Eceta vs Eceta Eceta vs Eceta GR No.

157037, May 20, 2004 FACTS: Rosalina Vda de Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta in 1926. They had a son named Vicente. The husband died in 1967 leaving Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory heirs. However, the deceased has an illegitimate daughter named Theresa whose grandmother was Rosalina, the petitioner. ISSUE: WON the admission made by Rosalina that Theresa was her granddaughter is enough to prove the filiation with the deceased. HELD: The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by: (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 thereof, 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. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. However, what was tried before the trial court and CA was for partition and accounting of damages only. The filiation or compusolry recognition by Vicente of Theresa was never put in issue. In fact both agreed in the trial courts pre trial order that Theresa was Rosalinas granddaughter. The deceased establishing acknowledgement of his paternity over Theresa nevertheless signed the duly authenticated birth certificate shown by the latter. Hence, the Court granted 1/8 share of the land to Theresa.

Constantino vs Mendez Constantino vs. Mendez 209 SCRA 18 FACTS: Michael Constantino, an illegitimate child, as represented by Amelita, her mother, sought monthly support from Ivan Mendez including Amelias complaint on damages. The latter and Amelita met in a restaurant in Manila where she was working as a waitress. Ivan invited him at his hotel and through promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Amelita, afterwards, he admitted being a married man. In spite of that, they repeated their sexual contact. Subsequently, she became pregnant and had to resign from work. Trial court ruled in favor of Amelita providing actual and moral damages, acknowledging Michael as Ivans illegitimate child and giving monthly support to the latter which was set aside by CA. ISSUE: WON the alleged illegitimate child is entitled for the monthly support. HELD: Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino. Sexual contact of Ivan and Amelita in the first or second week of November, 1974 is the crucial point that was not even established on direct examination as she merely testified that she had sexual intercourse with Ivan in the months of September, October and November, 1974. More so, Amelita admitted that she was attracted to Ivan and their repeated sexual intercourse indicated that passion and not alleged promise to marriage was the moving force to submit herself with Ivan. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Bernabe vs Alejo Bernabe vs. Alejo GR No. 140500, January 21, 2002 FACTS: The late Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary Carolina Alejo and was named Adrian Bernabe who was born on September 18, 1981. After Ernesto Bernabe and Rosalina (legal wife) died, the sole surviving heir left was Ernestina. Carolina, in behalf of his son Adrian, filed a complaint that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and be given a share of his fathers estate. Trial courts ruling: Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent to give the latter an opportunity to either affirm or deny the childs filiation. CA ruling: The rights of Adrian are governed under Article 285 of the Civil Code which allows an action for recognition to be filed within 4 years after the child has attained the age of majority and that subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away his right. ISSUE: Whether or not Adrian Bernabe may be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son. HELD: The Family Code makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new code a chance to dispute the claim, considering that illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. Furthermore, the grounds or instances for the acknowledgment of natural children are utilized to establish the filiation of spurious children. Hence, the petition wad denied and assailed decision was affirmed.

Jison vs CA Jison vs. CA GR No. 124853, February 24, 1998 FACTS: Private respondent, Monina Jison, instituted a complaint against petitioner, Francisco Jison, for recognition as illegitimate child of the latter. The case was filed 20 years after her mothers death and when she was already 39 years of age. Petitioner was married to Lilia Lopez Jison since 1940 and sometime in 1945, he impregnated Esperanza Amolar, Moninas mother. Monina alleged that since childhood, she had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as the illegitimate child of petitioner by his acts and that of his family. It was likewise alleged that petitioner supported her and spent for her education such that she became a CPA and eventually a Central Bank Examiner. Monina was able to present total of 11 witnesses. ISSUE: WON Monina should be declared as illegitimate child of Francisco Jison. HELD: Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children. Article 172 thereof provides the various forms of evidence by which legitimate filiation is established. To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously.

The following facts was established based on the testimonial evidences offered by Monina: That Francisco was her father and she was conceived at the time when her mother was employed by the former; 2. That Francisco recognized Monina as his child through his overt acts and conduct. 1. SC ruled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competence evidence as to the issue of paternity. Franciscos lack of participation in the preparation of baptismal certificates and school records render the documents showed as incompetent to prove paternity. With regard to the affidavit signed by Monina when she was 25 years of age attesting that Francisco was not her father, SC was in the position that if Monina were truly not Franciscos illegitimate child, it would be unnecessary for him to have gone to such great lengths in order that Monina denounce her filiation. Moninas evidence hurdles the high standard of proof required for the success of an action to establish ones illegitimate filiation in relying upon the provision on open and continuous possession. Hence, Monina proved her filiation by more than mere preponderance of evidence.

Since the instant case involves paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, Monina filed her action well within the period granted her by a positive provision of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would clearly be inequitable and unjust. Petition was denied.

Marquino vs IAC Marquino vs. IAC GR No. 72078, June 27, 1994 Eustiquio Marquino and Maria Terenal-Marquino (wife) survived by Luz Marquino, Ana Marquino and Eva Marquino legitimate children (Petitioners) Bibiana Romano-Pagadora survived by Pedro, Emy, June, Edgar, May, Mago, Arden and Mars Pagadora (Respondents) FACTS: Respondent Bibiana filed action for Judicial Declaration of Filiation, Annulment of Partition, Support and Damages against Eutiquio. Bibiana was born on December 1926 allegedly of Eutiquio and in that time was single. It was alleged that the Marquino family personally knew her since she was hired as domestic helper in their household at Dumaguete. She likewise received financial assistance from them hence, she enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child by direct and unequivocal acts of the father and his family. The Marquinos denied all these. Respondent was not able to finish presenting her evidence since she died on March 1979 but the sue for compulsory recognition was done while Eustiquio was still alive. Her heirs were ordered to substitute her as parties-plaintiffs. Petitioners, legitimate children of Eutiquio, assailed decision of respondent court in holding that the heirs of Bibiana, allegedly a natural child of Eutiquio, can continue the action already filed by her to compel recognition and the death of the putative parent will not extinguish such action and can be continued by the heirs substituting the said deceased parent. ISSUES: 1. WON right of action for acknowledgment as a natural child be transmitted to the heirs and 2. WON Article 173 can be given retroactive effect. HELD: SC ruled that right of action for the acknowledgment as a natural child can never be transmitted because the law does not make any mention of it in any case, not even as an exception. The right is purely a personal one to the natural child. The death of putative father in an action for recognition of a natural child can not be continued by the heirs of the former since the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. Such provision of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect so as to apply in the case at bar since it will prejudice the vested rights of petitioners transmitted to them at the time of death of their father. IAC decision was reversed and set aside. Complaint against Marquinos dismissed.