Plaintiff brought  this  action  before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan seeking  a  declaratory judgment on his  hereditary  rights in the k property  of his alleged father and incidentally the recognition of his  status as an illegitimate son of  Emigdio  Edades.

In his complaint, he alleges  that he is an illegitimate son of  Emigdio Edades with Maria de  Venecia,  having been born when said Emigdio Edades was legally married to Maxima Edades with whom Emigdio Had eight legitimate children; that he had always enjoyed the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the status of illegitimate child by direct and positive acts of his father  and of the legitimate children of the latter; that as such illegitimate child  he is entitled  to  share in the  inheritance  of his father tinder the law; and that as the legitimate children of his father will deny, as  in fact they have  denied his right to inherit, and such denial may ripen into a costly litigation, he brought the present action for, the determination of his hereditary rights.

Defendants, instead of answering, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint  does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  The court sustained the motion holding that "An action for declaratory relief just for the purpose of clearing  away doubt, uncertainty,  or insecurity to  the plaintiff's status  or rights would seem to be improper  and outside the purview  of a declaratory  relief.  Neither can it  be availed  of  for the purpose of  compelling recognition of  such rights, if disputed or objected to."  Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, without costs.  From the order of dismissal, plaintiff has appealed and  the  case was certified to this court because only questions of law are  involved in the appeal.

Under the law, an action for declaratory relief is proper when any person is interested "under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are  affected by a  statute or  ordinance" in order to  determine, any question of  construction or validity  arising  under  the instrument  or  statute, or  to declare his rights or duties thereunder  (section  1, Rule 66). Moreover,  the action should be predicated on the following conditions: (1) there must  be a  justiciable controversy; (2) the  controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse;  (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be  ripened for judicial  determination.   (Tolentino  vs. Board of Accountancy,  90 Phil., 83)

The present case does not  come within the purview of the law  authorizing an action for  declaratory  relief  for it neither concerns a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, nor does it  affect a statute or ordinance,  the construction or validity of which is involved.  Nor is it predicated on any justiciable controversy  for admittedly the alleged rights of inheritance which plaintiff desires to assert against the defendants as basis of the relief he is seeking for have not yet accrued for the simple reason that his alleged father Emigdio Edades  has not yet died.   In fact, he is one of the herein  defendants.  And the law is clear that "the rights to  the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death  of the decedent"  (Article 777, new Civil  Code).  Up to that moment, the right to succession is merely speculative for, in the  meantime, the law may change, the  will of the testator may vary, or the circumstances may be modified to such an extent that he who expects to receive property may be deprived of it. Indeed, the moment of death is the determining point when an heir acquires a definite right to the inheritance  (5 Manresa, 5th ed., 324) ?  This action therefore cannot be maintained if considered strictly as one for declaratory relief.

But the present action, though  captioned as  one  for declaratory relief, is not merely aimed at determining the hereditary right of the plaintiff to  eventually preserve his right to the property of his alleged father, but rather to establish his status as  illegitimate child  in order that, should his father die, his right .to inherit may, not  be disputed,  as at  present, by the other defendants who  are the legitimate  children of his father.   In fact, in paragraph 2 of  complainant's  prayer he  asks  that  defendants  be ordered to recognize  his status  as illegitimate child with right to inherit.  It is true that there is no express provision  in the  new Civil Code which  prescribe the  step that may be taken to establish such status as in case of a natural  child  who  can bring an  action  for recognition (Article 285), but this silence notwithstanding, we declare that a similar action may be  brought under  similar circumstances considering that an illegitimate child other than natural is now given successional rights and there is need to establish his status before such rights can be asserted and enforced.  This right is impliedly recognized by Article 289 which permits  the investigation of the paternity  or maternity of an illegitimate child in the same manner  as in the case of a natural child.  Considering that the rules of procedure shall be liberally  construed to promote their object and avoid an expensive litigation (section 2, Rule 1), we hold that the present  action may be maintained in the light of the view herein expressed.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is revoked.  The case is remanded to the trial  court for further proceedings in connection with the  determination of  the  alleged status of the plaintiff as  an illegitimate son of Emigdio Edades, without pronouncements as to costs.

Paras C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.