Agustin, Jireh N.
Cases 63-65
Legal Question/
Case Title(s) and Problem/Issue
citation Presented by the Why is this a Problem?
Case(s)
Jose Aruego, Jr. Can the provisions of During his lifetime, Jose Aruego, Sr.
v. Court of the Family Code be had an illicit relationship with Luz
Appeals applied retroactively Fabian. They had two children:
and will it impair the Antonia and Evelyn Aruego. Aruego
G.R. No. 112193 vested rights of the Sr. never denied Antonia and Evelyn.
– 254 SCRA 711 respondents? In fact, he openly acknowledged and
financially supported them.
March 13, 1996
After Aruego Sr. died on 1982,
Antonia and Evelyn who were
still minors were assisted by Luz
in filing a petition for recognition
and enforcement of successional
rights. The petition was based on
Art. 285 of the Old Civil Code
which provides: The action for
the recognition of natural children
may be brought only during the
lifetime of the presumed parents,
except in the following cases: (1)
If the father or mother died during
the minority of the child, in which
case the latter may file the action
before the expiration of four years
from the attainment of his
majority.
Legal Provision/Legal
Principle or Rule Involved
It is a well settled reception
that laws shall have a
retroactive effect unless it
would impair vested rights.
This is even explicitly stated
as a precondition in the
retoractive application of the
Family Code which states in
full: This Code shall, have
retroactive effect insofar as it
does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil
Code or other laws.
Conclusion
No, the Family Code in this
case cannot be given a
retroactive effect, as its
application will prejudice the
vested rights of Antonia to
have her case be decided
under Article 285 of the Civil
Code.
The meaning of vested and
acquired rights under Article
256 was not defined by the
Family Code, hence the court
will determine it according to
issues submitted to them. The
action must be governed by
Article 285 of the Civil Code
and not by Art. 175 (2) of the
Family Code.
Jinkie Christie A. Are Jacqueline and Danilo de Jesus and Carolina
De Jesus And Jinkie de Jesus Juan Aves de Jesus got married and it
Jacqueline A. De G. Dizon’s own was during this marriage that
Jesus v. The illegitimate children? Jacqueline de Jesus and Jinkie
Estate Of Christie de Jesus, herein
Decedent Juan petitioners, were born. In a
Gamboa notarized document, a certain
Dizon Juan G. Dizon acknowledged
Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as
GR No. 118248 being his own illegitimate
366 SCRA 499 children by Carolina Aves de
Jesus. When Juan G. Dizon died
October 2, 2001 intestate, leaving behind
considerable assets, petitioners
filed a complaint for Partition
with Inventory and Accounting
of the Dizon estate with the RTC.
Respondents, the surviving
spouse and legitimate children of
late Juan Dizon sought the
dismissal of the case, arguing that
the complaint would call for
altering the status of petitioners
from being the legitimate
children of the spouses Danilo de
Jesus and Carolina de Jesus to
instead be the illegitimate
children of Carolina de Jesus and
deceased Juan Dizon.
The filiation of illegitimate
children, like legitimate
children, is established by (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
thereof, 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. The due
recognition of an illegitimate
child in a record of birth, a
will, a statement before a
court of record, or in any
authentic writing is, in itself,
a consummated act of
acknowledgment of the child,
and no further court action is
required. In fact, any
authentic writing is treated
not just a ground for
compulsory recognition; it is
in itself a voluntary
recognition that does not
require a separate action for
No. A scrutiny of the records
would show that petitioners
were born during the
marriage of their parents. The
certificates of live birth
would also identify Danilo de
Jesus as being their father.
There is perhaps no
presumption of the law more
firmly established and
founded on sounder morality
and more convincing reason
than the presumption that
children born in wedlock are
legitimate. This presumption
indeed becomes conclusive in
the absence of proof that
there is physical impossibility
of access between the spouses
during the first 120 days of
the 300 days which
immediately precedes the
birth of the child.
In an attempt to establish
their legitimate filiation to the
late Juan G. Dizon,
petitioners, in effect, would
impugn their legitimate status
as being the children of
Danilo de Jesus and Carolina
Aves de Jesus. This cannot be
done because the law itself
 judicial approval. Where,
instead, a claim for
recognition is predicated on
other evidence merely
tending to prove paternity,
i.e., outside of a record of
birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record or an
authentic writing, judicial
action within the applicable
statute of limitations is
essential in order to establish
the child's acknowledgment.
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
exceptional instances the
latter’s heirs, can contest in
an 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.

Michael c. Guy v. Will Release and Private respondents alleged that To be valid and effective, a As regards Remedios' Release
Court Appeals Waiver of Claim they are the duly acknowledged waiver must be couched in and Waiver of Claim, the
preclude private illegitimate children of Sima clear and unequivocal terms same does not bar private
G.R. No. 163707 respondents from Wei, who died intestate. They which leave no doubt as to respondents from claiming
claiming their likewise prayed that, in the the intention of a party to successional rights. There
September 15, successional rights? meantime, petitioner Michael C. give up a right or benefit was no waiver of hereditary
2006 Guy, son of the decedent, be which legally pertains to him. rights. The Release and
appointed as SpecialA waiver may not be Waiver of Claim does not
Administrator of the estate. attributed to a person when state with clarity the purpose
its terms do not explicitly and of its execution. It merely
Petitioner and his co-heirs clearly evince an intent to states that Remedios received
alleged that private respondents' abandon a right. P300,000.00 and an
claim had been paid, waived, educational plan for her
abandoned or otherwise Moreover, article 1044 of the minor daughters "by way of
extinguished by reason of
Remedios' Release and Waiver of
Claim stating that in exchange for
the financial and educational
assistance received from
petitioner, Remedios and her
minor children discharge the
estate of Sima Wei from any and
all liabilities.
Civil Code, provides: “Any
person having the free
disposal of his property may
accept or repudiate an
inheritance.
Any inheritance left to minors
or incapacitated persons may
be accepted by their parents
or guardians. Parents or
guardians may repudiate the
inheritance left to their wards successional rights.
only by judicial
authorization.”
financial assistance and in
full settlement of any and all
claims of whatsoever nature
and kind x x x against the
estate of the late Rufino Guy
Susim." Considering that the
document did not specifically
mention private respondents'
hereditary share in the estate
of Sima Wei, it cannot be
construed as a waiver of
Parents and guardians may
not therefore repudiate the
inheritance of their wards
without judicial approval.
This is because repudiation
amounts to an alienation of
property16 which must pass
the court's scrutiny in order to
protect the interest of the
ward. Not having been
judicially authorized, the
Release and Waiver of Claim
in the instant case is void and
will not bar private
respondents from asserting
their rights as heirs of the
deceased.