specifically addressing the admissibility of baptismal certificates as evidence of filiation. The Supreme Court held that a baptismal certificate is a valid and competent proof of filiation, especially when birth records are not readily available, affirming the appellate court’s decision to reconvey property to the estate of the deceased. The court also underscored that although a direct action to establish filiation is typically required, the issue can be resolved within a property dispute when heirship is contested, provided the opposing party has been given the opportunity to challenge the asserted filiation. This ruling enables heirs to protect their inheritance rights more efficiently, reducing the necessity for separate, protracted legal battles to first prove their familial relationship.

    From Baptism to Inheritance: When Family Ties Determine Property Rights

    The case revolves around a parcel of unregistered land in Cavite, originally owned by the late Vicente Espineli. After Vicente’s death in 1941, a deed of sale surfaced in 1994, purportedly signed by him, transferring the property to the spouses Edgardo and Natividad Fidel. However, Primitivo Espineli’s heirs, Vicente’s son from his first marriage, contested this sale, claiming the signature was a forgery and that they were rightful heirs to the property. They filed a complaint for annulment of sale, tax declaration, and reconveyance with damages. The Fidels, along with Guadalupe Espineli-Cruz (Vicente’s daughter from his second marriage), countered that the heirs of Primitivo needed to first establish their filiation from Vicente in a separate action before they could claim any rights to the property. This brought to the forefront the critical legal question: Can heirship and filiation be determined in an action for annulment of sale, or must they be established separately?

    At the heart of the matter lies the validity of the deed of sale presented by the Fidels. The court unequivocally declared the deed void due to the impossibility of Vicente signing it in 1994, as he had already passed away in 1941. As stated in Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

    Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
    (2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
    (3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;

    Given that the deed was a forgery, it held no legal weight, thereby reinforcing the claim of the Espineli heirs. The subsequent sale by Guadalupe, acting as an heir and representative of other heirs, was also brought into question. The Fidels argued that the respondents lacked legal standing to contest the sale since they hadn’t formally established their filiation through a separate legal action. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that because the issue of heirship was directly raised by the Fidels in their pre-trial brief, they were estopped from challenging the court’s determination of the respondents’ status as heirs.

    In similar case, Fernandez v. Fernandez, the Supreme Court held:

    Thus, it is necessary to pass upon the relationship of petitioner Rodolfo Fernandez to the deceased spouses Fernandez for the purpose of determining what legal right Rodolfo has in the property subject of the extra-judicial partition. In fact, the issue of whether or not Rodolfo Fernandez was the son of the deceased spouses Jose Fernandez and Generosa de Venecia was squarely raised by petitioners in their pre-trial brief filed before the trial court, hence they are now estopped from assailing the trial court’s ruling on Rodolfo’s status.

    Critical to the heirs’ case was the baptismal certificate of Primitivo Espineli, used to prove his filiation to Vicente. Petitioners argued it was insufficient proof of filiation. The Court addressed this by stating that baptismal certificates are admissible as evidence, especially when they are the primary records available for births occurring before the institutionalization of civil registries. The Supreme Court has historically recognized the probative value of parochial records maintained by parish priests. As such, the baptismal certificate was considered competent evidence to establish the filial link between Primitivo and Vicente, legitimizing the respondents’ claim as heirs.

    The Court also examined whether the petitioners, the Fidels, could be considered buyers in good faith. This concept protects individuals who purchase property believing the seller has the right to sell it. The Court clarified that because the land was unregistered, the principle of good faith does not apply. Tax declarations are not equivalent to a Torrens title and do not provide constructive notice to the whole world. Thus, the Fidels could not claim the protection afforded to buyers in good faith in registered land transactions.

    Ultimately, the Court addressed the lower court’s award of damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents. The Court held that there was insufficient factual basis to justify these awards. Moral damages require proof of moral suffering, and attorney’s fees must be substantiated with evidence of actual expenses. Since the respondents failed to provide this evidence, the Court removed these awards.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the respondents, as heirs of Primitivo Espineli, had the legal personality to file a complaint for annulment of sale without first establishing their filiation to Vicente Espineli in a separate action.
    Is a baptismal certificate valid evidence of filiation? Yes, the Supreme Court held that a baptismal certificate is a valid and competent evidence to prove filiation, particularly for births occurring before the widespread use of civil registries.
    Can heirship be determined within a property dispute? Yes, the court can rule on the issue of heirship within a property dispute, especially when the opposing party has raised the issue in their pre-trial documents. This negates the necessity to file a separate action.
    What did the Court decide about the deed of sale? The Court declared the original deed of sale purportedly signed by Vicente Espineli void because it was signed after his death, making it a forgery and violating Article 1409 of the Civil Code.
    Are the petitioners considered buyers in good faith? No, the petitioners were not considered buyers in good faith because the land was unregistered, and a tax declaration does not provide constructive notice.
    What happened to the damages awarded by the trial court? The Supreme Court deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees, as there was no sufficient factual basis to support these awards.
    What is the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision to reconvey the property to the Estate of Vicente Espineli, ordering that proper proceedings be instituted to determine the latter’s heirs.
    Does this ruling have broader implications for inheritance disputes? Yes, this ruling clarifies the admissibility of baptismal certificates and confirms that heirship can be determined within the context of property disputes, streamlining the legal process for rightful heirs.

    This case emphasizes the importance of proving familial relationships in property disputes and clarifies the types of evidence that courts will consider valid. This decision provides guidance for heirs seeking to assert their rights and navigate the complexities of inheritance law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. EDGARDO AND NATIVIDAD FIDEL VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 168263, July 21, 2008

  • Parental Incest: Establishing Minority of the Victim Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Rape Cases

    In People v. Jimmy Jacob, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for incestuous rape, emphasizing the importance of proving the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt when the offender is a parent. The Court underscored that when rape is committed against a minor by a parent, the death penalty can be imposed, provided the victim’s age is convincingly proven through documents such as birth or baptismal certificates. This decision reinforces the protection of children within familial settings and clarifies the evidentiary standards required to establish the qualifying circumstances for imposing the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape. The ruling serves as a stern warning against parental abuse and provides guidelines for the admissibility of evidence to ascertain a victim’s age.

    When a Father’s Betrayal Meets the Stringent Standards of Proof

    The case of People v. Jimmy Jacob revolves around the accusations against Jimmy Jacob for allegedly raping his 14-year-old daughter, Celina. The incidents were reported to have occurred in his living quarters in Nasugbu, Batangas, where he was working. Celina recounted the horrifying experiences of being sexually abused by her father on two consecutive nights, which led to her filing a complaint after escaping to her aunt’s house. The central legal issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that Celina was under eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, which would qualify the rape as incestuous and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

    The prosecution presented Celina’s testimony and a medico-legal certificate indicating lacerations on her hymen, consistent with sexual assault. To establish Celina’s age, the prosecution presented her baptismal certificate, asserting that she was born on September 23, 1980, making her fifteen years old at the time of the rape. The defense, however, argued that the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, questioning the credibility of Celina’s testimony and the sufficiency of the baptismal certificate to prove her age. The accused denied the charges and alleged that his brother-in-law was the actual perpetrator, further claiming that Celina was influenced to accuse him.

    The trial court found Jimmy Jacob guilty, relying heavily on Celina’s straightforward and candid testimony. It dismissed the defense of alibi and denial as unconvincing. The accused-appellant insisted that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for his conviction. He claimed that the testimony of the complaining witness was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. Accused-appellant belabored to impress the Court that it was highly improbable for him to have perpetrated the crime of rape as the “barracks” was occupied by many individuals.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of establishing the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt in rape cases, particularly when the death penalty is sought. The Court addressed the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence to prove the victim’s age. The Court acknowledged the defense’s argument that the prosecution must prove with certainty that the victim was below eighteen years old when the rape was committed to justify the imposition of the death penalty. Referencing People v. Tipay, the Supreme Court stated:

    In People v. Tipay the presentation of certificate of live birth or other equally acceptable official document concerning date of birth is vital and essential to ascertain the age of the victim. Such independent proof can only be dispensed with in cases where the court can take judicial notice of the victim’s tender age in view of the manifest minority of the victim who may be below ten (10) years old.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that in cases where the victim’s age is not manifestly below ten years old, the prosecution must provide concrete evidence to establish minority. In the specific circumstances of this case, the Court found that the prosecution successfully demonstrated Celina’s minority through her testimony and the presentation of her baptismal certificate. The Court validated the use of a baptismal certificate as an acceptable form of evidence to establish the victim’s age, aligning with previous rulings. The Court in People v. Liban was more categorical:

    x x x the Court has consistently adhered to the idea that the victim’s minority must not only be specifically alleged in the information but must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt during trial x x x x The birth certificate of the victim or, in lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate, school records and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial evidence that can help establish the age of the victim should be presented.

    The Court emphasized that minority must be specifically alleged in the information and established beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial. While a birth certificate is preferred, other documentary evidence, such as a baptismal certificate, school records, or credible testimonial evidence, can also suffice. In light of these precedents, the Supreme Court found that the baptismal certificate, coupled with Celina’s testimony, sufficiently proved that she was fifteen years old at the time of the rape. The Court underscored that the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender, both alleged in the information and duly established during the trial, justified the conviction of the accused-appellant for qualified rape on two counts and the imposition of the death penalty in each case.

    The Court also addressed the civil liabilities of the accused, increasing the civil indemnity to P75,000.00 for each count of rape, in addition to the moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count, aligning with prevailing jurisprudence. This adjustment underscores the Court’s commitment to providing adequate compensation to victims of such heinous crimes. The Court’s decision in People v. Jimmy Jacob clarifies the standards for proving the age of the victim in cases of incestuous rape and reinforces the importance of protecting minors from parental abuse. It affirms the admissibility of baptismal certificates as evidence of age and highlights the severe penalties for offenders who violate the trust and safety of their children.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under eighteen years old at the time of the rape, which is a qualifying circumstance for imposing the death penalty when the offender is a parent.
    What evidence did the prosecution present to prove the victim’s age? The prosecution presented the victim’s testimony that she was born on September 23, 1980, and a baptismal certificate showing her birth date. The court found that these were sufficient to prove that she was fifteen years old at the time of the rape.
    Why was it important to prove the victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt? Proving the victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt was crucial because the death penalty can be imposed if the victim is under eighteen years old and the offender is a parent. This requirement is based on Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
    Can a baptismal certificate be used as proof of age in court? Yes, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a baptismal certificate can be used as documentary evidence to establish the age of the victim, especially when it is corroborated with other evidence such as the victim’s testimony.
    What was the accused’s defense in this case? The accused denied the charges and claimed that his brother-in-law was the actual perpetrator. He also argued that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and that the prosecution failed to prove her age beyond reasonable doubt.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the accused guilty of incestuous rape and upholding the death penalty. The Court ruled that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the victim’s minority and the accused’s relationship to her.
    What is civil indemnity, and how much was awarded in this case? Civil indemnity is monetary compensation awarded to the victim to cover damages suffered as a result of the crime. In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the accused to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape, in addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages for each count.
    What are the implications of this ruling for similar cases in the future? This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting minors from parental abuse and provides clear guidelines for the admissibility of evidence to ascertain a victim’s age. It also highlights the severe penalties for offenders who violate the trust and safety of their children.

    The decision in People v. Jimmy Jacob serves as a crucial reminder of the legal standards required in prosecuting cases of incestuous rape, particularly when the death penalty is sought. It underscores the need for concrete evidence to establish the victim’s minority and reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting vulnerable members of society from heinous crimes. The ruling also clarifies the use of baptismal certificates as a valid form of documentary evidence, ensuring that justice is served while adhering to stringent legal standards.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Jimmy Jacob, G.R. Nos. 138576-77, July 13, 2001

  • Birth Certificate vs. Baptismal Certificate: Proving Filiation in Philippine Inheritance Law

    Birth Certificate Trumps Baptismal Certificate: Why It Matters in Inheritance Disputes

    In Philippine inheritance law, proving your lineage is crucial, especially when claiming property rights. This case definitively clarifies that while baptismal certificates hold religious significance, they are secondary to birth certificates as legal proof of filiation. Simply put, when it comes to establishing who your parents are for inheritance purposes, a birth certificate carries far more weight in the eyes of the law. Don’t rely solely on baptismal records if you need to legally prove your family ties.

    G.R. Nos. 106314-15, October 08, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine inheriting land passed down through generations, only to have your claim challenged based on a centuries-old baptismal record. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s the crux of many inheritance disputes in the Philippines. Proving filiation—your legal parentage—is often the first hurdle in claiming your rightful inheritance. The case of *Heirs of Pedro Cabais vs. Court of Appeals* highlights a critical distinction: the evidentiary weight of a birth certificate versus a baptismal certificate in establishing legal parentage for inheritance purposes.

    In this case, the heirs of Pedro Cabais fought to uphold their ownership of land inherited from their ancestor, Eustaquia Cañeta. Their title was challenged by other claimants who presented a baptismal certificate to dispute Pedro Cabais’s lineage. The central legal question became: which document holds more weight in proving filiation – a birth certificate or a baptismal certificate?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES IN PHILIPPINE LAW

    Philippine law meticulously outlines how filiation, or legal parent-child relationships, is established. This is primarily governed by the Family Code and relevant jurisprudence, emphasizing the importance of official records in proving kinship, especially for inheritance claims.

    The Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Rule 130, Section 44, addresses the admissibility and evidentiary value of official records. It states: “Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” A birth certificate, registered with the civil registrar, falls squarely under this rule. It is considered a public document created by a public officer in the performance of their duties, making it strong prima facie evidence of the facts stated within, including parentage.

    On the other hand, baptismal certificates, while important religious documents, are not considered public documents in the same legal sense, especially post-General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190. The Supreme Court in *US vs. Evangelista* clarified that church registers after these enactments are no longer considered public writings maintained by public officials. Consequently, baptismal certificates are treated as private documents and considered hearsay evidence when used to prove filiation.

    Jurisprudence consistently reiterates the limited evidentiary value of baptismal certificates for proving filiation. As the Supreme Court underscored in *Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals*, a baptismal certificate primarily proves the administration of the sacrament of baptism, not the veracity of kinship declarations contained within it. Its evidentiary value is confined to confirming the baptism itself, the date, and the officiating priest, not the biological relationships stated therein.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE CABAIS HEIRS’ FIGHT FOR THEIR LAND

    The saga began after Pedro Cabais inherited a parcel of land in Tabaco, Albay, from his grandmother, Eustaquia Cañeta. Pedro’s mother, Felipa Cañeta Buesa, Eustaquia’s only daughter, had passed away earlier, leading to Pedro inheriting by right of representation. He formalized his claim through a Deed of Self-Adjudication and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-55640 in his name.

    However, this peaceful ownership was short-lived. Soon after, a complaint for partition and accounting (Civil Case No. T-567) was filed against Pedro Cabais by other Cañeta heirs, but this case was eventually dismissed due to the plaintiffs being non-suited. Tragically, Pedro Cabais passed away during the pendency of this initial case. Taking advantage of his death, the respondents in the present case entered the disputed property and built houses, dispossessing Pedro’s heirs.

    The Heirs of Pedro Cabais then filed Civil Case No. T-1283 for quieting of title and recovery of possession. In response, the respondents initiated Civil Case No. T-1284, seeking annulment of Pedro Cabais’s title, claiming co-ownership and alleging fraud in the title issuance. Crucially, the respondents presented a baptismal certificate of Felipa Cañeta Buesa, arguing it named Gregoria Cañeta, not Eustaquia, as Felipa’s mother, thereby challenging Pedro’s claim of being Eustaquia’s heir.

    The Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the Cabais heirs, quieting their title and citing res judicata based on the dismissal of the earlier Civil Case No. T-567. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC reversed its decision, giving credence to the baptismal certificate and questioning Felipa’s parentage. This reversal prompted the Cabais heirs to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which unfortunately affirmed the RTC’s reconsidered decision.

