Legitimes: Compulsory Heirs
Tayag vs CA
PROPERTY INVOLVES SEVERAL MILLIONS OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTIES.
FACTS:
(1)Respondent Emilie Cayugan in her capacity as the mother and the legal guardian of minor
Chad D. Cayugan filed a complaint of Claim for Inheritance against the Petitioner Corito
Ocampo who is the administratix of the estate of the late Atty. Ocampo.
(2)Respondent Emilie Cayugan has been estranged from her husband, Jose Cayugan.
Respondent and Atty. Ocampo had an illicit relationship with each other. As a result of the
illicit relationship, they begot a child named Chad Cuyugan.
(3)Chad had been showered with exceptional affection, fervent love and care by the putative
father for being his only son. This affection can be proven through letters and documents.
(4) RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION:
a. although he is illegitimate he is nevertheless entitled to a share in the intestate estate left
by his deceases father, AS ONE OF THE SURVIVING HEIRS.
b. she is asking for a financial support from the estate of the putative father for she has no
means of livelihood and she only depends on the charity
c. the plaintiff refused to satisfy the claim for the inheritance against the estate of the
deceased.
(5) The estate of the deceased has not as yet been inventoried by the defendant and the
inheritance of the surviving heirs including Chad has not been likewise been ascertained.
(6) PETITIONER'S CONTENTION: FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS
IMPORTANT GROUND: the complaint merely alleged that the minor Chad is an illegitimate of
the child of the deceased and actually asking for the claim of the inheritance, --THIS MAYBE
CONSIDERED AS ONE TO COMPEL RECOGNITION. Also, the letters and documents are not a
sufficient evidence, the father can no longer testify that he really made it and to establish
such filiation child must brought the action during the lifetime of the father.
a. action is premature
b. no cause of action
c. barred of prescription
d. she has no legal standing and no judicial personality
e. court has no jurisdiction
(7) RTC: ordered that the motion to dismiss be denied.
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Chad has the right to claim over his share of inheritance in the estate
of the deceased?
HELD:
Yes. Chad has the right to claim over his share on the estate of the deceased.
RATIONALE:
(THE MOTHER PROVED THE FILIATION OF THE SON AND HE FILED IT WITHIN THE
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD)
In this case, SC ruled that if the action is based on the record of birth of the child, final
judgment, or an admission by the parent of the child's filiation in a public document or in a
private handwritten signed instrument, then the action may be brought during the lifetime of
the child. However, if the action is based on the continuous possession by the child of the
status of an illegitimate child, that the action must be brought during the lifetime of the
alleged parent.
ARTICLE 285 of the Civil Code is the controlling factor since the alleged parent died during the
the minority of the child, the action of the for the filiation may be filed within four years from
the attainment of the majority of the minor. The trial court is therefore, correct in applying
the provisions of Article 285 of the Civil Code and in holding that private respondent's cause
of action has not yet prescribed.
Moreover, the right of the action of the minor child has been vested by filing of the
complaint in court under the regime of the CIvil Code and prior to the effectivity of the
Family Code.
CITED CASE: Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. where we held that the
fact of filing of the petition already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the
same proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the time, and such
right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law.
NOTE:
Art. 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the
lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:
(1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may
file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority;
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on
the same evidence as legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the
action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be
brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
EXCERPT FROM THE LETTERS OF THE DECEASED TO THE RESPONDENT
. Keep good keep faith keep Chad and yourself for me alone and for me all the time. As I have
now I shall save my heart to you and to Chad.
. . . Please take good care and pray to Sto. Niño for our sake and for the child sake.
. . . Keep him. Take good care of him.
. . . I'm proud that you are his mother. . . I'm proud of him and you. Let me bless him by my
name and let me entitle him to all what I am and what I've got.
. . . I have vowed to recognize him and be my heir.
. . . How is CHAD and you . . .
. . . Why should we not start now to own him, jointly against the whole world. After all we
love each other and CHAD is the product of our love.
UYGUANGCO VS CA G.R. No. 76873 October 26, 1989
CRUZ, J.
Facts:
In the year 1975, Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate leaving his wife, Dorotea, four
legitimate children (her co-petitioners herein), and considerable properties which they
divided among themselves. Graciano Bacjao Uyguangco claims that he is an illegitimate son
of Apolinario and filed a complaint for partition against all the petitioners because he was
left out in the extrajudicial settlement of Apolinario’s estate. Graciano alleged he is the son of
Apolinario Uyguangco and Anastacia Bacjao and he received support from his father while he
was studying at the Medina High School, where he eventually graduated. Here He was also
assigned by his father, without objection from the rest of the family, as storekeeper at the
Uyguangco store in Mananom from 1967 to 1973. During the course of the trial, the
petitioners alleged that Graciano failed to present any documents mentioned in Article 278
to show that he was the illegitimate son of Apolinario Uyguangco. . The petitioners moved
for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the private respondent could no longer prove
his alleged filiation under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code because .
Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent is allowed to prove his alleged filiation under the
second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the problem of the private respondent is that, since he seeks to
prove his filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, his action is
now barred because of his alleged father's death in 1975. The second paragraph of this
Article 175 reads as follows:
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the
action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be
brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce
evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove
his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws.
The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard
on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.
Petition Granted.
G.R. No. 112229. March 18, 1997]
RAYMOND PE LIM, petitioner,
COURT OF APPEALS, JOANNA ROSE C. PE LIM, Minor represented by her Natural Mother
and Guardian, MARIBEL CRUZ y TAYAG, respondents.
FACTS
In 1978, the petitioner Raymond Lim and respondent Maribel Cruz fist met in a club along
Roxas Boulevard on the very first day when the latter was just sixteen years old and working
as an attendant in the said club. The petitioner showed interest to the respondent and
started courting her which he succeeded. They started cohabiting in different areas in Manila
in which the petitioner was the one paying for their rentals. In July 1981, Maribel already
pregnant, left for Japan but returned in October of the same year.
In January 1982, Maribel gave birth to their daughter and it was the petition who shouldered
the hospitalization and even caused the registration of the name Joanna Rose Pe Lim on the
child’s birth certificate.
Towards the latter part of 1983, Maribel noticed that the petitioner’s feeling towards her
started to wane. It resulted to the petitioner’s abandonment of Maribel and their daughter.
Respondent tried to support themselves that it was never enough so that she sought for
support from the petitioner who kept on promising but nothing had been made. Hence, a
complaint was filed against the petitioner for support. However, the petitioner contended
that it was Maribel who insisted for them have that kind of intimacy which he never deemed
it as such. He even insinuated that he was not the father of the child considering the nature
of Maribel’s work as an entertainer. More so, the payment he made upon all expenses was
just a gesture of generosity since he wanted to help her out of that hard situation that she
was in with the promise that she is going to pay him back. Nevertheless, the RTC ruled in
favor of Maribel and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner’s acts would stand as evidence to justify his paternity.
HOLDING
Yes. Article 172 (2) states “An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parents.” In this case the tenor of the
petitioner is that they are not just friends as claimed by the petitioner. It is clear that the
petitioner is the father of the child since he executed all responsibilities which undeniably
showed concern of a legitimate father such as payment of hospital bill, causing the
registration of the child using his surname and lastly the lines in his letters which much love
and concern to Maribel and their daughter
QUESTION
The alleged father did not sign the birth certificate of his alleged child. However, his name was entered in
the said document by the registrar. Could it a valid and competent evidence of his paternity?
Answer:
No, it is an incompetent evidence of his paternity because it should be voluntarily and actually signed by
the father himself.
ILANO v. CA
G.R. No. 104376 February 23, 1994
NOCON, J.
FACTS:
Ø Leoncia first met petitioner Artemio G. Ilano while she was working as secretary to Atty.
Mariano C. Virata.
