G.R. No. 138961.

March 7, 2002

WILLIAM LIYAO, JR., represented by his mother Corazon Garcia, petitioner, vs.
JUANITA TANHOTI-LIYAO, PEARL MARGARET L. TAN, TITA ROSE L. TAN AND
LINDA CHRISTINA LIYAO, respondents.

FACTS:

William Liyao Jr., the illegitimate son of the deceased, as represented by her mother (Corazon),
filed a petition ordering Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, Pearl L. Tan, Tita L. Tan and Linda Liyao to
recognize and acknowledge the former as a compulsory heir of the deceased and to be entitled to
all successional rights. Liyao Jr. was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status as the
child of the deceased having been recognized and acknowledged as such child by the decedent
during his lifetime. There were two sides of the story. Corazon maintained that she and the
deceased were legally married but living separately for more than 10 years and that they
cohabited from 1965 until the death of the deceased. On the other hand, one of the chidren of the
deceased stated that her mom and the deceased were legally married and that her parents were
not separated legally or in fact.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner can impugn his own legitimacy to be able to claim from the estate
of the deceased.

HELD:
The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a
strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs for the reason that he was
the one directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife
produced and he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that infidelity or expose it in
view of the moral and economic interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs
are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none, even his heirs can impugn
legitimacy; that would amount o an insult to his memory. Hence, it was then settled that the
legitimacy of the child can only be impugned in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the
proper parties and within the period limited by law.

Furthermore, the court held that there was no clear, competent and positive evidence presented
by the petitioner that his alleged father had admitted or recognized his paternity.