    Undeterred, the Heirs of Pedro Cabais elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the lower courts’ decisions. It zeroed in on the evidentiary value accorded to the baptismal certificate.

    The Supreme Court stated:

    “The Order under attack disregarded the limited evidentiary value of a baptismal certificate in this jurisdiction vis-à-vis a birth certificate… a baptismal certificate, a private document, which, being hearsay, is not a conclusive proof of filiation. It does not have the same probative value as a record of birth, an official or public document.”

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted a glaring inconsistency: the baptismal certificate of Gregoria Cañeta, the supposed mother in the baptismal certificate presented by respondents, indicated she was born only about a year before Felipa. This improbability further weakened the respondents’ claim.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the original decision of the Regional Trial Court, quieting the title of the Heirs of Pedro Cabais. The Court firmly established that in matters of filiation for inheritance, a birth certificate outweighs a baptismal certificate.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SECURING YOUR INHERITANCE RIGHTS

    The *Cabais* case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of proper documentation in securing inheritance rights in the Philippines. It underscores that while baptismal certificates hold religious significance, they are not substitutes for birth certificates when legally proving filiation, especially in property disputes.

    For individuals and families, this ruling emphasizes the need to:

    • Prioritize Birth Certificates: Ensure birth certificates are properly registered and readily available. These are primary documents for proving parentage in legal proceedings, including inheritance claims.
    • Understand the Limitations of Baptismal Certificates: Recognize that baptismal certificates are secondary evidence of filiation. While they can corroborate other evidence, they are insufficient on their own to legally establish parentage for inheritance purposes.
    • Address Discrepancies Early: If there are discrepancies or issues with birth records, take proactive steps to rectify them through legal means. Don’t wait until inheritance disputes arise.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: In inheritance matters, especially those involving complex family histories or challenges to filiation, consult with a lawyer specializing in estate law. Professional legal advice is crucial to navigate these intricate situations.

    Key Lessons from the Cabais Case:

    • Birth Certificates are Paramount: For legal proof of filiation in the Philippines, particularly in inheritance cases, birth certificates are the gold standard.
    • Baptismal Certificates are Secondary: Baptismal certificates are not conclusive proof of filiation and hold significantly less evidentiary weight than birth certificates in legal disputes.
    • Document Accuracy Matters: The accuracy and official nature of documents are critical in legal battles over inheritance. Ensure your family’s vital records are correct and complete.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is filiation and why is it important in inheritance?

    A: Filiation refers to the legal relationship between a parent and child. It’s crucial in inheritance because only legal heirs, those with established filiation to the deceased, can inherit property.

    Q: Is a baptismal certificate completely useless in proving inheritance?

    A: Not entirely useless, but its value is limited. It can be considered as secondary or circumstantial evidence, potentially supporting other stronger forms of proof, but it cannot stand alone to prove filiation for inheritance purposes, especially when a birth certificate is absent or contested.

    Q: What if my birth certificate is lost or doesn’t exist?

    A: If a birth certificate is unavailable, you’ll need to rely on secondary evidence to prove filiation. This might include older public or private documents, family records, testimonies, and potentially even baptismal certificates as corroborating evidence. However, proving filiation without a birth certificate can be more challenging and may require legal proceedings to establish parentage.

    Q: Can a baptismal certificate ever outweigh a birth certificate?

    A: Generally, no. A properly registered birth certificate holds significantly greater legal weight. Unless there is compelling evidence proving the birth certificate is fraudulent or invalid, it will almost always supersede a baptismal certificate in matters of filiation.

    Q: What should I do if I anticipate an inheritance dispute related to proving my parentage?

    A: Consult with a lawyer specializing in estate and family law immediately. Gather all available documents, including birth certificates, baptismal certificates, marriage certificates, and any other relevant family records. A lawyer can assess your situation, advise on the best course of action, and represent you in any legal proceedings.

    ASG Law specializes in Estate Law and Inheritance Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.