ARUEGO V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G. R. No. 112193 | March 13, 1996

DOCTRINE: The action brought by private respondent Antonia Aruego for compulsory
recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was filed prior to the advent of the
Family Code, must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by Article 175,
paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as the
instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested right of private respondent
to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code.

FACTS:

Antonia Aruego and Evelyn Aruego, the illegitimate children of the deceased Jose M.
Aruego Sr. filed a complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional
Rights before the RTC of Manila for them to be recognized as compulsory heirs of the latter and
be included in the partition and distribution of his estate.

These children were minors and represented by their mother, Luz Fabian.

Luz Fabian alleged that these children has been in continuous possession of their status as
“illegitimate children” of Jose Aruego Sr. by way of verbally acknowledging them as his
children among the family of Luz Fabian, and through financial support and physically attending
as their father during family events.

The Legitimate children of Aruego Sr. denied those allegations.

The RTC declared Antonia Aruego as an illegitimate child and shall took part on the
Estate of late Aruego Sr.

Petitioners herein filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the alleging loss of
jurisdiction of the trial court over the complaint by virtue of the passage of Executive Order No.
209 (as amended by Executive Order No. 227), otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988, but the said motion was denied by the lower
court. Petitioners filed an appeal but the same was also denied on the ground that it was filed out
of time.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the Family Code shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the provision on
recognition of an illegitimate child?

HELD: NO.

The Supreme Court explained in Tayag vs. Court of Appeals,

 “Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we hold that the
right of action of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in
court under the regime of the Civil Code and prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code. We herein adopt our ruling in the recent case of Republic of the Philippines
vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. 7 where we held that the fact of filing of the petition
already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the same proceed to
final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the time, and such right
can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law.

xxx xxx xxx

Accordingly, Article 175 of the Family Code finds no proper application

to the instant case since it will ineluctably affect adversely a right of private
respondent and, consequentially, of the minor child she represents, both of which
have been vested with the filing of the complaint in court. The trial court is,
therefore, correct in applying the provisions of Article 285 of the Civil Code and
in holding that private respondent's cause of action has not yet prescribed.”

Tayag applies four-square with the case at bench. The action brought by private respondent
Antonia Aruego for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was
filed prior to the advent of the Family Code, must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code
and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given
retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the
vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code.

The right was vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the Civil
Code. Prescinding from this, the conclusion then ought to be that the action was not yet barred,
notwithstanding the fact that it was brought when the putative father was already deceased, since
private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed, an exception to the general rule
provided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial court, which acquired jurisdiction
over the case by the filing of the complaint, never lost jurisdiction over the same despite the
passage of E.O. No. 209, also known as the Family Code of the Philippines.