Ø Leoncia, then managing a business of her own as Namarco distributor, met petitioner
again. Later, he courted her more than four years. Their relationship became intimate and
with his promise of marriage, they eloped.
Ø While they were living at Makati, private respondent Merceditas S. Ilano was born Her
birth was recorded as Merceditas de los Santos Ilano, child of Leoncia Aguinaldo de los
Santos and Artemio Geluz Ilano. Inasmuch as it was already past seven o'clock in the
evening, the nurse promised to return the following morning for his signature. However, he
left an instruction to give birth certificate to Leoncia for her signature, as he was leaving early
the following morning.
Ø During the time that petitioner and Leoncia were living as husband and wife, he showed
concern as the father of Merceditas. When Merceditas was in Grade I at the St. Joseph
Parochial School, he signed her Report Card for the fourth and fifth grading periods
Ø CA REVERSED RTC judgment declaring plaintiff MERCEDITAS S. ILANO as the duly
acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child.
ISSUE:
W/N MERCEDITAS S. ILANO is the duly acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child.
HELD: Petition is DENIED. CA affirmed.
YES.
Ø Under the then prevailing provisions of the Civil Code, illegitimate children or those who
are conceived and born out of wedlock were generally classified into: (1) Natural, whether
actual or by fiction, were those born outside of lawful wedlock of parents who, at the time of
conception of the child, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other (2)
Spurious, whether incestuous, were disqualified to marry each other on account of certain
legal impediments. Since petitioner had a subsisting marriage to another at the time
Merceditas was conceived, she is a spurious child. Rights of an illegitimate child arose not
because he was the true or real child of his parents but because under the law, he had been
recognized or acknowledged as such a child. A recognition once validly made is irrevocable.
It cannot be withdrawn. A mere change of mind would be incompatible with the stability of
the civil status of person, the permanence of which affects public interest. Even when the act
in which it is made should be revocable, the revocation of such act will not revoke the
recognition itself. To be sure, to establish "the open and continuous possession of the status
of an illegitimate child," it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements.
"Continuous" does not, however, mean that the concession of status shall continue forever
but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues (De Jesus v.
Syquia, 58 Phil. 866). The possession of such status means that the father has treated the
child as his own, directly and not through other, spontaneously and without concealment
though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate). There must be a showing of the
permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his own, by continuous
and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care.
Ø The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not sufficient to offset the totality of the
evidence indubitably showing that the signature thereon belongs to him. The entry in the
Certificate of Live Birth that Leoncia and Artemio was falsely stated therein as married does
not mean that Merceditas is not appellee's daughter. This particular entry was caused to be
made by Artemio himself in order to avoid embarrassment.
Ø It is difficult to believe that plaintiffs mother, who is a mere dressmaker, had long
beforehand diabolically conceived of a plan to make it appear that defendant, who claims to
be a total stranger to be a total stranger, was the father of her child, and in the process
falsified the latter's signatures and handwriting.
Ø The natural, logical and coherent evidence of plaintiff from the genesis of the relationship
between Leoncia and appellee, their living together as circumstances of plaintiff's birth, the
acts of appellee in recognizing and supporting plaintiff, find ample support from the
testimonial and documentary evidence which leaves no room to reasonably doubt his
paternity which may not be infirmed by his belated denials.
Ø Any other evidence or proof that the defendant is the father is broad enough to render
unnecessary the other paragraphs of this article. When the evidence submitted in the action
for compulsory recognition is not sufficient to meet requirements of the first three
paragraphs, it may still be enough under the last paragraph. This paragraph permits hearsay
and reputation evidence, as provided in the Rules of Court, with respect to illegitimate filiatio
Ø As a necessary consequence of the finding that private respondent is the spurious child of
petitioner, she is entitled to support. In awarding support to her, respondent court took into
account the following:
Ø The obligation to give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a
right to recover the same needs it for maintenance, but it shall not be paid except from the
date of judicial or extrajudicial demand.
