PATERNITY AND FILIATION

De asis v. Court of appeals SUBJECT MATTER: paternity and filiation Facts: On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres (the herein private respondent) in her capacity as the legal guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, brought an action for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis alleging that the latter is the father of the subject minor Glen Camil Andres de Asis, and despite repeated demands, Manuel de Asis refused and failed to provide for the maintenance and support of the minor. Because the petitioner (Manuel de Asis) denied as paternity of the said minor and so he cannot therefore be required to provide for such. And so the case was dismissed by virtue of the said manifestation. On September 7, 1995, another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought against Manuel A. de Asis, this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres, represented by her legal guardian/mother Vircel D. Andres. On October 8, 1993, petitioner moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that it is barred by the prior judgment, which was dismissed with prejudice. Issue: Whether or not the second action may still proper after the dismissal of the prior petition. Held: It is indisputable that the present action for support can be brought; notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against the same defendant was dismissed. And it also appearing that the dismissal of the prior case was not adjudication upon the merits, as heretofore shown, the right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support and acknowledgment is available, as her needs arise. Once the needs of plaintiffs arise, she has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only then her cause of action accrues.

Fernandez v. Fernandez Issue: sUBJECT MATTER: Kinds of Filiation, Kinds/ Status of Children Facts: Held: The late Spouses Dr. Jose K. Fernandez and Generosa A. de Venecia were the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Dagupan City consisting of 194 sq. m. and a twostorey building. Generosa gave birth to a baby boy named Rogelio who died when he was only 12 years old as paralytic. It was revealed that the late Spouses being childless by the death of their son, purchased a one (1) baby boy who was later identified as Rodolfo Fernandez. On July 20, 1982, Jose K. Fernandez died thereby leaving his wife Generosa and Rodolfo Fernandez an estate consisting a parcel of land consisting an area of 194-sq. m. wit a two-storey residential building. On August 31, 1989, Rodolfo Fernandez (appellant) and Generosa de Venecia executed a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition dividing and allocating to themselves the following: (a) 119.5 sq. m. of the said parcel of land plus the residential house will belong to Generosa de Venecia. (b) 74.5 sq. m. of the said parcel of land will belong to Rodolfo V. Fernandez. On the same day, Generosa executed a Deed of Sale to Eddie Fernandez, appellant’s son, over her share. After learning the transaction, Romeo, Potenciano, Julita, William, Mary, Alejandro, Gerardo, Rodolfo and Gregorio, all surnamed Fernandez, being nephews and nieces of the deceased Jose K. Fernandez, their father Genaro being a brother of Jose, filed September 21, 1994, an action to declare the Extra-judicial Partition of Estate and Deed of Sale void ab initio. The complaint alleges that defendants (herein appellants), motivated by unmitigated greed, deliberate and malicious acts of depriving the plaintiff and other heirs (herein appellees) of the deceased spouses, without basis of heirship or any iota of rights to succession or inheritance, taking advantage of the total physical and mental incapacity of the deceased Generosa de Venecia aggravated by unlawful scheme confederated, colluded and conspired with each other on causing the fake, simulated grossly inauthentic contracts purporting to be executed on August 31, 1989. Rodolfo Fernandez was not a legitimate nor a legally adopted child of spouses Dr. Jose Fernandez and Generosa de Venecia-Fernandez, hence could not inherit from the spouses. Because it was negated by the fact of failing to present any birth certificate or any public document that would give a proof of being a legitimate child. Rodolfo even presented his baptismal as evidence but was spurious and falsified. Concepcion v. CA SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Facts On 29 December 1989, Ma. Theresa and Gerardo got married. On 8 December 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth to Jose Gerardo. Their relationship turned sour which caused Gerardo to file a petition for annulment on the ground of bigamy. He contended that prior to their marriage, Ma. Theresa had an annulled marriage with Mario Gopiao (married December 10, 1980) and petitioner also found that Mario was still alive. Maria did not deny this prior marriage but claimed that she never lived with Mario at all. The trial court ruled that Ma. Theresa’s marriage to Mario was valid and subsisting marriage with Gerardo is a bigamous one. The custody of the child was awarded to the wife while Gerardo was granted with visitation rights. Ma. Theresa moved for the reconsideration of the decision INSOFAR ONLY as that portion of the decision which granted to the petitioner ‘visitation rights’ in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child. She further maintained that Hose Gerardo’s surname should be changed form Conception to Almonte following the rule that an illegitimate child shall use the mother’s surname. However, the law applied the “best interest of the child” principle hence dismissing her motion. Ma. Theresa elevated the case to the Court of appeals assigning as error the ruling of the trial court granting visitation rights to Gerardo and Jose Gerardo’s surname must be Almonte but it was also denied. The Court of Appeals further held that an illegitimate child cannot use the mother’s surname motu propio and that she should file a separate proceeding for a change of name under the Rules of Court to effect corrections. Whether or not the filiation of Rodolfo Fernandez by adoption entitles him successions and inheritance.

However, after further investigation, the Court of Appeals found out that appellant was married to Mario Gopiao and that she had never entered into a lawful marriage with the appellee Gerardo since their marriage was void ab initio for being bigamous. Therefore, the child, under the law, is the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between Ma. Theresa and Mario, he cannot be deemed to be the illegitimate child of the void marriage. Moreover, Gerardo can claim neither custody nor visitation rights over the child and he cannot impose his surname upon the child. Hence this appeal. Issue Whether or not Gerardo was entitled of the visitation rights over Jose Gerardo and whether or not his name shall be carried by the child. Held The status and filiation of the child cannot be compromised. Under Article 64 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a child who was conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is legitimate. Under Article 167 of same Code, the child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulterous. Hence, Jose Gerardo is a legitimate child of the marriage between Ma. Theresa and Mario. Since the marriage between Ma. Theresa and Gerardo was void form the very beginning, he never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child. Thus, there is no legal reason for Gerardo to claim visitation rights over the child because it was ruled that the child is a legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and her legal husband Mario. Wherefore, petition denied and the Court of Appeals decision and resolution was affirmed. Angeles v. Maglaya SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Facts On March 25, 1998, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Caloocan City, respondent filed a petition for letters of administration and her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of Francisco M. Angeles.

Francisco died intestate on January 21, 1998 Manila, leaving behind four (4) parcels of land and a building, among other valuable properties ad that there is a need to appoint an administrator of Francisco’s estate. She alleged that she (respondent) is the sole legitimate child of the deceased and Genoveva Mercado, and, together with petitioner, Belen S. Angeles, decedent’s wife by his second marriage, are the surviving heirs of the decedent; and that she has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required of an administrator. Petitioner opposed the petition and claimed to be made as the administratrix of Francisco’s estate. Petitioner alleged having married Francisco on August 7, 1948 and Francisco represented in their marriage contract that he was single at that time. Petitioner also averred that respondent could not be the daughter of Francisco for, although she was recorded as Francisco’s legitimate daughter, the corresponding birth certificate was not signed by him. Pressing on, petitioner further alleged that respondent, despite her claim of being the legitimate child of Francisco and Genoveva Mercado, has not presented the marriage contract between her supposed parents or produced any acceptable document to prove such union. And evidently to debunk respondent’s claim of being the only child of Francisco, petitioner likewise averred that she and Francisco had, during their marriage, legally adopted Concesa A. Yamat, et al. Petitioner thus urged that she, being the surviving spouse of Francisco, be declared as possessed of the superior right to the administration of his estate. On 12 July 1999, the trial court found that respondent failed to prove her filiation as legitimate child of Francisco hence dismissing the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s order of dismissal and directed it to appoint respondent as administratrix of the estate of Francisco. Issue Whether or not respondent is the legitimate child of decedent Francisco M. Angeles and Genoveva Mercad. Held A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the element of lawful union and there is strictly no legitimate filiation between parents and child. Article 164 of the Family Code cannot be more emphatic on the matter: “Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.”

Ironical as it may seem, respondent herself undermined her very own case. As it were, she made certain judicial admission negating her own assertion – as well as the appellate court’s conclusion - that Francisco was legally married to Genoveva. As may be recalled, respondent had declared that her mother Genoveva died in 1988, implying, quite clearly, that when Francisco contracted marriage with petitioner Belen S. Angeles in 1948, Genoveva and Francisco were already “spouses”. Now, then, if, as respondent maintained despite utter lack of evidence, that Genoveva Mercado and Francisco were married in 1938, it follows that the marriage of Francisco to petitioner Belen Angeles in 1948, or prior to Genoveva’s death, would necessarily have to be bigamous, hence void, in which case petitioner could not be, as respondent alleged in her petition for letters of administration, a “surviving spouse” of the decedent. WHEREFORE, the herein assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the order of the trial court dismissing Special Proceedings No. C-2140 REINSTATED. ARTURO R. ABALOS vs. GALICANO MACATANGAY, JR. SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Facts Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a parcel of land with improvements located at Azucena St., Makati City consisting of about three hundred twenty-seven (327) square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 145316 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati. Armed with a Special Power of Attorney dated June 2, 1988, purportedly issued by his wife, Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) dated October 17, 1989, in favor of respondent, binding himself to sell to respondent the subject property and not to offer the same to any other party within thirty (30) days from date. Arturo acknowledged receipt of a check from respondent in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), representing earnest money for the subject property, the amount of which would be deducted from the purchase price of One Million Three Hundred Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,300,000.00). Further, the RMOA stated that full payment would be effected as soon as possession of the property shall have been turned over to respondent. S.

Subsequently, Arturo’s wife, Esther, executed a Special Power of Attorney dated October 25, 1989, appointing her sister, Bernadette Ramos, to act for and in her behalf relative to the transfer of the property to respondent. Ostensibly, a marital squabble was brewing between Arturo and Esther at the time and to protect his interest, respondent caused the annotation of his adverse claim on the title of the spouses to the property on November 14, 1989. Esther, through her attorney-in-fact, executed a contract to Sell the property to the extent of her conjugal interest therein for the sum of six hundred fifty thousand pesos (P650,000.00) and agreed to surrender possession of the property to respondent within twenty (20) days from November 16, 1989, while the latter promised to pay the balance of the purchase price in the amount of one million two hundred ninety thousand pesos (P1,290,000.00) after being placed in possession of the property. Esther also obligated herself to execute and deliver to respondent a deed of absolute sale upon full payment. In a letter dated December 7, 1989, respondent informed the spouses that he had set aside the amount of One Million Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos (P1,290,000.00) as evidenced by Citibank Check No. 278107 as full payment of the purchase price. He reiterated his demand upon them to comply with their obligation to turn over possession of the property. Arturo and Esther failed to deliver the property which prompted respondent to cause the annotation of another adverse claim on TCT No. 145316. On January 12, 1990, respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against petitioners. Arturo filed his answer to the complaint while his wife was declared in default. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for specific performance. It ruled that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) ostensibly issued by Esther in favor of Arturo was void as it was falsified. Hence, the court concluded that the SPA could not have authorized Arturo to sell the property to respondent. The trial court also noted that the check issued by respondent to cover the earnest money was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and while it was replaced with another check by respondent, there is no showing that the second check was issued as payment for the earnest money on the property. Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the SPA in favor of Arturo, assuming that it was void, cannot affect the transaction between

Esther and respondent. The appellate court ratiocinated that it was by virtue of the SPA executed by Esther, in favor of her sister, that the sale of the property to respondent was effected. On the other hand, the appellate court considered the RMOA executed by Arturo in favor of respondent valid to effect the sale of Arturo’s conjugal share in the property. Hence this petition. Issue

No. 90-106 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati is ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Jao vs. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Facts

Whether or not petitioner may be compelled to convey the property to respondent under the terms of the RMOA and the Contract to Sell

Held Contracts, in general, require the presence of three essential elements: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established. Significantly, the Family Code has introduced some changes particularly on the aspect of the administration of the conjugal partnership. The new law provides that the administration of the conjugal partnership is now a joint undertaking of the husband and the wife. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal partnership, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. However, the power of administration does not include the power to dispose or encumber property belonging to the conjugal partnership. In all instances, the present law specifically requires the written consent of the other spouse, or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal partnership property without which, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. Inescapably, herein petitioner’s action for specific performance must fail. Even on the supposition that the parties only disposed of their respective shares in the property, the sale, assuming that it exists, is still void for as previously stated, the right of the husband or the wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest until the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can give what he has not. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint in Civil Case

On October 18, 1968, petitioner Janice Marie Jao, then a minor, represented by her mother and guardian-adlitem Arlene Salgado, filed a case for recognition and support against private respondent Perico V. Jao. The latter denied paternity so the parties agreed to a blood grouping test which was in due course conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) upon order of the trial court. The result of the blood grouping test, held January 21, 1969, indicated that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Perico V. Jao and Arlene S. Salgado. Issue Whether or not blood grouping test are conclusive as to non-paternity. Held A universal scientific agreement that blood grouping are conclusive as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity—that is, the fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are cross matched, then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. Andal and Dueňas vs. Macaraig SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Facts Emiliano Andal became sick of tuberculosis in January 1941. Sometime thereafter, his brother, Felix, went

biological daughter of the late Vicente O. Edivigis Macaraig. On November 2. Marissa Benitez (herein petitioner) opposed the petition. then 15 years old saw with her own eyes and personally witnessed Flora Guinto gave birth to Teofista Guinto.” The fact that the wife had illicit intercourse with a man other than her husband during the initial period does not preclude cohabitation between said husband and wife. Isabel died on April 25. Issue Whether or not Emiliano Andal is the father of Mariano Andal despite his illness and despite the intercourse of the wife with another man. The fact that the husband was seriously sick is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of legitimacy. the prayer herein is not to declare that petitioner is an illegitimate child of Hermogena. In other words. On January 1. Nilo Chipongian. Held If appellee Marissa Benitez is truly the real. 1942. Vicente O. that on September 20. Chipongian. Benitez-Badua vs. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Action To Impugn Legitimacy . who died on May 26. testified that it was his brother-in-law. 1982. Vicente followed her in the grave on November 13. Benitez who prepared said document and that he signed the same only because the latter told him to do so. Mariano Andal assisted by his mother Maria Duenas. 1943. Babiera vs. who was given the name Mariano Andal. Benitez and his wife Isabel Chipongian. 1996 and July 6. Eduvigis Macaraig took possession of the land whom the deceased owned because there is none in the family has the right to inherit. Dr. then 65 years old and Hermogena. he lamely explained that he signed said document without understanding completely the meaning of the words “descendant and ascendant. who did not even attend his funeral. From that petition.to live in his house to help him work his farm. The provision. unless it can be shown that cohabitation took place through corrupt violation of prison regulations. Held: Article 171 of the Family Code is not applicable to the present case. why did he and Isabel’s only brother and sibling. Since May 1942. Issue Whether or not the petitioner is a legitimate child of the deceased spouses. This presumption can only be rebutted by proof that it was physically impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife during the first 120 days of the 300 next preceding the birth of the child. Atty. “that we are the sole heirs of the deceased ISABEL CHIPONGIAN because she died without descendants or ascendants. 1990. 1943. by simulating that she was the child of the spouses Eugenio. and both went to live in the house of Maria’s father. after Isabel’s death on April 25. caused the registration/ recording of the facts of birth of her child. They alleges that Mariano Andal is the surviving son of Emiliano Andal and Maria Duenas and that Emiliano Andal was the owner of the parcel of land in question whom he acquired by virtue of a “donation propter nuptias” from his mother. Flora Guinto. the present action does not impugn petitioner’s filiation to Spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera because there is no blood relation to impugn in the first place. until the middle of 1943. Catotal Facts SUBJECT MATTER: Action to impugn legitimacy Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian owned various properties especially in Laguna. Verily. filed an action for the recovery and possession of a parcel of land situated in Calabanga. On September 24. He died intestate. his wife. There cases where persons suffering from TB can do the carnal act even in the most crucial stage of health because then they seem to be more inclined to sexual intercourse. Benitez make such a statement in said document unless appellee Marissa Benitez is really not his deceased wife’s legal heir. as guardian. The parties further exchanged reply and rejoinder to buttress their legal postures. On June 17. Chipongian. She alleged that she is the sole heir of the deceased Vicente Benitez and capable of administering her estate. Issue: Whether or not Article 170 of the Family Code is applicable. But why would Atty. Maria Duenas gave birth to a boy. Emiliano died without the presence of his wife. and imprisonment. state in the extra-judicial settlement that they executed her estate. 1990 respectively. impotence which is patent. placed on the witness stand by appellants. presupposes that the child was the undisputed offspring of the another. private respondent asserted that she is the only surviving child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera and Hermogena Carinosa. The fight for administration of Vicente’s estate ensued. eloped with Felix.” The court cannot believe Dr. Facts: Presentacion B. Chipongian being a practicing pediatrician who has even gone to US. respectively) prayed for the issuance of letters of administration of Vicente’s estate in favor of private respondent Aguilar. and made the latter to appear as the mother by forging her signature.” Dr. 1990. Brought by the death of Emiliano Andal. private respondents Victoria Benitez-Lirio and Feodor Benitez Aguilar (Vicente’s sister and nephew. The present case alleges and shows that Hermogena did not gave birth to petitioner. 1989. the child is still the legitimate child. 1996 a bay girl was delivered by ‘hilot’ in the house of spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera and without the knowledge of said spouse. Maria Duenas. Catotal (private respondent) filed a petition for the cancellation of the entry of birth of Teofista Babiera. however. that petitioner. but to establish that the former is not the latter’s child at all. “Impossibility of access by husband to wife would include absence during the initial period of conception. His sickness became worse that on or about September 10. 1982. Held Yes. A close readings of this provision shows that it applies to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife’s child. As for as Dr. then 54 years old. the mother of the child and a housemaid of the said spouses. Camarines Sur. continuing and incurable. Felix and Maria had sexual intercourse and treated each other as husband and wife.

Corazon bought a lot but failed to secure the signature of his her husband. No clinical records. On March 10. Manila. Corazon cohabited with the late William Liyao from 1965 up to the time on William’s untimely demise on 2 December 1975. allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita.. then a resident of Tondo. Issue Whether petitioners are illegitimate offspring of the decedent Held The issue at hand cannot be aptly adjudicated without an action having been first instituted to impugn their legitimacy as being the children of Carolina and Danilo de Jesus in a lawful wedlock. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to Angelita's house in Tondo. They have six children. Bulacan. under the care of Angelita as she usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry. 1989. log book or discharge order from the clinic were ever submitted. there is a presumption that children born on wedlock are legitimate.. However.. she underwent ligation at the Martinez Hospital in 1970. where she allegedly saw her son Edgardo. and whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy. Tr. Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. Accordingly. Jr.5 The trial court also held that the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity. and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person who is the natural child of petitioners. Petitioners were born as a result of the marriage between Carolina de Jesus and Danilo de Jesus. They lived together in the company of Corazon’s two children from her subsisting marriage. Jr. Dr.. they saw no traces of his whereabouts. who was born on April 27. and against those of the latter’s collateral blood relatives. JR. before she lived with Tomas Lopez without the benefit of marriage in 1974. The latter acknowledged petitioners as his illegitimate children in a notarized document. at the time petitioner was conceived and born.. Ana. They filed for partition with Inventory and Accounting after Juan Dizon died intestate. within what period Facts Corazon is legally married to but living separately from Ramon Yulo for more than ten (10) years at the time of the institution of the said civil case. The midwife who allegedly delivered the child was not presented in court. She also left her four-month old son. it ruled that Edgardo Tijing. as she claimed. were gone. With regard to the alleged son of Corazon and William. the trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband could not have children. Held A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son. within what period Facts . Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court in order to recover their son.Obviously. Assuming she had that ligation removed in 1978. after having been reconciled. Edgardo Tijing. she offered no evidence she gave birth to a child between 1978 and 1988 or for a period of ten years. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Chipongian was just trying to protect the interest of appellee. at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Manila. was already named John Thomas Lopez. Jr. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do some marketing. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER CORAZON GARCIA vs JUANITA TANHOTI-LIYAO SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file. Manila. which immediately precedes the birth of the child. this becomes conclusive when evidence shows proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the 1st 120 days of the 300 days. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Action To Claim Legitimacy Facts Petitioners are husband and wife. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file. Declaration of legitimacy cannot be collaterally attacked. Ramon Yulo. She claims that the boy. All these considered. The fact that Corazon Garcia had been living separeately from her husband. Held It is correct. a brother of the late Tomas Lopez. According to Bienvenida in August 1989. the foster daughter of his deceased sister and brother-in-law. she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing.. Bulacan. Moreover. be returned to the private respondent. the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an impossibility. looked for their missing the acknowledged son in other places. Sometime in 1944. said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. who was pointed out to her by Benjamin Lopez. Issue Whether or not the respondent court of appeals erred in reversing the decision of the regional trial court dismissing the petition for "habeas corpus" and in directing that the custody of the minor John Thomas Lopez who was proven to the same minor as Edgardo r. WIILIAM LIYAO. Angelita and Edgardo. 1995. Issue Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ decision was correct. Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez. Bienvenida went to Hagonoy. Husband and wife. However. Jr. Edgardo A. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita Diamante. it bears that such can be invoked by the husband or in proper cases his heirs under conditions set forth by the Civil Code. She avers that Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do so. is of no moment. Four years later. While physical impossibility for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife is one of the grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child. Jr. but did not find them there. Tijing. we are constrained to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of Estate of Juan Gamboa Dizon vs. for the first time after four years. Tijing vs. Edgardo. However. She admitted that after the birth of her second child.When Bienvenida returned from the market. trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Jr.

Therefore the petition is dismiss . Company. representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The documents petitioner wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider were already cancelled by the BID. Jr. But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. COMELEC must not only be material. sustenance and everyday needs were shouldered by the decedent. 1974. but also deliberate and willful. 1988. But the petition was denied en banc by the COMELEC. a copy of the purported marriage contract between Fernando Pou and Bessie Kelley. Petitioner insists that the Supreme Court disregard the action taken by the BID and consider the documents previously cancelled by the said office to support his claim for legitimacy. also known as Fernando Poe. to declare the properties and business held by them as part of the estate the Bonifacio Go Kim. 1974 stating that the records filed in the Bureau of Immigration (BID) showed that the decedent registered petitioner as one of his sons. the petitions in this case both having been directly elevated to this Court in the latter’s capacity as the only tribunal to resolve a presidential and vice-presidential election contest under the Constitution.petitioners. P-2247 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Pangasinan. Nevertheless. not before. commonly known as FPJ. 20643. Poe and Paulita Gomez could be found. In his certificate of candidacy. and compel them to render an accounting. in the name of Lorenzo Pou. COMELEC SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of legitimate children Facts On 31 December 2003. stated his name to be "Fernando Jr. copies of Tax Declaration No. No. which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court thirteen years ago. Petitioner herein contested the candidacy and presented twenty-two documentary pieces of evidence. the trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and ordered petitioner to pay respondent in sum of P200. On February 16. for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity. On the other hand. the latter’s children. stating that the records of birth in the said office during the period of from 1900 until May 1946 were totally destroyed during World War II. rights. Tecson vs. Evidently. Petitioner’s real parents were Gaw Gee and Ng Kee as appearing in his landing certificate. William Go Kim Huy. which cannot no be disturbed. a certificate of birth of Ronald Allan Poe. In the voluminous records presented. and assets belonging to the estate of the deceased. In fact. the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78.00 as moral damages. a certification issued by the Officer-InCharge of the Archives Division of the National Archives that no available information about the marriage of Allan F. No. 23477 and No. Issue Whether or not FPJ is a natural born Filipino Citizen. Petitioner testified that he is known by his name Go Kim Huy or William Go. On June 18. Poe in the registry of births for San Carlos. the elections are held. and a certification issued by the City Civil Registrar of San Carlos City." or "Ronald Allan" Poe. Bonifacio Go Kim & Sons. other than the cancelled certification. petitioner’s alleged filiation was merely dependent upon the certification issued by the BID in 1974 and he has failed to show by convincing evidence. in the forthcoming national elections. respondent Santiago avers that he is the only son of Bonifacio Go Kim. The BID then cancelled its certification and declared that petitioner is not a son of the decedent. heirs are called to succeed. He asserts that he was forced to file the case in court because respondent Santiago refused to give him his share on the estate of his father. that indeed he was related to the decedent. respondent’s counsel filed a letter-complaint dated May 23. 000. petitioner filed a complaint against Santiago Go Kim Huy. filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party. which. Issue Whether or not petitioner can claim legitimacy so as to be entitled to acquire his share over the estate of the decedent? Held By provision of will or operation of law. in relation to Section 74. and to prove whether or not there has been material misrepresentation. 1996. Domingo of the Archives Division of the National Archives that there appeared to be no available information regarding the birth of Allan F. Go Kim Huy SUBJECT MATTER: Action To Claim Legitimacy Facts Bonifacio Go Kim died on February 26. the more significant ones being a certification issued by Estrella M. petitioner herein. While the case in the trial court was pending. 20844. it all boils down to a reconsideration of the BID finding. and Santiago Go Kim Huy & Sons. Pangasinan. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child Go Kim Huy vs.. notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their position and evidence. Hence this petition. Respondent denied any relation with petitioner and declares that the grant of petitioner for change of name from Gaw Piak to William Go Kim Huy did not make him a member of the family of Bonifacio Go Kim. Original Certificate of Title No. a copy of the certificate of death of Lorenzo Pou. Petitioner went to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari assailing the opinion of the Ministry of Justice. as so ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. FPJ. of the Omnibus Election Code. 23478 in the name of Lorenzo Pou. his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. claims hereditary rights over the mass of property. Petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the Court. He maintains that petitioner has lived and worked with them and was treated as a family member because petitioner’s father was a close friend of the decedent. respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe.1980. the primary jurisdiction of the Court can directly be invoked only after. He added that his schooling. the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish his affirmative allegation that Bonifacio Go Kim is his father. Pangasinan. 1983 with the Ministry of Justice attacking the certification dated May 27. Petition was denied on August 22. Held The Court must dismiss.

In addition. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied in a resolution dated 20 May 2004. how such change of name would make his integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly established. in which case they may bear the father’s surname. Petitioner’s allegation that the continued use of the middle name may result in confusion and difficulty is allegedly more imaginary than real. However. he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under our laws. Under Article 174 of the Family Code. there is no confusion since both use the surname of their father. In the case at bar. The OSG reiterates its argument raised before the trial court that the dropping of the child’s middle name could only trigger much deeper inquiries regarding the true parentage of petitioner. and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the same. The trial court found that the reason given for the change of name sought in the petition—that is. (4) It is outside the commerce of man. but this does not mean that middle names have no practical or legal significance. while petitioner Julian has a sister named Jasmine Wei Wang. that petitioner Julian may be discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his middle name—did not fall within the grounds recognized by law. there is also no showing that the dropping of the middle name "Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner. Held: The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition. names cannot be changed to suit the convenience of the bearers. the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. for that matter. considering that he is still a minor. On 30 April 2003.. reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged illegitimate child. unless their father recognizes their filiation. a minor. (3) It is fixed. it has also not been shown that the use of such middle name is actually proscribed by Singaporean law A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute. or immutable. petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. (5) It is imprescriptible. As he is of tender age. . Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his mother’s surname as his middle name and his father’s surname as his surname. The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in Singapore…. legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has. Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20. they pronounce it as "L. Applying these laws. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they do not have the letter "R" but if there is. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. Even assuming that it is customary in Singapore to drop the middle name. and there is no reason why this right should now be taken from petitioner Julian. they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name." It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang. According to the OSG. The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience of the child. (2) It is obligatory in certain respects. at least at the start. inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa. When his parents subsequently got married on September 22. Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and SingFoe Wang who were then not yet married to each other. That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name. The OSG argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code. since mere convenience is not sufficient to support a petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry. Issue: Whether or not dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article 174 of the Family Code. Wang. The OSG also adds that the petitioner has not shown any compelling reason to justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle name. legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of their father and mother. therefore. it is best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. The trial court added that when petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority. while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother. and. This citation does not make any reference to middle names. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother.they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang…. 1998. intended to protect the individual from being confused with others. Since the State has an interest in the name of a person. The OSG filed its Comment positing that the trial court correctly denied the petition for change of name. unchangeable. Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames. an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mother’s surname. petitioner is only a minor.IN RE: JULIAN LIN WANG SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of Legitimate Children Facts: On 22 September 2002. Considering the nebulous foundation on which his petition for change of name is based. Hence.. and may be changed only for good cause and by judicial proceedings. for nobody can be without a name. he could then decide whether he will change his name by dropping his middle name. represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang. . and does not have a middle name. filed a petition dated 19 September 2002 for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence. REGODOS SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary Recognition of Illegitimate Children. the preparation of which was without the knowledge or consent of petitioner. Maria Teresa R. and no further court action is required. In the absence thereof. or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. 1982. Held: Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. Rosalina. a statement before a court of record. Petitioner was therefore surprised when summons was served on him by Florencias counsel. In 1991. private respondent presented a copy of his birth and baptismal certificates. his compulsory heirs were his mother. (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In her answer. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial is reversed and set aside. 1953. is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. 1978. Wherefore the petition is hereby granted. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. 1967. Hence this petition. a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child. any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition. Juan M. Florencia testified that she was the mother of private respondent who was born on September 9. the alleged father of Maria Teresita. On September 15. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary recognition of illegitimate children Facts On September 18. both were not married. in itself.ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN CABATANIA v. On the other hand. Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his paternity over Maria Theresa. the proceedings were closed and terminated. After trial. petitioner brought her to Bacolod City where they checked in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of the herein respondent. Petitioner refused. The decision of the court of appeals which affirmed with modification the decision of the regional trial is affirmed in toto. Art. Alberto was assassinated and died intestate. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. The motion was . for Partition and Accounting with Damages[2] against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her father’s death. Hence this petition. in reality. How Made Facts: This controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son. Issue: Whether the certified xerox copy of the certificate of live birth is competent evidence to prove the alleged filiation of the respondent as an illegitimate daughter of her alleged father Vicente Eceta. Also. on January 2. he sired Maria Theresa. Branch 218. By this act alone. 1982 and that she was the one supporting the child. Then sometime on September 18. Maria Theresa. Vicente died. Private respondent’s petition for recognition and support is dismissed. Maria Theresa filed a case before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. the court a quo gave more probative weight to the testimony of Florencia despite its discovery that she misrepresented herself as a widow when. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child.Thus at the time of his death. In the same vein while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document. Maria Teresa R. a will. It was while working there as a maid that. On appeal. it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child’s paternity. the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person. Issue: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in its application of article 283 of the civil code on the compulsory recognition and award of support in favor of respondentappellee Camelo Regodos. she became Rosalinas coheir and co-owner of the Cubao property. During his lifetime. ECET v. or in any authentic writing is. an illegitimate daughter. like legitimate children. it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. Alberto was appointed as administratrix of the his estate. His lawful wife. denying the alleged paternity. The filiation of illegitimate children. In the case at bar. Albert. private respondent Camelo Regodos During the trial. Alberto vs. Vicente himself signed Maria Theresa’s birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter. After trial on the merits. Yolanda R. After the Inventory and Appraisal and the Administratrix’s Accounting approved. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. Camelo Babatania denied all allegations and provided for a different version. however. and illegitimate child. In fact. Alberto was born to Aurora Reviva and Juan M. her husband was alive. 172. Wherefore the petition for review on certiorari is denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court’s ruling. Held: The applicable provisions of the law are Articles 172 and 175 of the Civil Code: Art. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. private respondent failed to present sufficient proof of voluntary recognition. Rosalina alleged that the property is paraphernal in nature and thus belonged to her exclusively. She recounted that after her husband left her in the early part of 1981. Negros Occidental to look for work and was eventually hired as petitioners household help. ECETA SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary Recognition of Illegitimate Children. 175. How Made Facts: In 1977. She was demanding support for private respondent Camelo Regodos. she went to Escalante. Petitioner promised to support her if she got pregnant. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth. Alberto filed a motion to leave and to intervene as oppositor and to reopen the proceedings.

