Bryan Thomas D.

Santamaria Persons and Family Relations

2015-12893 (Juris Doctor, I-B) Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan

Paper: Problem #2 (1)

a.) What is the present law on this?

The applicable provisions of the Family Code in Andrea’s case are: Article 165,
which provides the definition of an illegitimate child; 1 Article 172, which provides the
primary and secondary evidence for establishing the filiation of a legitimate child; 2 Article
175, which provides Andrea an opportunity to bring an action to establish her illegitimate
filiation by the same means in Article 172 and the prescriptive periods of this action based
on the type of evidence presented;3 and Article 176, which provides the rights of
illegitimate children.4

Since Andrea was born outside of a valid marriage between Andres and Wilma,
she can be considered an illegitimate child as provided by Article 165 so long as her
status as such has been established through Articles 172 and 175. If she were an
illegitimate child of Andres, she is entitled to a legitime that shall consist of one-half of the
legitime of a legitimate child as provided by Article 176.

Jurisprudence demonstrates how the other provisions can be applied to Andrea’s

case. In the case of Aruego, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,5 the Supreme Court ruled that the
alleged father’s verbal acknowledgement of the private respondents as his children
among family and friends, along with his continuous and clear manifestations of paternal
care for said private respondents, resulted in the private respondents’ continuous
possession of the status of illegitimate children in accordance with Articles 172 and 175.
These continuous and clear manifestations of paternal care came, among others, in the
form of the alleged father’s introduction of the private respondents as his own children to
family friends.6

In the case of Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals,7 the Supreme Court ruled that the
private respondent’s action to establish illegitimate filiation through the continuous and

1
Family Code, Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.
2
Family Code, 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.
3
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.
4
Family Code, 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. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation
has been expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a
public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before
the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consists of one-half of the legitime
of a legitimate child.
5
G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996.
6
Ibid.
7
G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989.
open possession of the status of an illegitimate child is barred by prescription with the
death of his alleged father. This is because such continuous and open possession, as
evidence to establish filiation, is secondary evidence and not primary evidence as
provided Article 172. The second paragraph of Article 175 provides that an action to
establish illegitimate filiation based on secondary evidence may only be brought during
the lifetime of the alleged parent. Justice Cruz writes:

“Considering that the private respondent has, as we see it, established at least
prima facie proof of his alleged filiation, we find it regrettable that his action should
be barred under the [Article 175 of the Family Code]. But that is the law and we
have no choice but to apply it.”8

Since these cases share similar facts with Andrea’s case, the Court’s ruling on the
former can be applied to the latter. Andres’s presentation of Andrea to the public and to
relatives as part of the family constitutes as Andrea’s continuous possession of the status
of an illegitimate child. This is consistent with the ruling in Aruego, Jr. v Court of Appeals.
However, the death of Andres bars Andrea from presenting this possession of said status
as evidence to establish her illegitimate filiation since such possession is secondary
evidence and must have been presented during Andres’s lifetime. This is consistent with
the ruling in Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals.

b.) Argue in favor of an illegitimate child exercising the exact same rights as a legitimate child.
It is our position that illegitimate children should be able to exercise the same rights
as legitimate children. No person chooses to be born, much less the circumstances to
which they are born to.

c.) Discuss all other relevant issues.

Although Andrea’s birth and baptismal certificates indicate that Andres is her
father, these documents cannot be admitted as primary evidence for establishing filiation
since the documents do not contain Andres’s signature.

8
Ibid.