Paternity filiation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 79

PATERNITY & FILIATION PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 631 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

PATERNITY & FILIATION. A. Concept of Paternity, Filiation & Legitimacy. Art. 163 - The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate. . Arbolario v. CA (2003).

Download Presentation

PATERNITY & FILIATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Paternity filiation

PATERNITY & FILIATION


A concept of paternity filiation legitimacy

A. Concept of Paternity, Filiation & Legitimacy

  • Art. 163 - The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.


Arbolario v ca 2003

Arbolario v. CA (2003)

  • Once a valid marriage is established, it is deemed to continue until proof that it has been legally ended is presented. Thus, the mere cohabitation of the husband with another woman will not give rise to a presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children born of the second union, until and unless there be convincing proof that the first marriage had been lawfully terminated; and the second, lawfully entered into.


B legitimate children

B. Legitimate Children

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child.


Tan v trocio 1990

Tan v. Trocio (1990)

A child born during the wedlock is presumed to be legitimate unless physical access between the couple was impossible.


Angeles v maglaya 2005

Angeles v. Maglaya (2005)

The presumption of legitimacy under Art. 164 of the Family Code may be availed only upon convincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the child’s parents were legally married and that his/her conception or birth occurred during the subsistence of that marriage.


Sayson v ca 1992

Sayson v. CA (1992)

The birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation, and may be refuted by contrary evidence. However, such evidence is lacking in the case at bar.


Sss v aguas 2006

SSS v. Aguas (2006)

There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption 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) physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse.


Rivera v heirs of villanueva 2006

Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva (2006)

  • It is well-settled that a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. It is not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested parties.


1 who are considered legitimate children

1. Who are considered legitimate children?

  • Conceived during marriage

  • Born during marriage

  • Conceived by artificial insemination

  • Adopted children

  • Legitimated children


2 rights of legitimate children

2. Rights of legitimate children

Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.


Paternity filiation

Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:

(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;

(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and

(3) To be entitled to the legitimate and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code. 


Moore v republic 1963

Moore v. Republic (1963)

Our laws do not authorize a legitimate child to use the surname of a person who is not his father.


Naldoza v republic 1982

Naldoza v. Republic (1982)

To allow them, at their mother’s behest, to bear only their mother’s surname (which they are entitled to use together with their father’s surname) and to discard altogether their father’s surname, thus removing the prima facie evidence of their paternal provenance or ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the minors and their father should be consulted.


Republic v ca

Republic v. CA

But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private respondent (a legitimate child of her parents) to bear her step-father’s surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him


Continental steel v montano 2009

Continental Steel v. Montano (2009)

  • Legitimacy of a child attaches upon his/her conception. In this case, it was not disputed that Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived during their marriage, hence, making said child legitimate upon her conception.


C ilegitimate children

C. Ilegitimate children

  • 1. Who are considered illegitimate?

    Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.


Joanie surposa uy v jose ngo chua 2009

Joanie SurposaUy v. Jose Ngo Chua (2009)

The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. Paternity and filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially established, and it is for the Court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties.

Compromise Agreement that petitioner also waived away her rights to future support and future legitime as an illegitimate child of respondent. Evidently, the Compromise Agreement between petitioner and respondent is covered by the prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code.


2 rights of illegitimate children

2. Rights of illegitimate children

Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.


Paternity filiation

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.


Paternity filiation

  • Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force.


Osmena de valencia v rodriguez 1949

Osmena de Valencia v. Rodriguez (1949)

  • A legitimate child wants her illegitimate siblings to drop their father’s surname. Court said yes it is a right of legitimate children but it is not a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father.

  • From all appearances, their father acquiesces in the use of his surname. Even if he objects, they can still use the surname “Valencia”, no law grants exclusive ownership over a surname


Uyguangco v ca 1989

Uyguangco v. CA (1989)

  • An illeg. child sought participation in the settlement of his father’s estate. He had no documents to prove his claim. He claims to have been in open and continuous possession of the status of an illeg. child. But court did not allow him to prove this because his father is already dead, can no longer affirm or deny child’s filiation.


Mangulabnan v iac 1990

Mangulabnan v. IAC (1990)

  • In an action for support, illeg. child asked for support pendentelitebut father opposed the same. SC ruled that affidavit of mother, 2 witnesses and the birth certificate of child established his status as illeg child and is therefore entitled to support pendentelite.


