CASE NO.

50

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.
[G.R. No. 138961. March 7, 2002]

Governing FAMILY CODE Provisions: ARTICLE 170-171

FACTS:

Petitioner, represented by his mother Corazon, filed an action for compulsory recognition as the
illegitimate (spurious) son of the late William Liyao against herein respondents, the legitimate wife and
children of the deceased. Corazon is legally married with Ramon M. Yulo but living separately from him
allegedly for more than ten years at the time of the institution of this civil case. She cohabited with the
late William until his death. Petitioner alleged that he “was in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the status of the child of said William Liyao,” having been “recognized and acknowledged as such child
by the decedent during his lifetime and presented witnesses and evidence to prove his allegations. On
the other hand, respondents painted a different picture of the story. RTC rendered judgment in favor of
petitioner. CA reversed the ruling of RTC, favored the presumption of legitimacy of the child and gave
weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondents that Corazon and her husband, Yulo was
seen together during the period she cohabited with the deceased.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner’s action to impugn his legitimacy is proper

DECISION/RULING:

No. We cannot allow petitioner to maintain his present petition and subvert the clear mandate
of the law that only the husband, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, could impugn the legitimacy
of a child born in a valid and subsisting marriage. The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. If the
husband, presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the
child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mother’s alleged paramour. On the
other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of the
husband who successfully defeated the presumption. (Art 170-171, FC)
 CASE NO. 51

ROSALINA P. ECETA, petitioner,

vs.
MA. THERESA VELL LAGURA ECETA, respondent.
G.R. No. 157037 May 20, 2004

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Governing FAMILY CODE Provisions: ARTICLE 172

FACTS:

Petitioner Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta sometime in 1926. During the
subsistence of their marriage, they begot a son, Vicente. The couple acquired several properties, among
which is the disputed property. Isaac died in 1967 leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory
heirs. In 1977, Vicente died. During his lifetime, however, he sired Maria Theresa, an illegitimate
daughter. Thus at the time of his death, his compulsory heirs were his mother, Rosalina, and illegitimate
child, Maria Theresa. In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case before the RTC of Quezon City for "Partition
and Accounting with Damages" against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her father’s death, she became
Rosalina’s co-heir and co-owner of the property. In her answer, Rosalina alleged that the property is
paraphernal in nature and thus belonged to her exclusively. RTC rendered judgement in favour of
respondent and declared ¼ undivided share as her rightful share. CA affirmed with modification,
reducing respondent’s share to 1/8.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the admission made by petitioner that the respondent is her granddaughter is enough
to prove her filiation with the only son of the petitioner.

RULING:

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. (Art 172, Family Code). In
the case at bar, Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly
authenticated birth certificate. Vicente himself signed Maria Theresa’s birth certificate thereby
acknowledging that she is his daughter. By this act alone, Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his
paternity over Maria Theresa. (Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 39537, March 19, 1985. Petition
denied. CA decision is affirmed in toto.
 CASE NO. 52

G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992

AMELITA CONSTANTINO and MICHAEL CONSTANTINO, the latter represented herein by the former,
his mother and natural guardian, petitioners,
vs.
IVAN MENDEZ and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Roberto M. Sarenas for petitioners.

Bienvinido D. Cariaga for private respondent.

Facts:

Amelita Constantino, petitioner, was a waitress at Tony’s Restaurant where she met Ivan Mendez,
respondent. On that first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to have dinner with him at Hotel Enrico where
the former has stayed. While eating dinner, Ivan confessed his love to Amelita through a promise of
marriage and then they had sexual intercourse. However, after the act, Ivan confessed that he is already
married to someone else. Despite the fact that Ivan is already married, they had repeated their sexual
contact whenever Ivan is in Manila which resulted to petitioner’s pregnancy. Consequently, Amelita
appealed for help and support from Ivan, but failed. She then filed for the recognition of the unborn
child and payment for damages. However, Ivan rebutted by the petition of the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of cause of action. RTC ruled in favor of Amelita, respondent petition the complaint
CA that RTC erred in its ruling. CA favored the respondent and dismissed the complaint of petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not Amelita was able to prove the paternity of Ivan to her son Michael

Decision/Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner was not able to prove the paternity of Ivan to
her son. She was inconsistent in her response whether they did or didn’t have any sex in Manila in the
1st and 2nd week of November. At first, she said she remembered during cross-examination. Later in
her response, she said she doesn’t remember. This fact is notable because the child Michael is a FULL
TERM baby born on August 3, 1975. Private respondent's counsel, cited Medical science (Williams
Obstetrics, Tenth Ed., p. 198) to the effect that "the mean duration of actual pregnancy, counting from
the day of conception must be close to 267 days", the conception of the child (Michael) must have taken
place about 267 days before August 3, 1975 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974.
Amelita wrote to Ivan asking for support around February wherein she stated that she was four months
pregnant. This means, she thinks she conceived the child on October. She wrote to Ivan’s wife where she
revealed her attachment to Ivan who possessed certain traits not possessed by her boyfriend.