Lucia Origen. then his heirs. The petition was granted by the supreme court. Paraguya SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary recognition of illegitimate children Facts Trinidad Montilde had a love affair with a priest named REVEREND FATHER Felipe Lumain to which she became pregnant. Dizon. De jesus vs. 285 of the Civil Code.granted by the probate court. that the defendant did not mortgage the property but instead. effected the signing by the deceased of the documents which are in reality a deed of absolute sale and an affidavit of alienation. Rivero v. 1992 Juan G. The answer would be in the negative. CA SUBJECT MATTER: illegitimate children Facts On May 3. Issue Whether or not the Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus can claim to be illegitimate children of Dizon. the court was convinced that Maria Teresa R.000.00 so that she could pay her existing obligation to one Filomena Jusayan in the amount of P3. Estate of decedent juan gamboa dizon SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary recognition of illegitimate children Facts Juan G. However the Court of Appeals reversed the probate court’s decision. that the defendant did not give any consideration to Ana Concepcion and. the surviving spouse and legitimate children of the decedent Juan G. including the corporation of which the deceased was a stockholder. It is unlikely that the law recognize such relationship. she married Anastacio Mamburao to conceal her pregnancy. 1965. together with Cipriano de la Cruz. in fact. and said Ana Concepcion lacked proper medical treatment. Ana Concepcion. REVEREND FATHER Lumain died but left a last will and testament wherein he acknowledged Consolacion as his daughter and instituted her as the sole and universal heir to all his property rights and interests. Upon presentation of evidences by both parties. Alberto as a child of the deceased. This was duly probated and approved in the Court of First Instance of Bohol in June 11. Issue Whether or not consent is vitiated by any of the circumstances and whether the contract is in a public or private writing Voluntary recognition of . REVEREND FATHER Lumain. Leocadia Rivero. through fraud and misrepresentation. sought the dismissal of the case alleging a 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 the deceased Juan Dizon but it was dismissed. Jaime Rivero. Dizon a well founded man. said defendant. and friends as his daughter. she got what she want but not satisfied she appealed to the Supreme Court Issue Whether or not Consolacion has the rights of a natural child of her deceased father REVEREND FATHER Lumain and to claim the parcels of land as her inheritance Held The probated will of REVEREND FATHER Lumain has the full effect of law. the defendant effected the registration of the property in question in his name and Transfer Certificate of Title No.000. acknowledged through an affidavit. Held The supreme court recognized the intent and effort of Juan M. thereby compelling the descendants’ heirs and estate to recognize her as such and allow her to participate in the estate proceedings. relatives. Alberto to introduce Maria to the family as one of his flesh and blood. Dizon died leaving his assets consisting of shares of stock in various corporations and other properties. if not . 1965. Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as being his own illegitimate children by Carolina Aves de Jesus sometime in 1991. Domingo Rivero and Delfin Jusayan. fearful of the societal pressure. trusting that he would facilitate the mortgage. finding no satisfaction in the degree of proof to establish Maria Teresa R. Upon turning into adulthood Consolacion filed an action against Hipolito Paraguya for the recovery of certain parcels of land she claims to have inherited from her father. during her last illness. by allowing Maria to use his family name and by giving her mother money to support her support and by openly introducing her to members of his family. when Ana Concepcion was no longer in full possession of her reasoning faculties. On March 12. manifesting that certain documents were supposed to be deeds of mortgage of the abovenamed property and also through violence and undue influence on Ana Concepcion. thus all of the estate of the late REVEREND FATHER Lumain must be transferred to the petitioner. indicating in his will that she is her daughter and who will be the universal heir of all his estate. the deceased died without paying her debt to Filomena Jusayan. And taking into consideration the evidence presented is only an affidavit which cannot be fully given credence in the absence of any other evidences. 1965. on or about March 25.00 and to spend for her recovery from illness. Maria seeking a judicial declaration shall be recognized as a natural child to enable her to participate in the estate of her deceased father. Alberto had been in continuous possession of a natural child. that on or about March 26. disgraceful as it is REVEREND FATHER Felipe Lumain even solemnized their marriage and on October 31. Held Only the father can impugn the legitimacy of the child while he is still alive. Thus this petition is dismiss Aparicio vs. that she entrusted the title to her property to the defendant. 1965. Issue Whether or not the Maria Albert be legally be recognized by the heirs of the estate of Juan Alberto as a natural child of the latter. 1938 and was duly affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus the will must be fully be enforced. instituted against Jaime Rivero to declare null and void a contract of sale of a parcel of land and Transfer Certificate of Title No. who died intestate that on or about March 15. Respondents. the deceased decided to mortgage the abovementioned property for P5. that the plaintiffs are some of the legal heirs of the deceased. T-55814. By the effect of the operation of Art. 1936. But the question in this case is can both Petitioners claim being an illegitimate child at the same time a legitimate of other parent.

San Juan. he assigns the following errors to the trial court: Held: Article 176 of the Family Code confers parental authority over illegitimate children on the mother. Metro Manila. In any case. which would vest parental authority in him. Parada St.1âwphi1. In his Appellant's Brief. whether legitimate or illegitimate." Consequently. the relatives of the deceased discovered that the land of Ana Concepcion had been registered in the name of Jaime Rivero who secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. Issue: Whether or not accused should recognize his child with victim Held: On the matter of acknowledgment and support of the child.00. 000. More than six decades later. the amount and terms thereof to be determined by the trial court only after due notice and hearing. Article 345 of The Revised Penal Code provides that persons guilty of rape shall also be sentenced to "acknowledge the offspring. As such. Transfer Certificate of Title No. The consideration for the sale of said land is only P5. The undisputed facts of record support the finding of the trial court that the consent of Ana Concepcion to the deed of sale was obtained through the fraudulent misrepresentation of Jaime Rivero that the contract she was signing was one of mortgage. owner of the canteen. petitioners learned that private respondents had executed an . Sta. It appears that Ana Concepcion only wanted to mortgage the property so she could pay her indebtedness of about P3.nêt On 5 January 1995. 1968. Issues: The accused seasonably appealed from the decision. 56789 in his name from the Register of Deeds of Bulacan..Held The record discloses that Ana Concepcion was the only daughter of Vicente Concepcion who died in 1934. As pronounced by this Court in People v. Cruz v. as his child. that portion of the judgment under review is accordingly deleted. Cristobal SUBJECT MATTER: Liquidation of absolute community Facts: Mercedes Cristobal. Soon enough she became weary and exhausted. People v. under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code. Bulacan. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. he cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime. As a stayin waitress she slept at the second floor of the canteen. Branch 11. on 2 October 1995. Lucia. through the efforts of Jaime Rivero. He then forcibly spread her legs. in Criminal Case No. 32 ares and 45 centares. seeks the reversal of the 28 April 1995 decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City. Meanwhile. she requested her nephew.00. In the instant case then. worked at the Espiritu Canteen in Dagupan City. In 1958 Ana Concepcion had executed an option to sell the land in question for a price of P4. Guerrero. 72 with Marie Elena Nieto.000. the complainant charged the accused with the crime of rape allegedly committed. and that a deed entitled "Kasulatan Sa Ganap Na Bilihan" dated March 24. there is no further need for the prohibition against acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who is married. 10878-2. Tracy Jhuen Nieto. On the other hand. that on January 20. Upon opening her eyes she saw accused Manuel Manahan as he immediately placed himself on top of her." In the case before us. if there be any. 16 years old. Bayani SUBJECT MATTER: Compulsory Recognition of Illegitimate Children. a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). 1965. we sustain that part ordering the accused to support the child as it is in accordance with law. but in light of Article 20173 of the Family Code. that not long after the death of Ana Concepcion on April 18.000. at about two o'clock in the morning. was allegedly concocted by Jaime Rivero. His wife Primadonna is the sister of Josefina Espiritu. Florencio. Manuel Manahan is the brother-in-law of Josefina Espiritu. Anselmo Cristobal. Teresita who was asleep was suddenly awakened when she felt someone beside her. On 18 June 1926. Moreno Bayani. It has an area of 2 hectares. 6433. taking advantage of his being in possession of the certificate of title of Ana Concepcion. It appears from the description of the land in question that the same is a corner lot being bounded on the south and west by a road 3 meters wide. she gave birth to a healthy baby girl and christened her Melanie Tibigar. that Ana Concepcion inherited from her father a parcel of land which is the subject of the present controversy. the heirs of the deceased Socorro Cristobal. In her sworn complaint dated 22 February 1993 and filed on 24 February 1993 with the court below. Norberto.00 which is not only grossly inadequate but shocking to the conscience. the accused should also be ordered to support his illegitimate offspring.50 per square meter. People v. and Elisa Cristobal-Sikat claim that they are the legitimate children of Buenaventura Cristobal during his first marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. to work for the transfer of the title of the land in question to her. Considering the nature of the area of the property. finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. to indemnify complainant Maria Elena Nieto in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50. Eufrosina and Jose are also the children of Buenaventura Cristobal resulting from his second marriage to Donata Enriquez. T-55814 embracing said land was issued in the name of Ana Concepcion. that Transfer Certificate of Title No. She tried to shout but the accused covered her mouth. that Ana Concepcion was afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis and as she needed money for her treatment.000.00) Pesos. and likewise provides for their entitlement to support in conformity with the Family Code. Buenaventura Cristobal purchased a parcel of land with an area of 535 square meters located at 194 P. Manahan SUBJECT MATTER: Compulsory recognition Facts: Complainant Teresita Tibigar. should there be any. The land in question was sold for less than P0." and "in every case to support the offspring. Therefore. she pushed and kicked him many times in an effort to free herself but the accused proved too strong for her. with all the accessory penalties provided by law. Manuel and Primadonna temporarily reside at the canteen together with the family of Josefina as Primadonna was then pregnant. unless the law should prevent him from doing so. very near Manila. the rule is that if the rapist is a married man. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. T-55814 was never delivered by Jaime Rivero to Ana Concepcion until she died.25 per square meter. and to pay the costs. The land in question is located in the Municipality of Polo. 1965. Jaime Rivero. a correction of the view of the court a quo is in order. the offender in a rape case who is married can only be sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the offspring. whereby it was made to appear that Ana Concepcion had sold to Jaime Rivero the land in question. the same can be sold for about P100. She cried. Who may file and when to file action for compulsory recognition Facts: Sgt. compulsory acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is not proper there being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears that the accused is a married man.

a Complaint or Annulment of Title and Damages was filed before the RTC by petitioners against private respondents to recover their alleged pro-indiviso shares in the subject property. Petitioner refused. the baptismal certificates of Elisa. Ruling: The Court granted the petition and recognized and declared as children of the late Buenaventura Cristobal from his first marriage to Ignacia Cristobal. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. She was demanding support for private respondent Camelo Regodos. attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. petitioners sought recourse in the Court of Appeals which ruled that they were able to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal thru "other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. In the case of Mercedes who was born on 31 January 1909. On appeal. or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. the trial court rendered a judgment on 11 July 1997. may consist of the child's baptismal certificate. 1982. Also. Art. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 32817. and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear. the preparation of which was without the knowledge or consent of petitioner. the testimony of witnesses. 1982 and that she was the one supporting the child. 175. but no settlement was reached. The subject property in the name of private respondents is ordered to be partitioned and distributed in accordance with the decision and appropriate certificates of title be issued in favor of each of the recognized heirs of the late Cristobal Buenaventura. It was while working there as a maid that. How Made Facts: This controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son. 1940. 1997. After trial on the merits. denying the alleged paternity. the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. Camelo Babatania denied all allegations and provided for a different version. her husband was alive. she produced a certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar. private respondent failed to present sufficient proof of voluntary recognition. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. Thus. a judicial admission. On the other hand. and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. After trial. she went to Escalante. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws. Issue: Whether or not baptismal certificates are valid to prove filiation. Wherefore the petition is hereby granted. on January 2. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. CA SUBJECT MATTER: Voluntary Recognition of Illegitimate Children. CABATANIA v. Petitioner promised to support her if she got pregnant. The Deed of Partition executed by private respondents is declared not binding upon petitioners who were not notified or did not participate in the execution thereof. which reversed and set aside the . The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial is reversed and set aside. Negros Occidental to look for work and was eventually hired as petitioners household help. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person. (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. In the absence of the foregoing evidence. In the case at bar. common reputation respecting the child's pedigree. Article 172 of the Family Code provides: Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. petitioner brought her to Bacolod City where they checked in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. Held: The applicable provisions of the law are Articles 172 and 175 of the Civil Code: Art. private respondent presented a copy of his birth and baptismal certificates. in reality. the court a quo gave more probative weight to the testimony of Florencia despite its discovery that she misrepresented herself as a widow when. She recounted that after her husband left her in the early part of 1981. private respondent Camelo Regodos During the trial. Petitioner was therefore surprised when summons was served on him by Florencias counsel. admission by silence. it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child’s paternity. ruling that petitioners failed to prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal as the baptismal and birth certificates presented have scant evidentiary value and that petitioners’ inaction for a long period of time amounts to laches. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. CV No. Not satisfied. 1909. In the same vein while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document. and the late Socorro were presented. Santiago SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the decision dated March 4. Lagabala vs.R. Issue: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in its application of article 283 of the civil code on the compulsory recognition and award of support in favor of respondentappellee Camelo Regodos. Hence this petition. Petitioners filed a petition in their barangay to attempt to settle the case between them and private respondents." but affirmed the ruling of the trial court barring their right to recover their share of the subject property because of laches. 172. To prove their filiation with the deceased Buenaventura Cristobal. 1943.extrajudicial partition of the subject property and transferred its title to their names. In the absence of the foregoing evidence. 1932 to 1939. Florencia testified that she was the mother of private respondent who was born on September 9. dismissing the case. Private respondent’s petition for recognition and support is dismissed. Anselmo. a family bible in which the child's name has been entered.

