Dear PAO,

My brother, Xolo, and I were adopted and raised by a rich woman who ran several businesses. Unfortunately, our adoption did not go through the legal process. Apparently, two of our “mother’s” housemaids had gotten pregnant a year apart and then left their babies, namely us, in her care.

Our “mother” died a few months ago, and now her biological son says that he is her only legal heir, which truly stunned us. He says that he will get everything since she left no last will and testament. Is he correct in saying this? Are we not entitled to inherit from her estate?

-Xochitl

Dear Xochitl,

Unfortunately, the biological son of the woman who raised you is correct in saying that he is her sole legal heir. You and your brother, Xolo, may not inherit from her estate.

Indeed, the Honorable Supreme Court, speaking through Honorable Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, in the case of Amelia P. Arellano, et al. vs. Francisco Pascual, et al. (G.R. No. 189776, December 15, 2010), stated who are the compulsory heirs of a decedent are, or those entitled to inherit from one’s estate, in the following:

“The compulsory heirs may be classified into (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) concurring. The primary compulsory heirs are those who have precedence over and exclude other compulsory heirs; legitimate children and descendants are primary compulsory heirs. The secondary compulsory heirs are those who succeed only in the absence of the primary heirs; the legitimate parents and ascendants are secondary compulsory heirs. The concurring compulsory heirs are those who succeed together with the primary or the secondary compulsory heirs; the illegitimate children, and the surviving spouse are concurring compulsory heirs.”

In connection with the foregoing, the Honorable Supreme Court, speaking through Honorable Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, in the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005), stated that adoption should have given you the same rights as the adopting parents’ real children in the following:

“Adoption is defined as the process of making a child, whether related or not to the adopter, possess in general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child. It is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates between two persons a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation. The modern trend is to consider adoption not merely as an act to establish a relationship of paternity and filiation, but also as an act which endows the child with a legitimate status. xxx

“One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 18921 of the Family Code and Section 1722 Article V of RA 8552.” (Emphasis ours)

In your case, however, you freely admitted that you and your brother, Xolo, are the children of the housemaids of the woman who raised you. While she raised and treated you and Xolo as if you were her own, she never legally adopted both of you. As such, you and your brother cannot be considered as her compulsory heirs. This is especially true due to the existence of her biological son. He is her true heir and the one who solely inherited her estate.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].