Briones v miguel

Briones v. Miguel

  • Loreta, being the mother of and having sole parental authority over the 10-year-old minor who is an illeg child, is entitled to his custody. She has the right to keep him in her company. She cannot be deprived of that right and she may not even renounce it or transfer it “except in cases authorized by law”.


Montefalcon v vasquez 2008

Montefalcon v. Vasquez (2008)

  • Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child. The amount is variable. There is no final judgment thereof as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.


Heirs of maramag v de guzman 2009

Heirs of Maramag v. De Guzman (2009)

  • The revocation of Eva as a beneficiary in one policy and her disqualification as such in another are of no moment considering that the designation of the illegitimate children as beneficiaries in Loreto’s insurance policies remains valid. Because no legal proscription exists in naming as beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships by the insured, the shares of Eva in the insurance proceeds, whether forfeited by the court in view of the prohibition on donations under Article 739 of the Civil Code or by the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts, must be awarded to the said illegitimate children, the designated beneficiaries, to the exclusion of petitioners. It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the insurance policy proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured.


Dela cruz v gracia 2009

Dela Cruz v. Gracia (2009)

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her father if the latter had expressly recognized him/her as his offspring through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission made in a public or private handwritten instrument. The recognition made in any of these documents is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child’s paternity; hence, no separate action for judicial approval is necessary.

xxx


Paternity filiation

In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.


Manungas v loreto 2011

Manungas v. Loreto (2011)

  • the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of EngraciaManungas. It must be remembered that the estate of FlorentinoManungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings that have long been terminated. Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of FlorentinoManungas, is still not an heir of EngraciaManungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of Manungas. There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator.


Gotardo v buling 2012

Gotardo v. Buling (2012)

  • In this case, the mother of the child established a prima facie case that the petitioner is the putative father of Gliffze through testimony that she had been sexually involved only with one man, the petitioner, at the time of her conception.The manager of the boarding house of petittionercorroborated her testimony that the petitioner and the mother of the child had intimate relationship.

  • On the other hand, the petitioner did not deny that he had sexual encounters with the respondent, only that it occurred on a much later date than the respondent asserted.


D action to impugn legitimacy

D. Action to Impugn Legitimacy

  • Reyes v. Mauricio (2010) - In a case involving tenancy filed by the wife of the deceased tenant, who subsequently died and was substituted by her daughter, the Supreme Court stated that the filiation of the daughter cannot be collaterally attacked in the tenancy case.


Grounds

Grounds

Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:

(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:

(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;

(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not possible; or


Paternity filiation

(c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;

(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164; or

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. (255a)


A physical impossibility of access

(a) Physical impossibility of access

Andal v. Macaraig (1951) - Although the husband was already suffering from tuberculosis and his condition then was so serious that he could hardly move and get up from his bed, his feet were swollen and his voice hoarse, yet that is no evidence of impotency, nor does it prevent carnal intercourse.


Paternity filiation

  • Macadangdang v. CA (1980) - Whether or not respondent were separated would be immaterial to the resolution of the status of the child Rolando. What should really matter is the fact that during the initial one hundred twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the aforementioned child, no concrete or even substantial proof was presented to establish physical impossibility of access between respondent and her spouse.


Paternity filiation

  • Concepcion v. CA (2005) - The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during the period of conception. To overthrow this presumption on the basis of Article 166 (1) (b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary.


B biological or other scientific grounds

(b) Biological or other scientific grounds

Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded.

If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)


Paternity filiation

Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:

(1) If the husband should died before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action;

(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom; or

(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)


Arnel agustin v court of appeals g r no 162571 15 june 2005

Arnel Agustin v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005]

For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity.


Herrera v alba 2005

Herrera v. Alba (2005)

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.


Estate of rogelio ong v minor joanne diaz 2007

Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz (2007)

From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term “biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones. Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.


Lucas v lucas 2011

Lucas v. Lucas (2011)

as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.


C art 166 par 3

(c) Art. 166, par. 3

Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.


2 effect of mother s declaration

2. Effect of Mother’s Declaration

Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. 


Chua keng giap v iac

Chua KengGiap v. IAC

Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua KengGiap was really her son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say – as indeed she said these many years – that Chua KengGiapwas not begotten of her womb.


3 in subsequent marriages

3. In subsequent marriages

Art. 168. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage;

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. (259a)


Paternity filiation

  • Art. 169. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the termination of the marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy. (261a)


4 presumptions

4. Presumptions

Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded.

If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)


Paternity filiation

Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:

(1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action;

(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom; or

(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)


5 prescription of action to impugn legitimacy

5. Prescription of action to impugn legitimacy

  • Gaspay v. CA (1994) - In light of the above, the death of FlavianoGaspay, Sr., does not constitute a time bar to private respondent's claim as his acknowledged illegitimate daughter. Settled is the rule that "actions based on voluntary acknowledgment may be brought even after the father's death."


6 who may impugn

6. Who may impugn

  • Benitez-Badua v. CA (1994) - birth certificate was negated by totality of evidence presented that Marissa was not a child of deceased spouses. Such as the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate prepared by the deceased husband which did not include Marissa as an heir.


Liyao jr v tanhoti liyao 2002

Liyao Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao (2002)

The present petition initiated by Corazon G. Garcia as guardian ad litem of the then minor, herein petitioner, to compel recognition by respondents of petitioner William Liyao, Jr, as the illegitimate son of the late William Liyao cannot prosper. It is settled that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.We cannot allow petitioner to maintain his present petition and subvert the clear mandate of the law that only the husband, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, could impugn the legitimacy of a child born in a valid and subsisting marriage. The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. If the husband, presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mother’s alleged paramour. On the other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of the husband who successfully defeated the presumption.

It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law.


Republic v magpayo 2011

Republic v. Magpayo (2011)

  • The change being sought in respondent’s petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in relation to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant respondent’s supplication.


E proof of filiation 1 of legitimate children

E. Proof of Filiation1. of legitimate children

  • Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

  • (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 of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate 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. (265a, 266a, 267a)


Paternity filiation

  • Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.


Diaz v ca 1984

Diaz v. CA (1984)

  • The presumption in decedent's favor of legitimacy has not been successfully contradicted nor overcome by oppositor's testimonial and documentary evidence.


Tison v ca 1997

Tison v. CA (1997)

  • During her lifetime, TeodoraDezoller categorically declared that Corazon DezollerTison is her neice. Such a statement is considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.


Trinidad v ca 1998

Trinidad v. CA (1998)

To prove that he was born during the marriage of his parents, he presented a witness who was present during the wedding of his parents; witnesses to prove that the couple deported themselves as husband and wife; he also presented his baptismal certificate where the name of his parents was indicated; a certification from the civil registrar that documents were destroyed during the was or burned when the old town hall was razed to the ground; family pictures along with his aunt and uncle; his baptismal certificate and a witness who was present when he was born and during his baptismal party.


Heirs of conti v ca 1998

Heirs of Conti v. CA (1998)

  • To prove they are collateral relatives of a co-owner of a parcel of land which is the subject of the partition case, private-respondents presented baptismal certificates. Although it may be argued that baptismal certificates are evidence only of the administration of the sacrament, but in this case, there were four (4) baptismal certificates which, when taken together, uniformly show that Lourdes, Josefina, Remedios and Luis had the same set of parents as indicated therein This is corroborated by the undisputed testimony of AdelaidaSampayo that with the death of Lourdes Sampayo and her brothers Manuel, Luis and sister Remedios, the only sibling left was Josefina Sampayo Reyes. The loss or destruction of the original birth certificate of one of the collateral relatives was duly established by the certification issued by the local civil registrar that its office was completely destroyed by the fire in 1974 and 1983, all civil registration records were totally burned.


De jesus v estate of dizon 2001

De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon (2001)

  • When Juan GamboaDizon died, his alleged illegitimate daughters filed a case for partition of the estate. The daughters presented a notarized document where Juan acknowledged them as his illegitimate daughters with Carolina. However, the Court noted that the daughters were born during the marriage of Carolina with her husband Danilo De Jesus and their birth certificates indicated the latter as their father. There is a presumption in the law that children born in wedlock are legitimate. A suit must be filed for the purpose of repudiating or contesting the legitimacy of the daughters.


2 of illegitimate children

2. Of illegitimate children

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. (289a)


Reyes v ca

Reyes v. CA

The birth certificate, to be sufficient recognition, must be signed by the father and mother jointly, or by the mother alone if the father refuses, otherwise she may be penalized; and if the alleged father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother, or doctor or registrar, is incompetent evidence of paternity of said child.

While baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they are evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified, but not the veracity of the statements or declarations made therein with respect to his kinsfolk.


Paternity filiation

Irene’s secondary student permanent record and her written consent to the operation of her father, not being signed nor written in the handwriting of Francisco Delgado, cannot be taken as an authentic writing to prove her recognition by her alleged father.

The marriage contract of Irene Delgado and Moises Villanueva, wherein it was stated that Francisco Delgado gave his consent or advise for Irene Delgado to marry, and that he was her father cannot be also taken as recognition in an authentic document because it was not signed nor in the handwriting of Francisco Delgado. It cannot also be taken as recognition in a public instrument.

The family pictures (Exhibits “11” to 11-E”) presented by Irene, showing Irene posing with Francisco Delgado, cannot be a sufficient proof of recognition. In the case of Bercilles v. GSIS, supra, it was held that pictures do not constitute proof of filiation.


Castro v ca

Castro v. CA

There can be no dispute that Benita Castro enjoyed the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro and that the action of Benita in defending her status in this case is similar to an "action to claim legitimacy" brought during her lifetime.


Baluyut v baluyut

Baluyut v. Baluyut

There is no evidence as required by Article 278 which proves that the petitioners were recognized by the deceased during his lifetime as his spurious children. The petitioners' records of birth, although in the name of Enrique Baluyut, were not signed by the latter. There was no authentic writing presented nor any statement in a court of record which would prove that the petitioners were recognized by the deceased.

Since the recognition sought in the case is compulsory, strictness in the application of the rules applies. We agree with respondent appellate court that the evidence presented by petitioners failed to satisfy the high standard of proof required for the success of their action for compulsory recognition.


Mendoza v ca

Mendoza v. CA

  • An illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," according to the Civil Code, or "by evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father," according to the Family Code. Such evidence may consist of his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.


Paternity filiation

  • The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista, namely, the mother of Casimiro, Brigida Mendoza, and his brother, Hipolito, were both dead at the time of Isaac's testimony. The declarations referred to the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro, which were the very issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro. Finally, the relationship between the declarants and Casimiro has been established by evidence other than such declaration, consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza, in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs.


Heirs of gabatan v ca 2009

Heirs of Gabatan v. CA (2009)

It was absolutely crucial to respondent’s cause of action that she convincingly proves the filiation of her mother to Juan Gabatan. To reiterate, to prove the relationship of respondent’s mother to Juan Gabatan, our laws dictate that the best evidence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or an authentic document or a final judgment. In the absence of these, respondent should have presented proof that her mother enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. Only in the absence of these two classes of evidence is the respondent allowed to present other proof admissible under the Rules of Court of her mother’s relationship to Juan Gabatan.


2 rights of illegitimate children1

2. Rights of illegitimate children

Art. 176.

- use surname of mother

- under parental authority of mother

- support from parents

- ½ of the legitime of legitimate child


Paternity filiation

  • David v. CA (1995)

  • Tonog v. CA (2002)

  • Go v. Ramos (2009)


3 compulsory recognition

3. Compulsory recognition

  • RPC Article 345.Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. - Person guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be sentenced:

  • 1. To indemnify the offended woman.

  • 2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing.

  • 3. In every case to support the offspring.

  • The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.


People v abella 2010

People v. Abella (2010)

We also accord high respect to the ruling of the trial court, as well as to the appellate court’s deference thereto, that the accused-appellant was the biological father of the two-year old daughter of AAA as a result of the rape incident and in view of their "striking facial similarities and features." The order to acknowledge and support accused-appellant’s offspring is in accordance with Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code.


F legitimated children

F. Legitimated Children

  • 1. who may be legitimated

    FC Art. 177 (as amended by RA 9858)

    Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or were so disqualified only because either or both of them were below 18 years of age, may be legitimated.


Abadilla v tabiliran

Abadilla v. Tabiliran

  • Judge liable for deceitful conduct. An examination of the birth certificates of his 3 illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan clearly indicate that these children are his legitimate issues. He caused the entry therein. It is important to note that these children, were born in the year 1970, 1971, and 1975, respectively, and prior to his marriage to Priscilla, which was in 1986. As a lawyer and a judge, he ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla, these 3 children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran.


2 how legitimation takes place

2. How legitimation takes place

  • Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a viodable marriage shall not affect the legitimation. 


3 retroactivity and effects

3. Retroactivity and Effects

Art. 181. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit their descendants.


4 action to impugn legitimation

4. Action to impugn legitimation

  • Art. 182. Legitimation may be impugned only by those who are prejudiced in their rights, within five years from the time their cause of action accrues. 


5 right of legitimated children

5. Right of legitimated children

  • Art. 179. Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate children.


  • Login