LOPEZ, Franco Luis G.

Law 100 (Persons and Family Relations)

2014-11806 – B2023 Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
Problem # 2.1
a. What is the present law on this?
Given that all events relating to and preceding the opposition by Amala, the eldest child of the
first marriage, to Andrea’s inheritance due to insufficient proof of filiation, the present law on
this case is the Family Code, under which all children conceived and born outside a valid
marriage are illegitimate, unless the law itself gives them legitimate status, pursuant to Article
165 of aforesaid Code1.
Due to Andres and Wilma not being married, amid the vehement protestations of Amala, and
Andrea being born from such union, Andrea is considered an illegitimate child under the present
law.
Moreover, while Andrea is of the group of illegitimate children that can be legitimated, pursuant
to Article 177 of the Family Code2, such would require a subsequent valid marriage between her
parents, pursuant to Article 178 of the Family Code3, which, given the death of Andres, is
factually impossible. In asserting her right to inherit from Andres, as enumerated in Article 176
of the Family Code4, Andrea may file an action for illegitimate filiation, in accordance with
Article 1755, in reference to Article 172 of the Family Code6, as defense against Amala’s
opposition to her inheritance.

1
Article 165, Family Code
Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.
2
Article 177, Family Code
Only 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 may be legitimated.
3
Article 178, Family Code
Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the
legitimation.
4
Article 176, Family Code
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.
5
Article 175, Family Code
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.
6
Article 172, Family Code
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.
LOPEZ, Franco Luis G. Law 100 (Persons and Family Relations)
2014-11806 – B2023 Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
b. Argue in favor of an illegitimate child exercising the exact same rights as a legitimate child
Borrowing the words of former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in an Opinion7 he wrote for
the Daily Inquirer, “[T]o begin with, I think there are really no illegitimate children. There are
only illegitimate fathers and mothers, who beget offsprings outside a valid marriage. I say this
because it is quite unfair to tarnish children who had really no fault in their conception and
birth.”
In upholding marriage to a regard that has withstood the test of time, for both better and for
worse, Philippine society has bred an equally potent stigma attaching to unions without marriage,
and to the children who are products thereof.
It is to this pedestal marriage sits on where illegitimate children are forced to look up, but never
reach, through no fault of their own. Put simply, illegitimate children are punished and
discriminated against, both in law and society, for a wrongdoing they had absolutely no
participation to the commission thereof. Absent any violation by the illegitimate children, it is
therefore essentially unfair to deprive them the rights granted to legitimate children, even going
so far as to run counter to the Constitutional mandate of the State to value the dignity of every
human person and to guarantee full respect for human rights 8. Illegitimate children are granted
neither the dignity fundamentally deserved by every human being, as evidenced by societal
stigma, nor the full respect for human rights, as evidenced by being entitled only to one-half of a
legitime of a legitimate child9, to name one instance.
It can be argued that in justifying the discrimination apparent in the provisions, the legislative
intent of incentivizing against unions without marriage ought to prevail over the ramifications
borne by the illegitimate children. However, even on this ground, the law is not tenable.
In contextualizing the discriminatory provisions within its intention to discourage illegitimate
unions, and consequently, illegitimate children, a mismatch indicative of the aforesaid state
interest being lost can be seen based on data from the Philippine Statistics Authority.
Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, in her participation in the oral arguments as amicus
curiae, or an expert on the matter, which was spurred by a petition from a so-called illegitimate
child whose inheritance from her grandparent was denied by the Court of Appeals (CA) because
of Article 992, remarked, "[T]he legal and societal disadvantages suffered by illegitimate
children have not sufficiently deterred unmarried couples from creating them, therefore Article
992 of the Civil Code and other provisions such as Article 175 of the Family Code that deny
illegitimate children rights merely because of their status does not achieve any state interest and
is inconsistent with our treaty obligation.”10

7Artemio V. Panganiban; Rights of illegitimate children, November, 19, 2011; https://opinion.inquirer.net/17607/rights-of-illegitimate-children

8
Section 11, Article 12, 1987 Constitution
9
Article 176, Family Code
10
Lian Buan; Experts to SC: Strike down law that discriminates vs illegitimate children, September 03, 2019;
https://www.rappler.com/nation/239260-experts-call-on-supreme-court-strike-down-law-discriminating-vs-illegitimate-children
LOPEZ, Franco Luis G. Law 100 (Persons and Family Relations)
2014-11806 – B2023 Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
Professor Pangalangan further cited data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) which
shows that in 2017, there were more illegitimate children born than legitimate children—PSA-5
recorded 55.7 percent of children born in the region were illegitimate, higher than the 44.3
percent average of legitimate children.11
Finally, the rejection by the family often part and parcel with illegitimacy of a child tends to set
the stage for a tragedy on a social level.
It has been found by Ronald Simons, professor of sociology at Iowa State University that:
“Parental rejection…increased the probability of a youth’s involvement in a deviant peer group,
reliance upon avoidant coping style, and use of substances.12
In light of the aforesaid tendencies attendant upon a child subject to parental rejection, which is
not rare in a society that sees illegitimate children in a negative light by default, coupled with the
rapidly growing number of illegitimate children, and the lingering stigma becoming more and
more in conflict with this generation’s modern worldviews, it would seem fit, if not necessary,
for public policy to equalize the rights of illegitimate with those of legitimate children.
In summary, to equalize the rights of illegitimate children with those of legitimate children is to
grant rights that should never have been taken away in the first place, correct an erroneous aspect
of the spirit of the law, and to prevent the Philippine society, which is already rife with issues on
its own, from being saturated with unhappy, insecure, and rejected children, who cannot gain
more from law what they have less in life.

11
Rising number of illegitimate children raises alarm in Bicol; pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1019159
12Ronald L. Simons and Joan F. Robertson, “The Impact of Parenting Factors, Deviant Peers, and Coping Style Upon Adolescent Drug
Use,” Family Relations 38, (1989): 273-281.
LOPEZ, Franco Luis G. Law 100 (Persons and Family Relations)
2014-11806 – B2023 Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
c. Discuss all other relevant issues
Seemingly, Andrea can use as primary evidence her birth certificate13, which shows Andres's
name as the father. However, in establishing her illegitimate filiation through alleging Andres’s
acknowledgment through her birth, Andrea is limited in presentation of evidence, given that
there is want of her alleged father's intervention through signature in her birth certificate. Under
the Law on Registry of Civil Status14, a birth certificate, to prove acknowledgment, must bear the
signature under oath of the acknowledging parent or parents.
Absent also the subsequent primary evidence15 of the admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document, or a private handwritten instrument signed by the alleged parent Andres, Andrea is
ultimately left to secondary evidence to prove her illegitimate filiation, which is either the open
and continuous possession of status, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws16.
However, if the evidence Andrea is to use in proving the filiation is secondary in nature, per the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Family Code, the action must have been brought during
the lifetime of Andres17. Since Andres has passed away, Andrea is therefore barred to present as
evidence the established fact that she has enjoyed continuous possession of status through having
been presented to the public and her mother and alleged father’s relatives as part of the latter’s
family and her baptismal certificate, admissible under the Rules of Court18 as secondary proof of
her filiation; more so irrelevant is her striking resemblance to Andres.
Therefore, Amala’s decision to exclude Andrea from any inheritance leaves the latter without
any recourse to claim illegitimate filiation and its concomitant rights, due to want of primary
evidence and a bar from presenting secondary evidence19.

13
Article 172, Family Code
14
Section 5, Act. No 3753
15
Article 172, Family Code
16
Id.
17
Article 175, Family Code
18
Rule 130, Rules of Court
19
Article 175, Family Code