Case #78: Romeo F. Ara and William A. Garcia (Petitioner) vs. Dra.

paragraph of this article also states that the action may be brought
Fely S. Pizarro and Henry Rossi (Respondent)
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners and respondents all claimed to be children of
Josefa A. Ara who died November 18, 2002. Fely S. Pizarro claimed
that she is the only legitimate child of the late Josefa which is why
she refused to partition the properties of her mother that was under
her possession. It is crucial to note that petitioners Garcia and Ara
are recorded in their Certificate of Live Birth as the child of different
mothers. However, all the petitioners and respondents were taken
care of and supported by Josefa Ara since their birth.
The petitioner’s as well as Mr. Rossi verbally sought partition
of the following properties: 1,268 sq. m. lot located in Bukidnon,
Tamaraw FX, and an RCBC Bank Passbook in the amount of Php
108,000. Henry Rossi decided to engage the services of a separate
counsel because there was a conflict of interest among the
petitioners with regards to the property claimed.
during the lifetime of the alleged parent. Filiation must be within the
period allowed and supported by evidence. It could be established
by the record of birth or an admission of legitimate filiation in a
public document or instrument signed by parent. According to
Article 173, the action to claim one’s legitimacy should be brought
during his or her lifetime. In this situation in which Josefa has passed,
the evidence must be a record of birth in the civil register or a final
judgement, or an admission of legitimate filiation. The petitioners
submitted a delayed registration of birth of Garcia as her mother was
listed as Josefa. This is to be considered as tenuous proof of filiation
which does not make allow her registration to bear the same
evidentiary weight as a regular birth certificate. Also, the petitioners
failed to present any public document or instrument as evidence to
an admission of filiation. Therefore, none of the proof they
presented constitutes as an admission of filiation based on Article
172 of the Family Code.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the petitioners are able to prove their
filiation to Josefa through their status as illegitimate children.

Held:
The court ruled that the petitioners were proscribed from
proving their filiation since the putative parent, Josefa, had already
passed away. After her death, they could no longer be allowed to
introduce evidence of filiation. Article 175 states that illegitimate
children “may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way
and on the same evidence as legitimate children.” The second