Ø The complaint in this case was filed on August 14, 1972. Plaintiff, having been born on
December 30, 1963, was about 9 years old at the time and was already of school age
spending about P400.00 to P500.00 a month for her school expenses alone, while defendant
was earning about P10,000.00 a month. She is therefore entitled to support in arrears for a
period of 12 years, 4 months and 14 days, which is hereby fixed at P800.00 a month for the
1st 3 years; and considering the declining value of the peso as well as her needs as she grows
older, at a graduated increase of P1,000.00 a month for the next 3 years; P1,300.00 a month
for the succeeding 3 years; and P1,500.00 a month for the last 3 years, 4 months and 14 days
until she attained the age of majority.
Ø This being an action for legal support, the award of attorney's fees is appropriate under
Article 2208 (6) of the Civil Code. Moreover, the court deems it just and equitable under the
given facts and circumstances that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be
recovered.
ARTURIO TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
G.R. No. 118904 April 20, 1998
Facts:
Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the parents of three (3) children, namely,
Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. When Patricio died in 1940, survived by the above named
children, he left four (4) parcels of land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo Aklan.
Arturio Trinidad, born on July 21, 1943, claimed to be the legitimate son of the late Inocentes
Trinidad. Sometime after the marriage, he demanded from the defendants to partition the
land into three equal shares and to give him the (1/3) individual share of his late father, but
the defendants refused.
Arturio Trinidad filed, an action for partition of four parcels of land. Defendants denied that
plaintiff was the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. Defendants contended that Inocentes
was single when he died in 1941, before plaintiff’s birth. Defendants also denied that plaintiff
had lived with them, and claimed that the parcels of land described in the complaint had
been in their possession since the death of their father in 1940 and that they had not given
plaintiff a share in the produce of the land.
Arturio presented witnesses to prove his position. Jovita Gerardo testified that Inocentes
Trinidad and Felicidad Molato are the parents of Arturio; that Felix and Lourdes as the uncle
and aunt of Arturio; and also identified pictures where the respondents were with Arturio
and his family.(At this stage of the trial, Felix Trinidad [died] without issue and he was
survived by his only sister, Lourdes Trinidad.) Another witness, ISABEL MEREN, 72 years old
and a widow testified that she knows Inocentes Trinidad as the father of Arturio Trinidad;
that she knew Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato as the parents of Arturio and that she
was present when they were married in New Washington, Aklan, by a protestant pastor by
the name of Lauriano Lajaylajay. She further testified that upon the death of Inocentes,
Lourdes took Arturio and cared for him. ARTURIO TRINIDAD, himself, was presented as
witness. As proof that he is the son of Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, he showed a
certificate of baptism, and a certificate of loss issued by the LCR that his birth certificate was
burned during World War 2. He also testified that he lived with Felix and Lourdes and
provided for his needs.
Ruling:
The partition of the late Patricios real properties requires preponderant proof that petitioner
is a co-owner or co-heir of the decedent’s estate. His right as a co-owner would, in turn,
depend on whether he was born during the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage
between his mother (Felicidad) and his putative father (Inocentes).
When the question of whether a marriage has been contracted arises in litigation, said
marriage may be proven by relevant evidence. To prove the fact of marriage, the following
would constitute competent evidence: the testimony of a witness to the matrimony, the
couple’s public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock, the
birth and the baptismal certificates of children born during such union, and the mention of
such nuptial in subsequent documents.
In the case at bar, petitioner secured a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of
Aklan that all records of births, deaths and marriages were lost, burned or destroyed during
the Japanese occupation of said municipality. Although the marriage contract is considered
the primary evidence of the marital union, petitioner’s failure to present it is not proof that
no marriage took place, as other forms of relevant evidence may take its place. In place of a
marriage contract, two witnesses were presented by petitioner: Isabel Meren and Jovita
Gerardo. It further gives rise to the disputable presumption that a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.
Petitioner also presented his baptismal certificate in which Inocentes and Felicidad were
named as the child’s father and mother, and family pictures.
The totality of petitioner’s positive evidence clearly preponderates over private respondent’s
self- serving negations.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The trial courts decision is REINSTATED.

On the other hand, defendants presented Pedro Briones who testified that Inocentes was not
married when he died in 1940s. Lourdes Trinidad also testified that she was not aware that
his brother married anybody and denied that Arturio lived with them. Beatriz Sayon also
testified that Inocentes died in 1941, and that Felicidad Molato had never been married to
Inocentes. The trial court rendered a twenty-page decision in favor of Arturio. The CA
reversed the decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner presented sufficient evidence of his parent’s marriage and his
filation.
Case Digest:
Rodriguez vs Court of Appeals 245 SCRA 150
G.R. No. 85723
June 19, 1995
QUIASON, J.:
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 2, 1988 in CA-G.R. SP No. 14276, which
allowed, in an action for compulsory recognition, the testimony of the mother of a natural
child on the identity of the putative father.
On October 15, 1986, an action for compulsory recognition and support was brought before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Baguio-Benguet, by respondent Alarito (Clarito) Agbulos
against Bienvenido Rodriguez, petitioner herein. At the trial, the plaintiff presented his
mother, Felicitas Agbulos Haber, as first witness. In the course of her direct examination, she
was asked by counsel to reveal the identity of the plaintiff's father but the defendant's
counsel raised a timely objection which the court sustained.
Issue:
In the instant petition for review on certiorari, petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals
erred:
(1) in not dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the order of the trial court
disallowing the testimony of Felicitas Agbulos Haber was interlocutory and could not be
reviewed separately from the judgment; and
(2) in reversing the said order and allowing the admission of said testimony.
Ruling:
Errors of judgment or of procedure, not relating to the court's jurisdiction nor involving grave
abuse of discretion, are not reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court (Villalon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 144 SCRA 443 [1986]). However, there are
exceptions to said rule. For instance, certiorari is justified in order to prevent irreparable
damages and injury to a party, where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised
his judgment, or where there may be danger of failure of justice. Certiorari may also be
availed of where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient (Presco v. Court of
Appeals, 192 SCRA 232 [1990]; Saludes v. Pajarillo, 78 Phil. 754 [1947]).
POTENCIANO v. REYNOSO
G.R. No. 140707 April 22, 2003.
PANGANIBAN, J.
FACTS:
Ø Felipe Pareja executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a parcel of land and all
improvements in favor of his illegitimate son defendant-appellant Manuel Jayme who later
claimed that the said sale was made to cover the payments he had made for the
hospitalization expenses of his father, he having been constrained to borrow money from
several people for the purpose.
Ø Before Felipe Pareja died, he executed a Last Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed
to herein appellees and appellant Manuel Jayme the lot in question while at the same time
recognizing them as his illegitimate children.
Ø 10 days after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor, spouses Manuel
and Natividad Jayme executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the property in favor of
defendant-appellant Norgene Potenciano who eventually filed an ejectment case against
plaintiff-appellee Dwight Reynoso.
Ø CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC, that the signatures of Felipe B. Pareja on the subject
Deeds of Sale had been forged
ISSUE: W/N Felipe B. Pareja’s unprobated Last Will and Testament as established filiation
therefore Manuel Jayme has the capacity to sue
HELD: Petition is DENIED.
YES.
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
acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required
Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution. Thus, a document acknowledged before a notary public has in
its favor the presumption of regularity. However, this presumption is not absolute and may
be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. To show that the signatures of
Pareja were forged on the questioned Deeds of Sale, petitioners presented Dwight Reynoso,
who was familiar with his handwriting; and Romeo Varona, a handwriting expert of the
National Bureau of Investigation. However, we are not unmindful of the rule that a finding of
forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts; the judge is still
required to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature. The CA
conducted its own independent examination of the signatures and concluded that the
striking differences between the questioned signatures. Atty. Duterte’s testimony as to the
latter Deed of Sale was completely belied by the other witnesses, who testified that Pareja
had signed as a witness in the latter’s own residence and not in the presence of the notary
public. Petitioner Potenciano himself admitted that Pareja, being already sickly at the time,
had signed in the latter’s own house and not in the presence of Notary Public Duterte. Since
the signature of the alleged vendor was a forgery, no rights were transferred from him to the
alleged vendees. In turn, the Jayme spouses could not have conveyed ownership of the
property to Petitioner Potenciano. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one
does not have.
De Jesus vs. Estate of Juan Dizon
G.R. No. 142877, October 2, 2001
FACTS:
Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus got married in August 1964. It was during this
marriage that Jacqueline A. de Jesus and Jinkie Christie A. de Jesus, herein petitioners, were
born. In a notarized document, dated June 7, 1991, Juan G. Dizon acknowledged Jacqueline
and Jinkie de Jesus as being his own illegitimate children by Carolina Aves de Jesus. Juan died
intestate in March 1992, leaving behind considerable assets consisting of shares of stock in
various corporations and some real property. It was on the strength of his notarized
acknowledgement that petitioners filed a complaint for “Partition with Inventory and
Accounting” of the Dizon estate with the RTC.
Respondent, the surviving spouse and legitimate children of the decedent, including the
corporations of which the deceased was a stockholder, sought the dismissal of the case,
arguing that the complaint, even while denominated as being one for partition, would
nevertheless call for altering the status of petitioners from being the legitimate children of
the spouses Danilo and Carolina de Jesus to instead be the
illegitimate children of Carolina de Jesus and deceased Juan Dizon.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are illegitimate children of decedent Juan Dizon entitled to inherit
from him
RULING:
No. A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during the valid
marriage of their parents Danilo and Carolina. The certificates of birth also identified Danilo
de Jesus as their father. There is a presumption in law that children born in wedlock are
legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is
physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days
which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the
husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact the husband and wife are living
separately in such a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the
husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the
expiration of the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171,of the Family
Code (which took effect on August 3, 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child
would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes
fixed and unassailable.
In an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan, petitioners, in effect,
would impugn their legitimate status as being children of Danilo and Carolina de Jesus. This
step cannot be aptly done because the law itself establishes the legitimacy of children
conceived or born during the marriage of the parents. The presumption of legitimacy fixes a
civil status for the child born in wedlock, and only the father, or in exceptional instances the
latter’s heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife.
Thus, it is only when the legitimacy of a child has been successfully impugned that the
paternity of the husband can be rejected.
Aguilar v Siasat
Facts:
Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar spouses) died, intestate
and without debts, Included in their estate are two parcels of land
In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod City (Bacolod RTC) a
civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against respondent Edna G. Siasat alleged
that petitioner is the only son and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he
(petitioner) discovered that the subject titles were missing, and thus he suspected that
someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen the same.
In her Answer,8 respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole surviving heir of
the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised by the Aguilar spouses out of
generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is not a natural or adopted child of the
Aguilar spouses; that since Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar,
the latter inherited the conjugal share of the former; that upon the death of Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as she had no issue; and that the
subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted to her for safekeeping by Candelaria Siasat-
Aguilar, who is her aunt. By way of counterclaim, respondent prayed for an award of moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner can not prove filiation to the Spouse Aguilar who is the owner of the
land due to the lost of his Certificate of Live Birth and Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1is a mere
proof of open and continuous possession.
Ruling:
No.
it must be concluded that petitioner – who was born on March 5, 1945, or during the
marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar28 and before their respective
deaths29 – has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. As
petitioner correctly argues, Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the
requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of
the Family Code; by itself, said document constitutes an "admission of legitimate filiation in a
public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned."
Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth since all the records
covering the period 1945-1946 of the Local Civil Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed,
which necessitated the introduction of other documentary evidence – particularly Alfredo
Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") – to prove filiation. It was erroneous for the CA to treat
said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation
under the first paragraph thereof, the same being an express recognition in a public
instrument.