Branch 54. it cannot be a valid donation. They averred that the respondent is not an acknowledged son of the deceased. Again. The Register of Deeds of Manila was required to include the names of Nicolasa and Amanda in the certificate of title to said property. was fetched by petitioner and they transferred to San Juan St. then managing a business of her own as Namarco distributor. to enable her to secure the corresponding transfer certificate of title (TCT No. Being a minor in 1979. Petitioner could not have given her consent to the contract. which makes the sale void. He came home to her three or four times a week.. respondent Juan Locsin.The Court of Appeals. the latter prevails. 64729. Santiago owned a parcel of land covered by TCT No. Whether or not petitioner has adduced preponderant evidence to prove that she is the daughter of the late Jose T. Jose T. In June. No one of those mentioned in the law . Jose died intestate on February 6. Labagala. to. including one of sale. it offers only a prima facie evidence and may be refuted by contrary evidence. petitioner admittedly did not pay any centavo for the property. Manila.in fact no one at all . ownership. his sisters Nicolasa and Amanda (now respondents herein) sued Jose for recovery of 2/3 share of the property. In October. Held Clearly. Moreover. he courted her more than four years. Held: while a birth certificate is a formidable piece of evidence for the purposes of filiation and recognition.87-41515. but the act may be shown to have been in reality a donation. or some other act or contract. On April 20. During the earlier proceeding. Santiago. Their relationship became intimate and with his promise of marriage.judgment dated October 17. Leoncia. the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner Ida C. Labagala. located in Rizal Avenue Extension. because they are the only legal heirs of their brother. Cruz. Pasay City. Respondents alleged that Jose's share in the property belongs to them by operation of law. In sum. the trial court in that case decided in favor of the sisters. Pampanga. Locsin V Locsin Subject Matter: Proof of Illegitimacy Facts: The regional trial court rendered a decision. before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. while the petitioners presented a true copy of respondent’s birth certificate from the Civil Registrar General. Sr. Of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. met petitioner. who died intestate and without issue. Sta. a picture and the testimony of the Local Civil Registrar. The death certificate . On August 5. and possession against herein petitioner. recover from her the 1/3 portion of said property pertaining to Jose but which came into petitioner's sole possession upon Jose's death. hence it must be upheld. Art. 741 of the same Code. Issue: whether or not respondent sufficiently proved his filiation to be an interested party. Later. located behind the Filipinas Telephone Company branch office. 1984. absent which there can be no valid contract. He alleges in the petition that is an acknowledged son and that he is the only surviving legal heir of the deceased. 64729. 1990. finding herein petitioner to be the owner of 1/3 pro indiviso share in a parcel of land. which was affirmed by the Courts of Appeals appointing the respondent administrator. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. which reversed the decision of the trial court. the acceptance of the donation should have been made by her father. as explained by the Court of Appeals: Even assuming that the deed is genuine. eleven months after Juan Locsin. died intestate. On October 17. Jose did not have the right to transfer ownership of the entire property to petitioner since 2/3 thereof belonged to his sisters. Leoncia. Records shows that on November 1991. being a minor at the time. 1471 provides that If the price is simulated. They claimed that the purported sale of the property made by their brother to petitioner sometime in March 1979 was executed through petitioner's machinations and with malicious intent. 172334) in petitioner's name alone. she delivered a still-born female child at the Manila Sanitarium. there is no valid sale in this case.accepted the "donation" for Ida. Where there are glaring discrepancies between the certificates of live birth recorded in the local Civil Registry and the copy transmitted to the Civil Registry General. thus affecting their credibility. and the presence of other undermined properties of the deceased Petitioner interposed in the proceeding alleging that they are the legal heirs of the decedent being the heirs of the decedent’s siblings. 1990. Santiago. who was conceiving at that time. 1987. they eloped to Guagua. the sale is void. 1962. Jr filed with the regional trial court a petition for letters of administration praying that he be appointed administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased. in the estate proceeding. They stayed at La Mesa Apartment. of which he is the president and general manager. recognizing their right of ownership over portions of the property covered by TCT No. 1962. 725 of the Civil Code. Alleging that Jose had fraudulently registered it in his name alone. Ida C. Leon Labagala or [her] mother Cornelia Cabrigas or her legal representative pursuant to Art. in Civil Case No. Whether or not respondents could still impugn the filiation of the petitioner as the daughter of the late Jose T. A person’s photograph with his mother near the coffin of the alleged father cannot and will not constitute proof of filiation. It lacks the acceptance of the donee required by Art. 1981. 2. we find no reversible error attributable to the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. Consent of the contracting parties is among the essential requisites of a contract. Issues 1. Neither may the purported deed of sale be a valid deed of donation. SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts Sometime in 1957. as contemplated by law. The court ordered respondents petition for the issuance of the letters of administration dismissed. respondent evidenced his filiation by presenting a machine-copied birth certificate. Artemio G. Ilano vs. respondents filed a complaint for recovery of title.

respondent court found. Brawner and Bienvenido Rodriguez. He disowned the handwritten answers and signatures in the death certificate of a female child surnamed Ilano. and there is no clear and sufficient evidence that the support was really given to plaintiff's mother. 9. Both petitioner and his daughter admitted that the check and the signature are those of the former. whether actual or by fiction. Rodriguez vs. Respondent appellate court was correct in applying the doctrine of res judicata as additional reason for dismissing the case. 1987 at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. that private respondent's evidence to establish her filiation with and the paternity of petitioner is too overwhelming to be ignored or brushed aside by the highly improbable and fatally flawed testimony of Melencio and the inherently weak denials of petitioner The court a quo did not likewise consider the evidences as sufficient to establish that plaintiff was in continuous possession of status of a child in view of the denial by appellee of his paternity. at the Meralco Compound tennis courts where Violeta’s father worked as a tennis instructor. They were born with a social handicap and the law should help them to surmount the disadvantages facing them through the misdeeds of their parents.” On March 18. at the time of conception of the child. Fernandez. Since petitioner had a subsisting marriage to another at the time Merceditas was conceived. 1986. she was asked by counsel t reveal the identity of the plaintiff’s father but the defendant’s counsel raised a timely objection. Br. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied in December 22. Romeo A. The plaintiff file before the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari questioning the said order in UDK 8516 entitled “Clarito Agbulos vs. The belated denial of paternity after the action has been filed against the putative father is not the denial that would destroy the paternity of the child which had already been recognized by defendant by various positive acts clearly evidencing that he is plaintiff's father. child of Leoncia Aguinaldo de los Santos and Artemio Geluz Ilano. the decision was set aside and the complaint was dismissed by respondent appellate court on October 20. as first witness. Br. the Supreme Court referred the petition to the Court of . Felecitas Agbulos Haber. while they were living at Highway 54. illegitimate children or those who are conceived and born out of wedlock were generally classified into two groups: (1) Natural. new Civil Code) and (2) Spurious. the signature appearing thereon having been identified by Leoncia as that of petitioner because he often gives her checks which he issues at home and saw him sign the checks. Hon. Petitioners filed a civil case for support against Carlito in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. It cannot be withdrawn Fernandez vs. In this regard. Eventually. 1963 also at the Manila Sanitarium. Article 287 of the Civil Code provides that illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with Article 269 and other than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as are granted in the Civil Code. 1988. which the court sustained. Issue Whether or not petitioners are entitled to recognition and support from private respondent? Held It is the Court’s findings that that petitioners’ evidence failed to substantiate their cause of action. Petitioner's defense was a total and complete denial of any relationship with Leoncia and Merceditas. the decision was rendered in favor of the petitioners. Her birth was recorded as Merceditas de los Santos Ilano. single. were disqualified to marry each other on account of certain legal impediments. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts On October 15. there must first be a recognition of paternity either voluntarily or by court action. In the course of her direct examination. The Civil Code has given these rights to them because the transgressions of social conventions committed by the parents should not be visited upon them. Issue Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that an adulterous child cannot file an action for recognition. as it is likewise our finding. Makati. The two then started an illicit sexual relationship six months after their first meeting. 87. old Civil Code. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts In 1983. and insufficiency and incompetence of evidence.Violeta Esguerra. were those born outside of lawful wedlock of parents who. 81532. Article 269. petitioner herein. thru Elynia (niece of Leoncia) or thru Merceditas herself.was signed by petitioner. Hence this appeal. she is a spurious child. Leoncia submitted receipts issued by the Manila Sanitarium to show that she was confined there from December 30. although opposite father's name the typewritten name. by herein respondent Clarito Agbulos against Bienvenido Rodriguez. On appeal. Thereafter. and sometimes in the form of a check like Manila Banking Corporation Check No. the plaintiff presented his mother. However. Held Under the then prevailing provisions of the Civil Code. 1964 under the name of Mrs. met Carlito S. married. A recognition once validly made is irrevocable. appears. 1963 until January 2. an action for compulsory recognition and support was brought before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio-Benguet. Ilano. The tryst allegedly gave birth to herein petitioners Carlo Antonio and John Paul Fernandez. before Article 287 can be availed of. The case however. At the trial. he had been recognized or acknowledged as such a child Petitioner is obliged to recognize Merceditas as his spurious child In reversing the decision of the trial court. thru Melencio. the rights of an illegitimate child arose not because he was the true or real child of his parents but because under the law. 1992. 1922. Leoncia Ilano. whether incestuous. Another action for recognition and support was filed on February 19. Ilano was born on December 30. were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other (Article 119. The support by petitioner for Leoncia and Merceditas was sometimes in the form of cash personally delivered by him. private respondent Merceditas S. In other words. Artemio G. was dismissed on the basis of immateriality. This arises from the legal principle that an unrecognized spurious child like a natural child has no rights from his parents or to their estate because his rights spring not from the filiation or blood relationship but from his acknowledgment by the parent.

Appeals. Francisco impregnated Esperanza F. 283 of the Civil Code that Facts Petitioners are husband and wife. Lim elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: DNA Tests SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts In 1978. Unfortunately. already pregnant. 172 of the Family Code.. Tijing vs. As a result. was already named John Thomas Lopez. Edgardo A. where she allegedly saw her son Edgardo. Issue: Whether or not the action for compulsory recognition is deserves merit Held: In view in Art. filed a complaint against Francisco L. Bulacan. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court in April 25. which in turn affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court. it ruled that Edgardo Tijing. Hence this petition. She also left her four-month old son. after having been reconciled.” Jison vs. 1988. 1982. Hence this petition. under the care of Angelita as she usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry. various jobs and he from relatives were not enough to meet their needs. Amolar. On March 10. who was pointed out to her by Benjamin Lopez. Bienvenida went to Hagonoy. a brother of the late Tomas Lopez. Maribel asked Lim for support but. Maribel left for Japan. which promulgated the questioned decision dated November 2. praying for a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and for Francisco to recognize her as such. Issue Whether or not the action for compulsory recognition is of merit? Held Petitioner has never controverted the evidence on record. Petitioner alleges she enjoyed continuous implied recognition as an illegitimate child of Francisco. Towards the latter part of 1983. was never given. Manila. Monina proved her filiation by more than mere preponderance of evidence. The trial court rendered its decision enjoining Lim to provide support for Joanna Rose and pay litigation expenses. the trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband could not have children. Lim. Monina Jison was born on August 6. On appeal by Monina. However. According to Bienvenida in August 1989. Monina Jison. Lim allegedly wooed Maribel and the latter reciprocated.. for the first time after four years. Lim paid the bills for Maribel’s confinement. Hence this appeal.When Bienvenida returned from the market. She avers that Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do so. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do some marketing. pictures of himself on various occasions cuddling Joanna Rose and Certificate of Live Birth say it all. She claims that the boy. Jr. Angelita and Edgardo. At the end of 1945 or at the beginning of 1946. On March 15. Maribel then filed a complaint for support in the Regional Trial Court on Manila. Maribel gave birth to a girl and was named Joanna Rose C. Issue Whether or not the action for recognition is of merit? Held Monina Jison’s evidence hurdled “the high standard of proof” required for the success of an action to establish one’s illegitimate filiation when relying upon the provisions regarding “open and continuous possession” or “any other means allowed the by the Rules of Court and special laws”. Manila. They soon lived together with Lim paying the apartment rentals.. filiation may be proven by “any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father. 1995. at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. but did not find them there. Ana. who was a nanny for Francisco’s daughter. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to Angelita's house in Tondo. 283 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Husband and wife. Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez. 1989. 195. with respect to Art. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita Diamante.. were gone. It was here where she met Raymond Pe Lim on her first night on the job. 1946. Maribel Cruz. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Proof of illegitimacy Facts Francisco Jison married Lilia Lopez in 1940. Edgardo. she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. Jr. Jr. On January 17. then a resident of Tondo. Jr. Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court in order to recover their son. and whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy. Tijing and Bienvenida R. in July 1981 and returned to Manila in October of the same year. Manila. Four years later. They have six children. moreover. who was born on April 27. Jison in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. Accordingly. Jr. Lourdes. Bulacan. Pe Lim vs. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing. The rule in Art. and John Thomas Lopez are . Court of Appeals filiation may be proven by “any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father” shall govern. A decision was rendered dismissing the complaint with costs against Monina Jison. allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita. was a part-time student at the same time a receptionist at the Tonight’s Club and Rest house. His love letters to Maribel vowing to be a good father to Joanna Rose. the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an impossibility. despite promises. 1995.. Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. then 16. looked for their missing son in other places.5 The trial court also held that the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity. they saw no traces of his whereabouts. Monina further alleges that Francisco has always given her support and support for her education. petitioner abandoned the mother and child.

did then and there." Issue: Respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe in 1992. he filed for motion for reconsidered and a petition for centiorary. while Fe was carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills On May 14. No clinical records. and whether or not such test could be used as proof of filiations between the child and the alleged father. On March 5. willfully. People v.00 as moral damages for the rape-slaying of a 9-year old child. Cavite City. hence. This privilege only applies to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under dures. we are constrained to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of petitioners. Daisy Diolola. Arnel also denied having fathered the child. . in Rosario. In July 2001. Vallejo SUBJECT MATTER: DNA tests Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. The trial court granted the petition but petitioner still contends that such act is unconstitutional. Tijing. with the open car door hitting Fe’s leg. there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. represented by his mother filed for compulsing recognition. Arnel sped off in his van.000. Branch 88.one and the same person who is the natural child of petitioners. then thirteen years old. the possibility of contamination of the samples. she offered no evidence she gave birth to a child between 1978 and 1988 or for a period of ten years. whether proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests. the above-named accused. Assuming she had that ligation removed in 1978. Municipality of Rosario. Edgardo Tijing. however. Fe and Martin sued Arnel for support. 1999. The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternitY Rosendo Herrera vs. by means of force and intimidation. said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Trial Court. the following factors: how the samples were collected. Martin. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with DAISY DIOLOLA Y DITALO. and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. log book or discharge order from the clinic were ever submitted. Cavite on July 10. Held A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son. against support and damages against petitioner. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against selfincrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from defendant not an exclusion taken from his body. The midwife who allegedly delivered the child was not presented in court. 1999. Petitioner. Issue Whether or not the respondent court of appeals erred in reversing the decision of the regional trial court dismissing the petition for "habeas corpus" and in directing that the custody of the minor John Thomas Lopez who was proven to the same minor as Edgardo r. As remedy. Rosendo Alba SUBJECT MATTER: DNA Tests Facts Issue May the court compel petitioner to undergo DNA test. The Information charging accused-appellant Gerrico Vallejo with the crime of Rape with Homicide alleged: "That on or about the 10th day of July 1999. sentencing Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino to death and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P100. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later refused Fe’s repeated requests for Martin’s support despite his adequate financial capacity and even suggested to have the child committed for adoption. respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity test to abbreviate the proceedings but the petitioner contracted the motion and alleged that is violate of his right against self incrimination. inter alia. All these considered. And the growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. Tr. be returned to the private respondent. courts should consider.00 as civil indemnity and P50. been undergoing chemotherapy. with lewd design. after which they entered into an intimate relationship. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: DNA Tests Facts Golf and Country Club parking lot. Province of Cavite. hence. Despite Arnel’s insistence on abortion. Arnel contended to prove paternity through DNA test hence this appeal. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. This incident was reported to the police. the court may order such test to be used in facilitating judgment.. said accused strangled her to death. Fe was diagnosed with leukemia and has. denied having physical contact with respondent’s mother and that he denied having the child as his. The baby’s birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father. contrary to the belief of respondent in this action the At it is invilation of his rights against self incrimination. well not violate such right. in Barangay Ligtong I. 2002. Issue Whether or not DNA paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for support without violating petitioner’s constitutional right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Jr. since then. On January 19. Held The court ruled that DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child. Wherefore. how they were handled. on August 11. Rosendo Alba. a nineyear old child against the latter's will and while raping the said victim. is without prejudice to the right of the protative father to claim his own defenses. 2000 at the Capitol Medical Hospital in Quezon City. 1998. 2001.000. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. Held In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence. She admitted that after the birth of her second child. especially of illegitimate children. before she lived with Tomas Lopez without the benefit of marriage in 1974. as she claimed. However. she underwent ligation at the Martinez Hospital in 1970. Arnel Agustin vs. Fe decided otherwise and gave birth to their child out of wedlock. Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday on November 10.

