Art. 163. The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption.
authorization of the spouses signed and
Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
FILIATION – the civil status of the child in relation to his father or
mother
PATERNITY – the civil status of the father with respect to the child
begotten by him
MATERNITY – the civil status of the mother with respect to the child
begotten by her
CLASSES OF CHILDREN:
A. LEGITIMATE – Those conceived and born during the
marriage of parents who are lawfully married or those who
are conceived before the marriage but born during the
marriage.
B. ILLEGITIMATE – Those conceived and born outside a valid
marriage.
C. LEGITIMATED – Those conceived of parents who at the
time of conception were not disqualified by any impediment
to marry each other and who are later considered legitimate
by reason of the subsequent marriage of their parents
D. ADOPTED – Those who whether related by blood or not to
the adopter, by fiction of law, are made legitimate children of
the latter.
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.  (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual
PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY – A child born during wedlock is
presumed to be legitimate unless there was no sexual access to the
wife.
BAI Children
STATUS OF BAI CHILDREN: may either be legitimate or
illegitimate depending upon the attendant circumstances.
- LEGITIMATE, if the insemination was authorized by
both parents, or not having authorized it, had ratified it
in a document executed and signed by then BEFORE
the birth of the child.
- ILLEGITIMATE, if:
a) The insemination was performed upon the
wife without the authority of the spouses
utilizing semen not that of the husband; or
b) If it is with the consent of the wife, but without
the consent of the husband; or
c) If the written authorization or ratification by
either or both spouses was obtained through
mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or
undue influence.
TEST TUBE Babies
STATUS OF TEST-TUBE BABIES:
- LEGITIMATE, if:
a) The ovum of the wife is fertilized with the use
of the sperm of the husband; or
b) If the ovum is fertilized by a donor’s sperm, it
must be with the written consent or
executed before the birth of the child; or
c) If there is no such consent, the act is ratified
by the spouses in a written instrument signed
and executed before the birth of the child.
Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are
illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN:
- Conceived and born outside a valid marriage
- Children born of sexual relationship without
cohabitation, or within cohabitation but without the
benefit of marriage
- Children born of marriages which are void ab initio such
as bigamous and incestuous marriages
- Marriages declared void for being contrary to law and
public policy
- Children born voidable marriages after the decree of
annulment
XPNs (Art. 54):
- Children conceived or born before the judgment of
annulment
- Children conceived or born before absolute nullity of
marriage under Art. 36 has become final and executory
- Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage
under Art. 53
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:
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.  cancellation of petitioner’s Birth Certificate; it does not impugn her
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.  exceptional instances the latters heirs, can contest in an
ACTION TO IMPUGN LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS (ART. 170):
1. Within ONE YEAR:
a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or
b. From date of recording in the civil register; a Husband
or any of his heirs in a proper case reside in the city or
municipality where the child was born or its birth
recorded.
2. Within TWO YEARS:
a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or
b. From date of recording in the civil register;
c. Husband and all of his heirs do not reside in the same
city or municipality where the child was born or its birth
recorded;
d. Husband or his heirs filing the action are residing in the
Philippines.
3. Within THREE YEARS:
(same first three requisites in No.2) and Husband or his heirs
filing the action must be residing abroad or the subject child
was born or its birth registered abroad.
RECKONING PERIOD FOR FILING OF ACTION IF THERE IS
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH (ART. 170):
a. From the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child; or
b. From knowledge of the fact of registration of birth
Note: whichever is EARLIER
BADUA V. CA
HELD: Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the FC cannot be sustained
in this case. These articles do not contemplate a situation where a
child is alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a
certain couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a
husband (or his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus,
under Art. 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of a
child. In Arts. 170 and 171 speak of the prescriptive period within which
the husband or any of his heirs should file the action impugning the
legitimacy of said child. Doubtless then, the appellate court did not err
when it refused to apply these articles to the case at bench for it is not
one where the heirs of the late Vicente are contending that petitioner is
not his child by Isabel. Rather, their clear submission is that petitioner
is not born to Vicente and Isabel.
BABIERA V. CATOTAL
HELD: Art. 171 of the FC is not applicable to the present case. A close
reading of this provision shows that it applies to instances in which the
father impugns the legitimacy of his wife’s child. It presupposes that the
child was the undisputed offspring of the mother. The present case
alleges and shows that Hermogena did not give birth to petitioner. In
other words, the prayer herein is not to declare that petitioner is an
illegitimate child of Hermogena, but to establish that the former is not
the latter’s child at all.
Art. 170 also does not apply. The present action involves the
legitimacy. Thus, the prescriptive period set forth in Art. 170 of the FC
does not apply. Verily, the action to nullify the Birth Certificate does not
prescribe, because it was allegedly void ab initio.
DE JESUS V. HEIRS OF DIZON
HELD: In an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to the late
Juan G. Dizon, petitioners, in effect, would impugn their legitimate
status as being children of Danilo de Jesus and Carolina Aves 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
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.
This issue, i.e., whether petitioners are indeed the acknowledged
illegitimate offsprings of the decedent, cannot be aptly adjudicated
without an action having been first been instituted to impugn their
legitimacy as being the children of Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina
Aves de Jesus born in lawful wedlock. Jurisprudence is strongly settled
that the paramount declaration of legitimacy by law cannot be attacked
collaterally, one that can only be repudiated or contested in a direct suit
specifically brought for that purpose. Indeed, a child so born in such
wedlock shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as having
been an adulteress. 
LIYAO, JR. V. TANHOTI-LIYAO
HELD: