26. Angeles vs. Maglaya, G.R. No.

153789, September 2, 2015

Facts:
Aleli Corazon Angeles-Maglaya, the alleged sole legitimate child of
decedent Francisco M. Angeles and Genoveva Mercado, filed a petition for
letters of administration and her appointment as admminstratrix of the
intestate estate of the decedent. Belen Sagad Angeles, alleged legitimate
wife of the decedent, opposed said petition on the ground that Aleli could not
be the daughter of the decedent for, although she was recorded as
Franciscos legitimate daughter, her birth certificate was not signed by him
and she failed to present the marriage contract of her supposed parents.
Aleli alleged that the records of marriages of the Civil Registrar of Bacolor,
Pampanga where the alleged 1938 Francisco-Genoveva wedding took place,
were destroyed.
Issue:
Whether or not Aleli Corazon Angeles-Maglaya is the legitimate child of
decedent Francisco M. Angeles and Genoveva Mercado.
Held:
No. A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid
and lawful marriage. Remove the element of lawful union and there is strictly
no legitimate filiation between parents and child. Article 164 of the Family
Code cannot be more emphatic on the matter: Children conceived or born
during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.
27. Andal vs. Macaraig, 89 Phil. 165
Facts:
A parcel of land was given by Eduvigis Macaraig to her son Emiliano
Andal by virtue of a donation propter nuptias she has executed in his favor
on the occasion of his marriage to Maria Dueas.
Emiliano Andal became sick of tuberculosis in January 1941. Felix, his
brother, went to live in his house to help him in his farm. His sickness
became worse and he could hardly move and get up from his bed. On
September 10, 1942, Maria eloped with Felix, and both went to live in the
house of Maria's father, until the middle of 1943. Since May, 1942, Felix and
Maria had sexual intercourse and treated each other as husband and wife.
On January 1, 1943, Emiliano died without the presence of his wife, who did
not even attend his funeral. On June 17, 1943, Maria Dueas gave birth to a
boy, who was given the name of Mariano Andal. Upon the death of Emiliano,
Eduvigis entered the land in question.
Mariano Andal, a minor, assisted by his mother Maria, as guardian ad
litem, brought an action for the recovery of the ownership and possession of
a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talacop, Calabanga, Camarines Sur.
Issue:
Whether or not Mariano Andal is a legitimate son of Emiliano Andal.

Held:
Yes. Since the boy was born on June 17, 1943, and Emiliano Andal died
on January 1, 1943, that boy is presumed to be the legitimate son of Emiliano
and his wife, he having been born within three hundred (300) days following
the dissolution of the marriage. This presumption can only be rebutted by
proof that it was physically impossible for the husband to have had access to
his wife during the first 120 days of the 300 next preceding the birth of the
child.
28. Benitez-Badua vs. CA, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994
Facts:
The spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian never begot a
child. However, because of their desire to have one, the late Vicente took
Marissa from somewhere while still a baby, and without he and his wifes
legally adopting her, treated, cared for, reared, considered, and loved her as
their own true child, giving her the status of a legitimate daughter, such that
Marissa herself had believed that she was really their daughter and entitled
from them as such. The spouses registered the birth of Marissa at the Civil
Registry as her supposed parents.
Issue:
Whether or not the Marissa can be considered as an adopted daughter
of the Spouses Vicente and Isabel.
Held:
No. The mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the
child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption, does not confer upon
the child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights of such child, and
even amounts of simulation of the child's birth or falsification of his or her
birth certificate, which is a public document.
29. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, August 31,
2015
Facts:
Spouses Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte begot a child
named Jose Gerardo. However, during their marriage, Gerardo filed a petition
to have his marriage annulled with Ma. Theresa on the ground of bigamy for
Ma. Theresa was married to Mario Gopiao when they entered into a contract
of marriage. The petition was granted by the trial court. As a result, it
declared Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child and awarded the custody of
the child to Ma. Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. Theresa
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals questioning the visitation rights
granted to Gerardo. The Court of Appeals who, initially, affirmed in toto the
decision of the trial court but later, upon motion for reconsideration of Ma.
Theresa, reversed such decision holding that Jose Gerardo is not an
illegitimate child of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa but a legitimate child of
Theresa and Mario.
Issue:

Whether or not Jose Gerardo is considered as an illegitimate child of

Gerardo and Ma. Theresa.
Held:
No. Considering that Ma. Theresa was legitimately married to Mario,
and her marriage with Gerardo is considered void ab initio for being
bigamous, the child Jose Gerardo is therefore, under the law, considered as
the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between Ma.
Theresa and Mario. He cannot be deemed to be the illegitimate child of the
void and non-existent marriage between Ma. Theresa and Gerardo. Article
167 of the Family Code mandates that the child shall be considered
legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or
may have been sentenced as an adulteress.