The door to the ground floor was open. RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE Significantly. or saliva which can be left on the victim’s body or at the crime scene. where biological evidence has been left. bedding. Kalinga. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. She went up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if Kathylyn was upstairs. 2007 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. each person's DNA profile is distinct and unique.m. Rizal. subsequent testing showed that the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical the semen to be that of appellant’s gene type. Judilyn and her husband. 2007 RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE Section. were on the ground floor of the house of their grandmother. the following terms shall be defined as follows: . Anita Wania. as defined in Section 3 hereof. which are identical with semen taken from the victim’s vaginal canal. At 9:00 a. earwax. skin tissue. she felt a lifeless body that was cold and rigid. Judilyn Pas-a and her first cousin. Definition of Terms. of the same day. Kathylyn handed the letter to appellant earlier that morning.Whether or not accused should be convicted based on DNA reslts Held: The DNA analysis conducted by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida Viloria-Magsipoc is also questioned by accusedappellant. Verily. Isabel Dawang. securing the acquittal of the innocent. Kathylyn was left alone in the house. 1998. Yatar SUBJECT MATTER: DNA Tests: Probative Value in Paternity Cases Facts: On June 30. efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty. . For purposes of criminal investigation. DHFRP2 9/10 and CSF1PO 10/11. it was determined that the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of examination. and he replied that he was getting lumber to bring to the house of his mother. Based on Dr. She called out for her granddaughter. crime scene or assailant. DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which contains his or her genetic code.. But the vaginal swabs taken from the victim yielded positive for the presence of human DNA. Held: can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence.23 A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person’s lifetime.In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule. which accounted for the negative results of their examination. skin tissue. or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect. They saw appellant at the back of the house. but in the event she would not be able to leave. Later. so she went down to get a knife. DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. the root and shaft of hair. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used. DNA EN BANC RESOLUTION Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee on Evidence submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the proposed Rule on DNA Evidence. in Liwan West. She found that the door was tied with a rope. Upon analysis by the experts. While she groped in the dark. October 2. Sec. at 10:00 a. Scope. bone.24 Most importantly. Issue: Whether the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical to the semen of that of appellant’s gene type. Hair and fiber from clothing. and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure. 1. Application of other Rules on Evidence. 3.26 Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair. DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. The blood sample taken from the appellant showed that he was of the following gene types: vWA 15/19. the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva.m. it is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for examination. they showed the DNA profile of accused-appellanT Pp v. Except for identical twins. the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply. She noticed that the water container she asked Kathylyn to fill up earlier that day was still empty. through Kathylyn’s friend. or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special proceedings. de Ungria’s testimony. carpets. chan robles virtual law library Sec. Luz Yatar. sweat. left for their farm in Nagbitayan some two kilometers away. blood. the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.m. Kathylyn told Judilyn that she intended to go to Tuguegarao. Dr. is offered. seventeen year old Kathylyn Uba. Isabel Dawang arrived home and found that the lights in her house were off. mucus. TH01 7/8. This Resolution shall take effect on October 15. or furniture could also be transferred to the victim’s body during the assault. . In the evening of the same day. Cecil Casingan.. semen. In the case at bar. and not the possibility that the samples had been contaminated. used. 2. and vaginal and rectal cells. together with Isabel Dawang. Thus.For purposes of this Rule. If properly collected from the victim. Kathylyn Uba. considering that these specimens were already soaked in smirchy waters before they were submitted to the laboratory. They were talking about the letter sent by their aunt. urine. He argues that the prosecution failed to show that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. Anita asked appellant what he was doing there. a DNA match exists between the semen found in the victim and the blood sample given by the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. They went inside the house through the back door of the kitchen to have a drink of water. Before Judilyn and her husband departed. DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime. appellant Joel Yatar. to her husband. at 8:30 a. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed. Anita Wania and fifteen year old Beverly Deneng stopped by the house of Isabel. . with the notable exception of identical twins. no two individuals have the same DNA. she would just stay home and wash her clothes or go to the house of their aunt.

or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing. (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested. issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted. 5. (b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods. and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. without need of prior court order. order a DNA testing. chan robles virtual law library Sec. (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid. (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles. the court shall (a) Order. (c) The forensic DNA laboratory. in any way. but the results may require confirmation for good reasons. (b) The DNA testing methodology. without need of a prior court order. at the behest of any party. including the condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case. even if found in inanimate objects. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual. before a suit or proceeding is commenced. chan robles virtual law library Sec. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. chan robles virtual law library Sec.Post-conviction DNA testing may be available. chan robles virtual law library Sec.(a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body.The appropriate court may. stay the implementation thereof. Sec. 7. chan robles virtual law library (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples. tissues. that is.In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable. The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. This includes blood. 8. (b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample. saliva and other body fluids. the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established. how they were handled. and (d) The reliability of the testing result. including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. with reasonable certainty. and (f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population. at any time. Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not. which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. If the laboratory is not accredited. 4. 6. the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. that is susceptible to DNA testing. . Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case. that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence. (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person. . the testing process and the reliability of the test results. (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique. whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis). . and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests. and the possibility of contamination of the samples. the court shall consider the following: (a) The chain of custody. which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person. including law enforcement agencies.If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with. to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists. DNA Testing Order. In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented. including how the biological samples were collected. and (c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained. . whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. if any. except identical twins. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing. where appropriate. (c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community. (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. as hereinafter provided. which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. (b) such sample is relevant to the case. the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining. including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Application for DNA Testing Order. the court shall consider the following: chan robles virtual law library (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used. . unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. hairs and bones. Post-conviction DNA Testing. and chan robles virtual law library (e) The existence of other factors. results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case.

the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: chan robles virtual law library (a) In criminal cases: i. At this time. and (b) In all other cases. . CV No. a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following. . the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. Diaz SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts: This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing (1) the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 23 November 2005 and (2) the Resolution2 of the same court dated 1 March 2006 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G. In her Complaint. Whoever discloses. this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. chan robles virtual law library Sec. which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. 9. DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. 13. Jinky prayed that judgment be rendered: (a) Ordering defendant to recognize plaintiff Joanne Rodjin Diaz as his daughter.The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. Jinky C. and (e) Other persons as determined by the court. 2007. A Complaint3 for compulsory recognition with prayer for support pending litigation was filed by minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz (Joanne). Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action. in a civil wedding solemnized on 19 February 1993 by Municipal Trial Court Judge Panfilo V. unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. or (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence. (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies. it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict. Confidentiality. chan robles virtual law library Sec. (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99. 14. Preservation of DNA Evidence. Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. Diaz (Jinky). 10. presented or sought to be offered and presented. and that chan robles virtual law library (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. including all biological samples. Issue: Whether or not the defendant should recognize plaintiff as his natural child . Effectivity. or with any member of said courts. Sec. following publication in a newspaper of general circulation.In evaluating the results of DNA testing. Sec. .000.9% or higher. or ii. . For this purpose. In case the court. This developed into friendship and later blossomed into love. 70125. against Rogelio G.00. in case the accused is serving sentence. . If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99. Except upon order of the court. Ong (Rogelio) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City. chan robles virtual law library Sec. Jinky was already married to a Japanese national.4 As alleged by Jinky in her Complaint in November 1993 in Tarlac City.(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database. . for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense. and (f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. 11. after due hearing. until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory. Sec. she and Rogelio got acquainted. represented by her mother and guardian.Except as provided in Sections 6 and 10 hereof. chan robles virtual law library The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above. the court shall consider the following: chan robles virtual law library (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence. Hasegawa Katsuo. (b) Ordering defendant to give plaintiff monthly support of P20. Valdez. (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case. Post-conviction DNA Testing. there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. Applicability to Pending Cases. provided that: chan robles virtual law library (a) A court order to that effect has been secured. chan robles virtual law library Estate of Ong v.R. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality. until such time as the accused has served his sentence.This Rule shall take effect on October 15. utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered. under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: chan robles virtual law library (a) Person from whom the sample was taken. (d) Granting plaintiff such other measure of relief as maybe just and equitable in the premises. Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing.000. (c) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff attorney’s fees in the sum of P100.00 pendente lite and thereafter to fix monthly support. 12.9%. finds the petition to be meritorious. the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request.

As a guaranty in favor of the child and to protect his status of legitimacy. Private respondents alleged that they are the duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. Issue Whether or not the release and waiver of claim is void. The children shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. such as citizenship. filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver. petitioner’s invocation of waiver on the part of private respondents must fail. Emy. It would thus be inconsistent to rule that they waived their hereditary rights when petitioner claims that they do not have such right. Considering that a definitive result of the DNA testing will decisively lay to rest the issue of the filiation of minor Joanne. and physical resemblance between the putative father and child. it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. His known heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and children. Where one lacks knowledge of a right. The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. Court of Appeals: The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. They likewise prayed that. A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. He further argued that private respondents should have established their status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of Sima Wei pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code. This is because repudiation amounts to an alienation of property which must pass the court’s scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the ward. Private respondents prayed for the appointment of a regular administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate. presumption of legitimacy. and before three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. No. As a whole. Proc. private respondents could not have possibly waived their successional rights because they are yet to prove their status as acknowledged illegitimate children of the deceased. CA SUBJECT MATTER: who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition . Hence. Article 167 of the Family Code provides: Article 167. represented by their mother Remedios Oanes (Remedios). Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the marriage. Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the husband’s having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the child.a. 3) By the serious illness of the husband. Jeanne. private respondent-minors Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei. we see no reason to resolve the first two issues raised by the petitioner as they will be rendered moot by the result of the DNA testing. there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. son of the decedent. may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows: ART. Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. 1992. leaving an estate valued at P10. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which parties have to face: a prima facie case.Held: From among the issues presented for our disposition. Petitioner asserted that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can be settled without securing letters of administration pursuant to Section 1. this Court finds it prudent to concentrate its attention on the third one. the present petition calls for the determination of filiation of minor Joanne for purposes of support in favor of the said minor. in the meantime. who died intestate in Makati City on October 29. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. the propriety of the appellate court’s decision remanding the case to the trial court for the conduct of DNA testing. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. In the absence of the foregoing evidence. support (as in the present case). Hence. 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. Rivero v. Petitioner himself has consistently denied that private respondents are his coheirs. or inheritance. The presumption of legitimacy of the child. is not conclusive and consequently. We explained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. The case was docketed as Sp. Branch 138. however. George and Michael. Not having been judicially authorized. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment. GUY VS. COURT OF APPEALS SUBJECT MATTER: who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts On June 13. Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right associated with paternity.000. 172. 1997. Article 255 of the New Civil Code provides: Article 255.00 consisting of real and personal properties. all surnamed Guy. ART. petitioner Michael C. or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. Guy. 2) By the fact that husband and wife were living separately in such a way that access was not possible. This physical impossibility may be caused: 1) By the impotence of the husband. Held The Court held that parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wards without judicial approval. Rufino Guy Susim). Cristina.k. The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate.000. Furthermore. and waiver cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact. 4549 and entitled Intestate Estate of Sima Wei (a. affirmative defenses. In the present case.

it follows that only if she. when Ana Concepcion was no longer in full possession of her reasoning faculties. Transfer Certificate of Title No. that not long after the death of Ana Concepcion on April 18. and that a deed entitled "Kasulatan Sa Ganap Na Bilihan" dated March 24. effected the signing by the deceased of the documents which are in reality a deed of absolute sale and an affidavit of alienation. Rosendo Alba. T-55814 was never delivered by Jaime Rivero to Ana Concepcion until she died. As remedy. 1968. Court of appeals.00 and to spend for her recovery from illness. 32 ares and 45 centares. he filed for motion for reconsidered and a petition for centiorary. 1965. 1965.50 per square meter. 56789 in his name from the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.000. Hence. in fact.00 so that she could pay her existing obligation to one Filomena Jusayan in the amount of P3. and said Ana Concepcion lacked proper medical treatment. on or about March 25.Facts On May 3. whereby it was made to appear that Ana Concepcion had sold to Jaime Rivero the land in question. Lucia Origen. the deceased died without paying her debt to Filomena Jusayan. respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity test to abbreviate the proceedings but the petitioner contracted the motion and alleged that is violate of his right against self incrimination. that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1965. The petitioner alleged that he exerted efforts in searching the child but all his efforts were futile. The land in question is located in the Municipality of Polo.000. against support and damages against petitioner. to work for the transfer of the title of the land in question to her. In 1958 Ana Concepcion had executed an option to sell the land in question for a price of P4. . and whether or not such test could be used as proof of filiations between the child and the alleged father. represented by his mother filed for compulsing recognition. Leocadia Rivero.000. taking advantage of his being in possession of the certificate of title of Ana Concepcion. hence. the child shall be considered legitimate child of the adoptive parent. manifesting that certain documents were supposed to be deeds of mortgage of the abovenamed property and also through violence and undue influence on Ana Concepcion. 2001. the recognition of an illegitimate child by the father could not be a ground for ordering the latter for support to. the mother. As the cited in David V. the defendant effected the registration of the property in question in his name and Transfer Certificate of Title No. that the plaintiffs are some of the legal heirs of the deceased. instituted against Jaime Rivero to declare null and void a contract of sale of a parcel of land and Transfer Certificate of Title No. Rosendo Alba SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts On May 14. Issue May the court compel petitioner to undergo DNA test. that on January 20. hence. It appears from the description of the land in question that the same is a corner lot being bounded on the south and west by a road 3 meters wide. but not custody of. Joey Briones vs. 1965. The trial court granted the petition but petitioner still contends that such act is unconstitutional. The respondents. however. that on or about March 26. however instead of returning the child to his father brought the child to his mother’s custody. that Ana Concepcion inherited from her father a parcel of land which is the subject of the present controversy. Wherefore. It appears that Ana Concepcion only wanted to mortgage the property so she could pay her indebtedness of about P3. the deceased decided to mortgage the abovementioned property for P5. et. It has an area of 2 hectares. that the defendant did not give any consideration to Ana Concepcion and. Petitioner. in such a case. The mother can have custody of the child until he reaches the age of 10. respondents Maricel Miguel and Francisca Miguel came to the house of petitioners in Caloocan City on the pretext that they were visiting the minor child and requested that they be allowed to bring the child at the SM department store for recreation. together with Cipriano de la Cruz. Issue name of Ana Concepcion. Maricel Miguel. 1998. the same can be sold for about P100. T-55814 embracing said land was issued in the SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts On May 2. very near Manila. defaults can the father assume custody or authority over the minor. that she entrusted the title to her property to the defendant. through the efforts of Jaime Rivero. Of course putative father may adopt his own illegitimate child. was allegedly concocted by Jaime Rivero. Considering the nature of the area of the property.00 which is not only grossly inadequate but shocking to the conscience. Jaime Rivero. The consideration for the sale of said land is only P5. through fraud and misrepresentation. Al Issue Who should custody of the child? Held Petitioner contends that the mother of the child.25 per square meter. Bulacan. 1965. she requested her nephew. who died intestate that on or about March 15. The court however ruled that the child being an illegitimate should be under the custody of the mother. then thirteen years old.000. the child. trusting that he would facilitate the mortgage. the decision of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed but modified. he filed for Habeas Corpus against herein Respondents. 1965. said defendant. Ana Concepcion. Loreta is not always in the country thus she cannot attend to the needs of the child. Domingo Rivero and Delfin Jusayan. denied having physical contact with respondent’s mother and that he denied having the child as his.000. that Ana Concepcion was afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis and as she needed money for her treatment. T-55814. that the defendant did not mortgage the property but instead. The undisputed facts of record support the finding of the trial court that the consent of Ana Concepcion to the deed of sale was obtained through the fraudulent misrepresentation of Jaime Rivero that the contract she was signing was one of mortgage. Jaime Rivero. Rosendo Herrera vs. the relatives of the deceased discovered that the land of Ana Concepcion had been registered in the name of Jaime Rivero who secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. The land in question was sold for less than P0. during her last illness. Held The record discloses that Ana Concepcion was the only daughter of Vicente Concepcion who died in 1934. Held Whether or not consent is vitiated by any of the circumstances and whether the contract is in a public or private writing.00.00.

her heirs were ordered to substitute for her. denied the allegations. the trial court acted on and denied motion to dismiss the complaint. and Damages against Eutiquio Marquino. therefore Chad is entitled to a share of the estate of Atty. contrary to the belief of respondent in this action the At it is invilation of his rights against self incrimination. alleged that several years before Atty. On August 20. 1987. in Criminal Case No. Likewise her Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on November 19. seeks the reversal of the 28 April 1995 decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City. As a consequence. Bayani On April 9. Also included. Support. which later brought about Chad on October 5. Bibiana died on March 17. as other and legal guardian of minor Chad D. Ocampo as one of the surviving heirs. Six days later. Tayag vs. Issues a) Whether or not the death of the natural child during the pendency of her action for recognition is transmissible to the heirs? Whether or not the death of the putative parent also during the pendency of the case is transmissible to the heirs? prohibition. of the minor child she represents. petitioner therein. praying to set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court. Emilei Dayrit Cuyugan. especially of illegitimate children. the administatrix of the late Atty. Eutiquio’s wife. Annulment of Partition. Romano-Pagadora was born on December 2. The motion was denied on October 12. the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and on September 5. Article 175 of the Family Code finds no proper application to this case since it will ineluctably affect adversely a right of private respondent and. who was single then. and Eva. a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Cuyugan. Ocampo died. 1983. the court may order such test to be used in facilitating judgment. the Marquinos filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that an action for recognition is intransmissible to the heirs. 1987 and filed a petition praying for certiorari and SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Held Accordingly. 1990. 1989 and enjoined the trial court judge to resolve petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against selfincrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from defendant not an exclusion taken from his body. Petitioner Tayag. In other words. On June 17. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts People vs. 1987. Ana. finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case was dismissed. Cuyugan. was correct in applying Article 285 of the Civil Code and holding that private respondent’s cause of action has not yet prescribed. Moreno Bayani. 1895. both of which has been vested with the filing of the complaint in court. In compliance with the order. Emilei D. Ricardo Ocampo. The heirs of the deceased interposed an appeal before the Intermediate Appellate Court. the same being a personal act. This privilege only applies to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under dures. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 30. respondent therein.1990. The article cannot be given any retroactivity for it will prejudice vested rights transmitted to them at the time of the death of their father. The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children. denied motion for reconsideration Hence this petition Issue b) Held Whether or not the right of a minor child to file an action for recognition is a vested right? Marquino vs. they had an illicit relationship. Eutiquio Marquino died. Wherefore. 1926 by Gegoria Romano and allegedly by Eutiquio. and their children. 1971. The trial court. which was granted on August 2. Intermediate Appellate Court SUBJECT MATTER: Who may file and when to file an action for compulsory recognition Facts On January 10. On May 17. During the pendency of the trial.Bibiana Romano-Pagadora brought a civil action for the Judicial Declaration of Filiation. the action does not prescribe as long as he lives. 1979. 173 is the governing provision wherein the child can bring the action during his or her entire lifetime and even after the death of the parents. 1987. Luz. the appellate court decided in favor of the heirs of RomanoPagadora reversing the decision of the trial court. petitioner filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition on March 12. consequently. therefore. 1983 Art. Tayag proceeded to the Court of Appeals on December 10. Branch 11. 1980. 1990 with the Court of Appeals. filed a counterclaim and a Motion to Dismiss. filed a complaint for “Claim of Inheritance” against Corito Ocampo Tayag. Facts Sgt. with all the accessory penalties provided by law. 6433. is without prejudice to the right of the protative father to claim his own defenses. as defendants were Maria Terenal-Marquino. 1990. on the other hand.The court ruled that DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case. The Marquinos. to indemnify complainant Maria Elena Nieto in the amount of . The Marquinos personally knew Romano-Pagadora for she was hired as a helper in their household. On May 10. however. She claims she has always enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child by direct acts of the Marquinos. well not violate such right. Hence this petition.

1997. her demand for support for her child. Issue: Whether or not the filiation of Verna Aiza Posada was proven Held: A perusal of the complaint before the RTC shows that although its caption stats “Damages coupled with support pendent lite”. Gerson and Luzviminda. that Stephanie has been using her mother’s middle nameand surname. Teofisto led her to the upper floor of the hotel and there she suddenly embraced her and said some promises to Clarissa and eventually Clarissa succumbed. and that vhe is now a widower and .000 for her delivery. On February 5. which deleted the entry in the date and place of the marriage of the parents. Teofisto was making amorous advances on her and she run towards the comfort room and closeted herself there. for the reason that the signature appearing thereon was not identified by complainant and not presented as evidence in court by the prosecution. with the correction of the entries in their birth certificates. 65. the corresponding correction with respect to their surnames should have also been made and changed to Celestino. and likewise provides for their entitlement to support in conformity with the Family Code. We have held that the due recognition of an illegitimate in a record of birth. the offender in a rape case who is married can only be sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the offspring. there is no further need for the prohibition against acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who is married which would vest parental authority in him. Issues The accused seasonably appealed from the decision. together with their children. filed an Amended Petition for Correction/Cancellation of Entries before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Honorato B. Ilocos Norte. Their cohabitation produced two bys. or in any authentic writing is in itself. the amount and terms thereof to be determined by the trial court only after due notice and hearing. the date and place of marriage of their parents Gerson and Luzviminda were registered as June 19. And at that moment.” Moreover. her seduction. that her mother is Gemma Astorga Gar cia. their mother’s surname. his offer of a job. a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child and no further court action is required. 1994. Held Article 176 of the Family Code confers parental authority over illegitimate children on the mother. the accused should also be ordered to support his illegitimate offspring. Clarissa went to Virac to follow-up the funds for barangay funds. if there be any. As such. and to pay the costs.72 with Marie Elena Nieto. birth of her child. She gave birth to Verna Aiza Posada on September 23. his amorous advances. they went to a seminar together with other companion. pictures. she received a letter and php 2. all clearly establish a case for recognition of paternity. Br. Tracy Jhuen Nieto.000. Clarissa’s averments therein. Abadilla SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts Gerson Abadilla and Luzviminda Celestino lived together without the benefit of marriage.” Petition was given due course on February 17. but in light of Article 20173 of the Family Code. In the instant case then. Resultantly. On June 1987. her pregnancy. Clarissa became pregnant. Dingras. 1987. On November 10-15. He alleged therein among others.00) Pesos. On March 1987. Emerson and Rafael should bear the surname of their mother. petitioner. Clarissa presented three letters ( two of which are with the letterhead of Mayor of Pandan). Republic vs. they were registered under the surname “Abadilla” and their father’s name entered as “Herson. Verceles v.000 from Teofisto. 2000. Teofisto went to see her and gave her php 2. Clarissa was surprised when her companions were not there. Clarissa filed a complaint for damages and coupled with support pendent lite which was granted by the RTC.Fifty Thousand (P50. From there. he assigns the following errors to the trial court: The trial court erred in rendering a judgment in this case on a sworn statement of the complainant charging the appellant the crime of rape. she kept the incident. Honorato B. Catindig. that Stephanie was born on june 26. the complainant charged the accused with the crime of rape allegedly committed. a statement before a court record. In their birth certificates. 1998 and ordered the requested corrections. Emerson and Rafael. Luzviminda Celestino as provided for in Article 176 Family Code. their trysts. The Solicitor General interposed on the ground that the trial court committed a reversible error when it granted the petition but failed to order the change of the minors’ surnames from “Abadilla” to “Celestino. 1987. under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code. In her sworn complaint dated 22 February 1993 and filed on 24 February 1993 with the court below. filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia.” Hence this petition Issue Whether or not the minors are entitled to the surname of the feather despite their illegitimacy. Teofisto fetched Clarissa in My Bro’s Hotel and went to Mayon Hotel to have lunch. In his Appellant's Brief. Catindig. herein petitioner. a will. In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia . Clarissa’s statement was corroborated by her mother. She met with Teofisto on a hotel to update the latter with the matter. his letters. it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. her meeting with the petitioner. seeking that. (2) the father’s name be changed from “Herson” to “Gerson. Clarissa being afraid of the mayor. In fact. SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts On August 31. (1) the place and date of marriage of Gerson and Luzviminda is deleted and. Posadas SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of Illegitimate Children Facts: Clarissa met Teofisto (mayor of Pandan) and the latter offered job to the former. Held As illegitimate children. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Therefore. any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for recognition.

On January 1990. Issue Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother. Until. petitioners give birth to a child. Al SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts On May 2. Mila confessed that she was raped by Glabo and they filed complaint for rape against the accused. The child was left in the care of his father and paternal grandparents. In every case. respondents Maricel Miguel and Francisca Miguel came to the house of petitioners in Caloocan City on the pretext that they were visiting the minor child and requested that they be allowed to bring the child at the SM department store for recreation. Incurring at its decisions. the classification of acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction was eliminated and now they fall under the specie of illegitimate children. 2001. in such a case. Tonog v. to support the offspring. He prayed that Stephanie’s middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia her mother’s surname and that her surname Garcia be changed to Catindig.000. Bearing in mind the welfare of the minor is the controlling factor. it follows that only if she. however. he filed for Habeas Corpus against herein Respondents. unless the law should prevent him so doing and 3. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts: on September 23 1989. Article 345 of the RPC provides for three kinds of civil liability that may be imposed on the offender: 1. on who shall have the final custody over the child. there is no law regulating the use of a middle name. Held As correctly submitted by parties. Held: In custody disputes. Of course putative father may adopt his own illegitimate child. her illegitimate daughter with the respondent. Court of appeals. When Judith was already washing dishes and Mila was hanging clothes. the trial Court did not allow the use of her mother’s surname as her middle name. his Surname. The respondents. so Judith went back to the house. she saw Glabo on the top of Mila and saw how Mila was raped. Petitioner avers that she only learned of the decision a month later. Loreta is not always in the country thus she cannot attend to the needs of the child. Joey Briones vs. petitioner filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother (Garcia) as her middle name. the court must take into the account the respective resources and the social and moral situations of the contending party. Wherefore. The petitioner alleged that he exerted efforts in searching the child but all his efforts were futile. Wherefore. Mila was suddenly pulled by the appellant and raped her to satisfy his lust. Hence. While underneath the house. he was appointed as the legal guardian. Mila kept the incident. The Court of Appeals decided over the issue of guardianship and custody over the child that such custody shall then be awarded to the respondent temporarily pending the resolution of the main case. It rained so hard. the petition was granted. The trial court rendered the assailed decision granting the adoption. Notably. Judith was commanded to wash dishes in the nearby creek. Indemnification. the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an adoptee may use. As the cited in David V. to use as middle name the mother’s surname. After which. The mother can have custody of the child until he reaches the age of 10. when she subsequently adopted by her natural father. defaults can the father assume custody or authority over the minor. Acknowledgement of the offspring. it is the axiomatic that the criteria are the welfare and well being of the child. Mila became pregnant as a result of the rape. petitioner. Issue: Who shall meantime hold custody over the child pending the resolution of the guardianship proceeding. the recognition of an illegitimate child by the father could not be a ground for ordering the latter for support to. Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code upon the mother and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses the parental authority over his child. The Court ruled that since no law granting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father. however instead of returning the child to his father brought the child to his mother’s custody. and accordingly filed for relief of judgment. People of the Philippines v. A year after the birth of Gardin Faith. Right there. Glabo SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts: Mila (mental retarded) and Judith were summoned by the appellant to wash clothes of his wife. The two girls went to their house silently. the child shall be considered legitimate child of the adoptive parent. Held: Concerning the acknowledgement and support of the offspring of rape. but not custody of. as in this case. with accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and perpetual absolute disqualification. et. Maricel Miguel. the mother. The court however ruled that the child being an illegitimate should be under the custody of the mother. the decision of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed but modified. as her middle name. 2. left for the United States where she found work as a nurse. respondent filed a petition for guardianship. to give support to the child who is a result of the rape and to pay the costs. as well as a motion to remand the custody of the child to her. Issue Who should custody of the child? Held Petitioner contends that the mother of the child. the Court found no reason why Stephanie should not allowed to use her mother’s surname Garcia as her middle name. on which she was then granted to file her opposition to private respondent petitions.qualified to be her adopting parent. . Thus. on which a month later. the court finds that the Court of Appeals did not err in the allowing the father to retain in the meantime parental custody over the child. to moral damages of php 50. the child. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision convicting Glabo for the crime of rape and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. Issue: Whether or not the penalties imposed against the accused is proper. With the passage of the Family Code.

Silva filed a petition for custodial rights over the children before the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”). even assuming as true. indicating therein the child’s first name as Jonathan. Silva vs. Gonzales got married to a Dutch national. . but in no case (could) he take out the children without the written consent of the mother”. Court of appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts: Marissa Alfaro Mossesgeld gave birth to a baby boy. The fears expressed by repondent to the effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt and degrade their children once allowed to even temporarily associate with petitioner is but the product of respondent’s unfounded imagination. For the meantime. would ever take the trouble and expense in instituting a legal action for the purpose of seeing his illegitimate children. It can just be imagined the deep sorrows of a father who is deprived of his children of tender ages. The newlyweds emigrated to Holland with Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia. with the correction of the entries in their birth certificates. cohabited without the benefit of marriage. No pronouncement as to costs. Resultantly. to have the children in his company on weekends. In their birth certificates. (2) the father’s name be changed from “Herson” to “Gerson. Emerson and Rafael. the corresponding correction with respect to their surnames should have also been made and changed to Celestino. bereft of all moral persuasions and goodness. On February 5. cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render petitioner an unfit father. even with the latter’s consent. 1987. the date and place of marriage of their parents Gerson and Luzviminda were registered as June 19.Republic vs. The Solicitor General interposed on the ground that the trial court committed a reversible error when it granted the petition but failed to order the change of the minors’ surnames from “Abadilla” to “Celestino. The assertion was quickly refuted by Gonzaleswho claimed that she. in fact. Gonzales.” Petition was given due course on February 17. according to Silva. The presumed father is Eleazar Siriban Calasan and signed the certificate of the child as the informant. 65. a rift ion their relationship surfaced. The petition was opposed by Gonzales who averred that Silva often engaged in “gambling and womanizing” which she feared could affect the moral and social values of the children. instead. their mother’s surname. middle name as Mossesgeld and last name as Calasan. by the refusal of Gonzales to allow Silva. the two eventually parted ways. in apparent contravention of a previous understanding. seeking that. The instant controversy was spawned. It began. Held As illegitimate children. The union saw the birth of two children: Ramon carlos and Rica Natalia. Court of Appeal SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts Carlito E. filed an Amended Petition for Correction/Cancellation of Entries before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Held: Artcle 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate children must use the surname and shall be under the custody of the mother and shall be entitled to support in conformity to this code. together with their children. Luzviminda Celestino as provided for in Article 176 Family Code. The visitation right referred to is the right of access of a noncustodial parent to his or her child or children. And the same was rejected pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code that illegitimate shall use the surname of their mother. in February 1986. which deleted the entry in the date and place of the marriage of the parents. Due to the refusal of the person in charge at the hospital in placing the presumed father’s surname as the child’s surname in the certificate of live birth. the case “merely concerns the visitation right of a parent over his hildren which the trial court has adjudged in favor of petitioner by holding that he shall have “visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays. Silva appeared somehow satisfied with the judgment for only Gonzales interposed an appeal from the RTC’s order to the Court of Appeals. (1) the place and date of marriage of Gerson and Luzviminda is deleted and. the LCR correctly refused to register the certificate of live birth of the petitioner’s illegitimate child using the surname of the alleged father. Consequently. 1997. Issue: Whether or not the child can use the presumed father’s surname. Their cohabitation produced two bys. for no man.” Hence this petition Issue Whether or not the minors are entitled to the surname of the feather despite their illegitimacy. This is the rule regardless of whether or not the father admits paternity. petitioner himself submitted the certificate to the office of the local civil registrar of mandaluyong for registration. Not very long after.” Moreover. had never stopped working throughout their relationship. Ilocos Norte. and Suzanne T. Emerson and Rafael should bear the surname of their mother. Gerson and Luzviminda. At any rate. Abadilla SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts Gerson Abadilla and Luzviminda Celestino lived together without the benefit of marriage. when Gonzales decided to resume her acting career over his viogorous objections. Mossesgeld v. Issue The issue before us is not really a question of child custody. Dingras. Silva. Calasan executed an affidavit admitting the paternity of the child. of Quezon City. an unmarried local actress. Br. Take out the children without the written consent of the mother or respondent herein. The allegations of respondent against the character of petitioner. Branch 78. they were registered under the surname “Abadilla” and their father’s name entered as “Herson. a married businessman. 1998 and ordered the requested corrections.

Villar. private respondent is ORDERED to deliver the minor Christopher J. Villar refused to give back the child. After this. was married to another woman other than the child’s mother. Private respondent is a married man and the father of four children. In the summer of 1991.. Indeed. admittedly. both girls. courts must respect the “choice of the child over seven years of age. Held Habeas Corpus. David worked as secretary of private respondent Ramon R. as has already been pointed out. After a while. custody. Since. she is entitled to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. 1986. 176 of the Family Code. Issue Whether or not the private respondent has the right of the custody of the child knowing that the child is below seven years of age and an illegitimate. to go with his family to Boracay. In the case at bar. is an illegitimate child since at the time of his conception. Parent and child. private respondent Ramon R. As such. namely Christine. Villar asked Daisie to allow Christopher J. the herein petitioner. Daisie agreed. but after the trip. Christopher J. 1988. who are married to each other are for some reason separated from each other. Christopher J. the relationship between petitioner and private respondent developed into an intimate one. then six years of age. The trial court. unless the parent chosen is unfit” and here it has not been shown that the mother is in any way unfit to have custody of her child. the mother’s custody over him will have to be upheld because the child categorically expressed preference to live with his mother. to Villar’s house at Villa Teresa in Angeles City sometime in 1986 and introduced him to Villar’s legal wife. born on June 9. petitioner has been deprived of her rightful custody of her child by private respondent. i. a businessman in Angeles City. Villar. it seems unlikely that petitioner would have ulterior motives or undue designs more than a parent’s natural desire to be able to call on. and to give him temporary support in the amount of P3. if private respondent loves his child. at the Holy Family Academy for the next school year. cannot be taken from the mother’s custody. the children of Daisie were freely brought by Villar to his house as they were eventually accepted by his legal family. all grown-up. being less than seven years of age at least at the time the case was decided by the RTC. is entitled to have custody of him. Even now that the child is over seven years of age.. the herein petitioner. T.000.00 pending the fixing of the amount of support in an appropriate action. who. pursuant to Art. his own children. Under Art. as a result of which a son. David to the custody of his mother. 213 of the family code. is under the parental authority of his mother. he should not condition the grant of support for him on the award of his custody to him (private respondent) WHEREFORE. his father. was followed by two more children. has seen it fit to understandably provide this precautionary measure. The relationship became known to private respondent’s wife when Daisie took Christopher J.in any case.e. Christopher J. while it is true that the determination of the right to the custody of whom children is relevant in cases the parents. it does not follow that it cannot arise in any other situation In the case at bar. as a consequence of such authority. and Cathy Mae on April 24. Christopher J. even if it were only on brief visits. nevertheless. “in no case (can petitioner) take out the children without the written consent of the mother. David vs. .Held The court appreciates the apprehensions of private respondent and their well-meant concern for the children. Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts Petitioner Daisie T. Villar said he had enrolled Christopher J.

Antonio died intestate. he has to wait for seven years from 1966. the ratification of their cohabitation was not valid. He alleged therein among others. dated September 8. were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other. herein petitioner. On March 30. Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations. 1988. herein petitioner. contends that respondent had scandalously and publicly cohabited with a certain Priscilla Q. 1967. asking for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor over the settlement of her late husband’s estate. on April 23. SUBJECT MATTER: Adopten children Facts On August 31. Adding ignominy to an ignominious situation. Baybayan during the existence of his legitimate marriage with Teresita Banzuela. reiterated the above-mentioned provision thus the Civil Code provides under Art." his three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan . Issue Whether or not the children are legitimated? Held The Civil Code on ratification on contracts in general is allowed to be applied. Complainant manifests that the commission by the respondent of the foregoing acts renders him unfit to occupy the exalted position of a dispenser of justice. On May 15.121. Only natural children can be legitimated. As a lawyer and a judge. Jr. For purposes of remarriage. natural children by legal fiction cannot be demand that they be legitimized simply because it is one of those rights enjoyed by acknowledged natural children. herein private respondent. Maria Rosario de Santos. Tabiliran. these three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born. he already had a child with Priscilla. at the time of claimed abandonment but in 1970. “[o]nly children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who. In respect of the charge of deceitful conduct. at the time of the conception of the former. The Family Code (Executive Order No. Conchita. This union produced eleven children. Antonio sought the dissolution of his previous marriage by obtaining a decree of divorce in Nevada. complainant Abadilla. complainant claims that respondent caused to be registered as "legitimate. the relationship of the spouses became stained to the breaking point. a natural child by legal fiction cannot rise beyond that to which an acknowledged natural child is entitled. 209). the court denied petitioner’s motion. Antonio and Conchita then proceeded to Tokyo in 1951 to wed. Tabiliran. that petitioner’s half siblings can rise to her level by the fact of being legitimized for two reasons: First. were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. Catindig. Sofia died in Guatemala. It is thus incongruous to conclude. It is important to note that these children were born prior to the marriage of respondent to Priscilla. Dr. at the time of the conception of the former. Judge Jose C. Dr. Catindig. are natural. Thus. Honorato B.LEGITIMATED CHILDREN De Santos vs. 1994. Petition was granted. After six years of intestate proceedings. they failed to meet the requisite of legitimation that they be natural children within the meaning of Article 269. 1992. Abadilla. respondent allegedly shamefacedly contracted marriage with the said Priscilla Baybayan on May 23. filed by Ma. now Art 34 of the Family Code was intended to facilitate and encourage the marriage of persons who have been living in a state of concubinage for more than five years. Honorato B. 1981. . as private private respondent maintains. went to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. Children born outside of wedlock of parents. that her mother is Gemma Astorga Gar cia. Hence this petition ISSUE Whether or not the children of respondents are natural children by legal fiction? HELD While a legitimated child may enjoy the same successional rights granted to legitimate children. 1992. there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife. it also requires that parties in the cohabitation do not suffer from any impediment. Antonio de Santos married Sofia Bona with which they were blessed with a daughter. respondent falsely represented himself as single" in the marriage contract and dispensed with the requirements of a marriage contract by invoking cohabitation with Baybayan for five years. Article 76 of Civil Code. that Stephanie was born on june 26. herein petitioner decided to intervene. filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. In her verified complaint. insofar as hereditary rights are concerned. 17 7. Complainant claims that this was a bigamous union because of the fact that the respondent was then still very much married to Teresita Banzuela. and corruption unbecoming of a judge. Angeles SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children On February 7. petitioner. it being ratification of marital cohabitation. Blyth B. a Clerk of Court assigned at the sala of respondent. Respondent stands charged with "gross immorality.” In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia . Teresita B. de Santos fell in love with a fellow doctor. in respect to the charge of gross immorality on the part of the respondent. Judge Tabiliran was still validly married when he cohabited. Antonio and Conchita contracted a marriage in Tagaytay celebrated under Philippine laws. Br. In the case at bar. However. 1991. Thereby. deceitful conduct. despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla. Furthermore. On March 8. in her motion of November 1987. A motion for reconsideration was also denied on January 9. Tabiliran SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of illegitimate children Facts The herein administrative case arose from a complaint. respondent knew that these children cannot be legally registered as legitimate. Thereafter. she argued that private respondent’s children were illegitimate on November 14. Abadilla vs. Conchita Talag. 2000. which took effect on August 3. who. respondent ought to know that. after approval of private respondent’s accent of her administration. Less than a month later. 1941. 1981. second. 1986.

the department uncovered what it considered as an anomalous adoption decree regarding said minor. The Court ruled that since no law granting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father. as her middle name. Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. the petition was granted. It turned out that the DSWD did not have any record in its files regarding the adoption and that there was never any order from respondent judge for the DSWD to conduct a “Home and Child Study Report” in the case. Oppositor however added an allegation saying that the will is inoperative with respect to the share of Rene A. sister of the testatrix. and Modesto Formilleza. Issue Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother. ISSUE Whether or not oppositor has the right to intervene in the proceedings? HELD It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding. deceased brother of the testatrix. Wherefore. filed a verified petition for adoption of their niece. as well as an acknowledged natural child of Jose Mortera. the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an adoptee may use. Ana Del Val Chan. However. as in this case. He prayed that Stephanie’s middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia her mother’s surname and that her surname Garcia be changed to Catindig. It was his duty to exercise caution and to see to it that such coordination was observed in the adoption proceedings. 1955. petitioner filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother (Garcia) as her middle name. HELD The error on the part of both respondent judge and social worker is thus all too evident. In due time. Vicente B. 5830 so that the corresponding case study could have been accordingly conducted by said department which undoubtedly has the necessary competence. On July 17. there is no law regulating the use of a middle name. his Surname. filed an opposition to the probate of the will. Thus. On November 10. Vedaña. Sanchez. there was no directive from respondent judge for the social welfare officer of the lower court to coordinate with the DSWD on the matter of the required reports for said minor’s adoption. Teotico void and should be passed to the testatrix’s heirs be way of intestate succession. Regional Trial Court of Lingayen. more than that possessed by the court social welfare officer. Pilar G. the proper course that respondent judge should have taken was to notify the DSWD at the outset about the commencement of Special Proceeding No. 1955. the probate court admitted the will to probate but declaring the portion made in favor of Rene A. ISSUE Whether or not respondents committed an error concerning the adoption in question. the spouses Desiderio Soriano and Aurora Bernardo-Soriano. Teotico. when the minor Zhedell Bernardo Ibea sought to obtain the requisite travel clearance from the DSWD in order to join her adoptive parents in the United States. 000. Notary Public Niceforo S.00. 12. Pangasinan is charged with disregarding the provisions of the same Circular No. Both motions were denied. 1992. Petitioner Teotico fled a motion for reconsideration. married to the testatrix’s niece Josefina Mortera. the Court found no reason why Stephanie should not allowed to use her mother’s surname Garcia as her middle name. Moreover. to make the proper recommendation. Vicente B. A day before the said hearing however. after finding that petitioner spouses were highly qualified to adopt the child as their own. 000. both of whom are naturalized American citizens. who in turn affixed their signatures. herein oppositor-appellant. respondent judge should never have merely presumed that it was routinary for the social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD regarding the adoption proceedings. The testatrix also instituted Josefina as her sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed of in the will. however. Hence this appeal. Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of Manila. respondent judge based his decree primarily on the “findings and recommendation of the DSWD that the adopting parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other hand have already developed love and emotional attachment and parenting rules have been demonstrated to the minor. De Aguirre died leaving properties worth P600. Social Welfare Officer II. 1955. Notably. Oppositor was not allowed to intervene. together with all the other requirements of the law.00 to Rene A. when she subsequently adopted by her natural father. Teotico. Office of the Clerk of Court. Teotico filed a motion to dismiss the opposition saying that oppositor has no legal personality. Belen SUBJECT MATTER: Adopten children FACTS Respondent Elma P. and that vhe is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. to use as middle name the mother’s surname. Among other evidence adduced before him. claiming to be an adopted child of Francisca Mortera. Teotico vs. Agaton acknowledged the said will. Also. Held As correctly submitted by parties. he . She left a will written in Spanish whish had her signature signed in the presence of Pilar Borja. 1960. As appears from the records. Among the many legacies and devices made in the will was one made of P20. respondent Judge Belen granted the petition in a decision dated June 25. DSWD v. The trial court rendered the assailed decision granting the adoption. 12 of this Court in connection with the aforementioned special proceeding. which was set for hearing on September 3. the minor Zhedell Bernardo Ibea. the trial Court did not allow the use of her mother’s surname as her middle name. oppositor filed her motion for reconsideration on the portion of the judgment that decreed the probate of the will.that Stephanie has been using her mother’s middle nameand surname. Del Val SUBJECT MATTER: Adopten children FACTS On July 14. Pursuant to Circular No. Furthermore.

filed Special Proceedings No. however. Anna Marie learned of her husband's alleged extramarital affair with Wilma Soco. SUBJECT MATTER: Adopten children Facts On February 4. and works as a restaurant server. or administrator. and relatives abroad. that her brothers and sisters including Ronald V. Petitioner’s brother. had been helping her in taking care of the children. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent alleging that her husband had "evaded his legal obligation to support" his children. the minors are being financially supported by the petitioner and her children. 1981. Petitioner then left for the United States where he sought a divorce from Anna Marie before the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. "leaving the children would be a problem and would naturally hamper (her) jobseeking venture abroad. Clearly. as Maria passed away on November 23. as in law it may be subject to a compromise. JD-707 allowed her to enter into any contract without the written consent of her husband. 1989. versus. petitioner desires to adopt the children. petitioner failed to submit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption. In fact. Charmaine. 1973. executor. such that the latter was forced to file a contempt charge against them. 1986. and Eugene Dizon Ramos who was born on August 5. The petition bears the signature of then 14year-old Keith signifying consent to his adoption. 2002. petitioner. nor does she have any claim to any property affected by the will. petitioner’s brother. the children were left to their paternal grandmother. Maria Taruc Ramos. Issue Whether or not minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of a natural parent on the ground that the latter has abandoned them. She came back to the Philippines to spend time with the minors. went to Italy. has children of her own who are already married. Under the terms of the will. . Neither has she any claim against any portion of the estate because she is not a co-owner thereof. that award was arrived at by the lower court on the basis of the agreement of the spouses. Said court issued the divorce decree that also granted sole custody of the three minor children to Anna Marie. Issue Whether or not petitioner Held The general requirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted interference by interlopers. Held Petitioner may not be deemed as having been completely deprived of parental authority. the written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of a decree of adoption. that because she would be going to the United States to attend to a family business. she lives alone in her own home in Guam. of Filipino parentage and a resident of Guam. the minors have given their written consent to the adoption. reserving "rights of visitation at all reasonable times and places" to petitioner. The minors are the natural children of Manuel Ramos. 1987. as petitioner. the natural right of a parent to his child requires that his consent must be obtained before his parental rights and duties may be terminated and re-established in adoptive parents. and Amelia Ramos. 1744-CEB for the adoption of the three minor Cang children before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. who was born on September 7. To reiterate. and to insure the opportunity to safeguard the best interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption. her children gave their written consent to the adoption of the minors. because it nowhere appears therein any provision designating her heir. oppositor has no right to intervene because she has no interest in the estate either as heir. in the legal separation case. legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. The Clavano family also vehemently objected to the transfer of custody to the petitioner. respectively the brother and sister-in-law of Anna Marie. their biological mother. Upon learning of her husband's alleged illicit liaison. and Joseph Anthony. born on January 3. begot three children. or in the will. filed a petition for the adoption of minors Elaine Dizon Ramos who was born on August 31. or any undertaking or acts that ordinarily requires husband's consent as the parties are by this agreement legally separated. or in the property to be affected by it either as an executor or as a claimant in the estate. signified his willingness and commitment to support the minors while in petitioner’s custody. Landingin. Amelia. 1977. a citizen of the United States of America (USA). she is qualified to adopt as shown by the fact that she is a 57-year-old widow. USA.Not long thereafter." and that her husband had "long forfeited his parental rights" over the children for the following reasons:The decision in Civil Case No. 2000. 1987. born on July 3. a family friend of the Clavanos. there was no factual finding in the legal separation case that petitioner was such an irresponsible person that he should be deprived of custody of his children or that there are grounds under the law that could deprive him of parental authority. the court thereafter ordered the transfer of custody over the children from Anna Marie back to petitioner. on September 25. Clavano. Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation with alimony pendente lite with the then Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Cebu which rendered a decision approving the joint manifestation of the Cang spouses providing that they agreed to "live separately and apart or from bed and board. notwithstanding the award of custody to Anna Marie in the legal separation case. where she acquired citizenship. In this case. Diwata Ramos Landingin. While parental authority may be waived. private respondents Ronald V. Mariano Ramos. born on January 23. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. She has also no interest in the will either as administratrix or executrix.Court of Appeals SUBJECT MATTER: Adopten children Facts Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano who were married on January 27. Herbert Cang vs. gainfully employed and have their respective families. Clavano and Maria Clara Diago Clavano. alleged in her petition that when Manuel died on May 19. natural or juridical without the written consent of the husband. re-married there and now has two children by her second marriage and no longer communicated with her children by Manuel Ramos nor with her in-laws from the time she left up to the institution of the adoption.must have an interest in the estate. 1973. Indeed. 1990." That the plaintiff shall be entitled to enter into any contract or agreement with any person or persons. namely: Keith. respondent. Meanwhile. The order was not implemented because of Anna Marie's motion for reconsideration thereon. Elma Dizon Ramos. DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN. USA. who earns substantial income.

But there cannot be a valid decree of adoption in this case precisely because. a Filipino citizen. mentally. in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court. Cecilia. 1994. Since 1981 to 1984. however. private respondents prayed for the change of the first name of said minor to Aaron Joseph. favorably recommended the granting of the petition for adoption. Third Judicial Region. as this Court has demonstrated earlier. 1990. JOSE R. minor niece and nephews who had been living with the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. He married Evelyn. the issue is whether or not petitioner had abandoned his children as to warrant dispensation of his consent to their adoption. moral. gave consent to the adoption. Evelyn became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America in Guam. Mrs. Clouse is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. 1989 up to the present. otherwise known as "The Family Code of the Philippines". Solomon gave his consent to the adoption. paramount consideration is given to the physical. Clouse was no longer a Filipino citizen. the petition was granted. a condition which must be read along with Art 184. The said Order was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Zambales and City of Olongapo for three (3) consecutive weeks. social and intellectual welfare of the adopted for whom the law on adoption has in the first place been designed. Branch 69. petitioner. respondents. private respondents spouses Clouse sought to adopt the minor. Nila Corazon Pronda. a Filipino on June 4.O. 209. (b) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse. when private respondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala on February 21. In the third place. Branch 158. unfortunately. private respondent Evelyn A. however. In the instant case for adoption. a twelve (12) year old minor. G. the younger brother of private respondent Evelyn A. the finding of the courts below on the issue of petitioner's abandonment of his family was based on a misappreciation that was tantamount to non-appreciation. On June 29. Iba. 1990. His mother. They are physically.The law is clear that either parent may lose parental authority over the child only for a valid reason. of facts on record. HON. Clouse is not qualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala under any of the exceptional cases. Hughes FACTS James Anthony Hughes. all surnamed Mabunay. The Solicitor General. morally. When. Zambales. No such reason was established in the legal separation case. There can be no question that private respondent Alvin A. 1988. HERNANDEZ. Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E. Solomon Joseph Alcala. 1981 at Olongapo City.) No. relatives and friends since May 1993 when he arrived at the private respondents residence. 1996 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1990. The principal evidence discloses that private respondent Alvin A. and (c) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter. The court is not unmindful of the possible benefits that an adoption can bring for the adopting parents and adopted children. the social worker assigned to conduct the Home and Child Study. who was later naturalized as a citizen of that country. private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala. CLOUSE. The trial court granted the petition for adoption filed by Spouses Alvin A. FACTS Private respondents. Art 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife. likewise consented to the adoption due to poverty and inability to support and educate her son. In the first place. Regional Trial Court. respondents. ISSUE Whether or not the Spouses Clouse are qualified to adopt under the law. Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relative by consanguinity nor the legitimate child of his spouse. ISSUE Whether or not spouses Hughes could legally adopt under Philippine Law. In the very same petition. FACTS On February 21. No. Solomon Joseph Alcala was and has been under the care and custody of private respondents. the petition was set for hearing on April 18. The petition was granted in the Regional Trial Court and was affirmed in the Court of Appeals. Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of a decree of adoption. In an Order issued on March 12. . 1990 the spouses jointly filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City to adopt Ma. Pasig City and SPOUSES VAN MUNSON y NAVARRO and REGINA MUNSON y ANDRADE. Clouse and Evelyn A. It is clear that James is not qualified to adopt while Lenita seems to appear to be qualified. CLOUSE and EVELYN A. then from November 2. a widow. Republic vs. On August 19. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1988. spouses Munson on March 10. No. Thus. he is not a former Filipino citizen but a natural born citizen of the United States of America. 117209 February 9. HELD Art 184 of the Family Code provides that aliens are not qualified to adopt except (a) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity.no other choice is given. the same being the name with which he has been called by his adoptive family. vs. Zambales and SPOUSES ALVIN A. It also realize that in proceedings of this nature. Clouse. and financially capable of adopting Solomon.R. Nery Alcala. interposed contending that Spouses Clouse are not qualified to adopt minor Solomon under the law. HELD TOLEDANO. The minors. duly alleging therein the jurisdictional facts required by rule of the Rules of Court for adoption of the minor. 1990. the court must obey its full mandate. in his capacity as Presiding Judge. as well as their parents. a natural born citizen of United States married Lenita Mabunay. Clouse and decreed that the said minor be considered as their child by adoption. in a verified petition filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iba. Neil and Mario. the law is clear and . The decision is reversed and set aside. In the second place. filed a petition to adopt the minor Earl Bartolome Moran.

the decision of the Court of Appeals was modified that the decision of the Regional Trial Court to . petitioner. who had been living with private respondent Jaime B. The purpose of the statutory procedure authorizing a change of name is simply to have. No. the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent. the name of the adopted child shall remain as Kevin Earl Munson y Andrade until a proper proceeding for the change of name shall have been effected. Republic. Caranto for the adoption of Midael C. all of which taken together cannot but lead to the conclusion that there was no petition sufficient in form and substance for change of name as would rightfully deserve an order therefor. Caranto and Zenaida P. is void and without force or effect. 103695 March 15. wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds therefor can be threshed out and accordingly determined. and ZENAIDA P. 1994 hearing." In Labayo-Rowe v. petitioner reiterated its objection to the joinder of the petition for adoption. In its formal opposition. Private respondents were required to comment. then fifteen years old. the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled. The Solicitor General opposed the petition insofar as it sought the correction of the name of the child from "Midael" to "Michael. the Court granted the petition of the Republic and modified the order of the trial court. Contrary to what the trial court thought. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating his contention that the correction of names cannot be effected in the same proceeding for adoption. it was notice of the petition for adoption made in compliance with Rule 99. CARANTO. 1992. null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter. The Solicitor General correctly points out the glaring defects of the subject petition insofar as it seeks the change of name of the adoptee. petitioner. 4. After considering the evidence and arguments of the contending parties. 1996 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. If a change in one’s name is desired. The Court held. insofar as it ordered the correction of the name of the minor. and in keeping with the object of the statute.On April 18. Under Rule 103. a record of the change. The RTC dismissed the opposition of the Solicitor General on the ground that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) applies only to the correction of entries concerning the civil status of persons. A petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem. Cruz") instead of her name in the record of birth ("Rosanna E. It would be procedurally erroneous to employ a petition for adoption to effect a change of name in the absence of the corresponding petition for the latter relief at law. HELD Yes. opposed the inclusion of the relief for change of name in the same petition for adoption. ISSUE Whether or not a change of name of an adoptee could be effected simultaneously with the adoption proceeding. There the petition for adoption and the notice published in the newspaper gave the baptismal name of the child ("Rosanna E. this can only be done by filing and strictly complying with the substantive and procedural requirements for a special proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. it was held that "the change of petitioner's name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo is a mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary proceeding is appropriate. The present case is different. G. dated May 3. HELD Petitioner's contention is that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for adoption because the notice by publication did not state the true name of the minor child.R." While there was notice given by publication in this case. The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court. the decision of the trial court. Republic.". FACTS The petition at bar was filed on September 21 1988 by private respondents spouses Jaime B. arguing that these petition should be conducted and pursued as two separate proceedings. In that. strict compliance with all the requirements therefor is indispensable in order to vest the court with jurisdiction for its adjudication. The trial court was clearly in error in holding Rule 108 to be applicable only to the correction of errors concerning the civil status of persons. Petitioner invokes the ruling in Cruz v. Thus. Caranto since he was seven years old. respondents. so far as the correction of entry was concerned. Thus. ISSUE Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the change in name of minor as embodied in the petition for adoption of the said minor. Changing the given or proper name of a person as recorded in the civil register is a substantial change in one’s official or legal name and cannot be authorized without a judicial order. JAIME B. vs. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court applies to this case and because its provision was not complied with." referring to "changes of name. however. Florentina Mazon (natural mother of the child). a petition for change of name shall be filed in the regional trial court of the province where the person desiring to change his name resides. Article 412 of the Civil Code to implement which Rule 108 was inserted in the Rules of Court in 1964 covers "those harmless and innocuous changes. Mazon. This case falls under letter "(o). represented by the Solicitor General. notice only the prayer for adoption of the minor was stated. THE COURT OF APPEALS. Bucoy"). wherever possible. It involves an obvious clerical error in the name of the child sought to be adopted. 1995. CARANTO. and the petitions for change of name in a single proceeding. The official name of a person whose birth is registered in the civil register is the name appearing therein. a court to which the application is made should normally make its decree recording such change. On January 23. citing it would be a violation of the Rule 103 of the Rules of Court ." Thereafter the case was heard during which private respondent Zenaida Caranto. and the minor testified. that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in granting private respondents' prayer for the correction of the name of the child in the civil registry. That purpose has been served by publication of notice in this case.

No.A. the spouses being only (15) years and three months and fifteen years and nine months older than Maricel Due. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a consequential right to rescind the adoption decree even in cases where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable. respondent. as well as their natural parents. Because he does not fall under any of the three aforeqouted exception laid down by the law. and in all his dealings and activities in connection with his practice of his profession. the latter has suffered wounded feelings. For instance. ISSUE Whether or not spouses Dye are qualified to adopt under the law. in December of 1999. No. and his records with the Professional Regulation Commission showed his name as Jose Melvin M. LAHOM. 1997 REPUBLIC vs. sufficient financial capability. HELD No. absolute. Mrs. The court also found that the petitioning spouses are mentally and physically fit to adopt. the bounden duty of the Court to apply the law. younger siblings of Rosalina on June 25. FACTS In 1971. gave their consent to the adopion. to promote the welfare of a child. he is Jose Melvin M. Thus. nevertheless. Mazon. R.order to the local civil registrar to change the name "MIDAEL" to "MICHAEL" in the birth certificate of the child. Furthermore. an alien. However RA 8552. Respondent Regional Trial Court disregarded the (16) year age gap requirement of the law. Dye. it affirmed the legitimate status of the adopted child. and Rosalina Due Dye filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City to adopt Maricel R. LAHOM”). His wife Rosalina is a former Filipino who became a naturalized American. was deleted. In keeping with the court order. knowing that after all respondent’s only motive to his adoption is his expectancy of his alleged rights over the properties of herein petitioner and her late husband. respondent alleging that they were only motivated by their desire for some material benefits from petitioner. The Supreme Court is not in the position to affirm the trial court’s decision favoring adoption in the case at bar. and that its underlying intent was geared to favor the adopted child. may freely exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate. on the ground that a literal implementation of the law would defeat the very philosophy behind adoption statutes. after trial. love. Due. however. Samuel Dye is an American and therefore. In her petition. by a will and testament. Sibulo. It cannot sustain the respondent spouses’ petition for adoption. it remains. not only in his new family but also in the society as well. Petitioner alleged further that respondent had been jealous of her nephews and nieces whenever they would find time to visit her. The new law withdrew the right of an adopter to rescind the adoption decree and gave to the adopted child the sole right to sever the legal ties created by adoption. Due and Alvin R. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In other respects relating to the adoption of Midael C. for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without violating the proscription against judicial legislation. while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption. On September 10. unconditional. the couple decided to file a petition for adoption of herein respondent. to the utter disregard of the feelings of herein petitioner. Samuel R.A. deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption. the trial court respected petitioner’s right to rescind the decree of adoption under the Family Code but likewise denied her petition citing grounds of prescription. No. Jr. it includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the right has become vested. Dye. It is still noteworthy. The concept of “vested right” is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses a present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action. respectively. ISSUE Whether or not the subject adoption. 1990. and perfect or fixed and irrefutable. the decision appealed from was affirmed. ages 13 and 12 years old. still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R. The Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 on adoption later modified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code and then by the Family Code of the Philippines. MELVIN S. she averred that the herein respondent had continued to used his surname. in view of respondent’s insensible attitude resulting in a strained and uncomfortable relationship between him and petitioner. Branch 22. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to as “DR. petitioner. the lower court rendered its decision on granting the petition and declaring Alvin and Maricel to be the children of the spouses Dye by adoption. HELD No. a new statute.” Eventually. accepted the principle that adoption was impressed with social and moral responsibility. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed truism that those caught in the law have to live with. Sibulo originally issued in 1978 until the present. VERGARA Filipino citizen to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative by consanguinity. Most importantly. Sibulo. ISABELITA S. Also. as an exception to the general rule that aliens may not adopt. Nonetheless. They have two children. The Philippines. and affection for the intended adoptees. namely. Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present interest. 1990. possess good moral character. of Naga City. March 20. the United Nations initiated the Convention of the Rights of the Child. can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. Maricel and Alvin Due. vs. the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name “Jose Melvin Sibulo” to “Jose Melvin Lahom. 8552. 8552 secured these rights and privileges for the adopted. a member of the United States Air Force is an American citizen who resided at the Clark Air Base in Pampanga.A. is disqualified from adopting the minor Maricel and Alvin Due. Jr. that an adopter. the law does not provide for an alien who is married to a former . upon the grounds recognized by law. R. decreed on 05 May 1972. In 1989. an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime and. gave immediate statutory acknowledgment to the rights of the adopted. a State Party to the Convention. the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court that herein respondent is still the legal child of petitione FACTS Respondent spouses Samuel R.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful