PATERNITY & FILIATION 7hether or not such petition ma prosper

consi!erin Teofsta0s claim that Presentacion has

TEOFISTA BABIERA vs. PRESENTACION B. no leal capacit to fle the instant petition an!
CATOTAL can the presumption o) reularit in the issuance
G.R. No. 138493 o) her birth certifcate be uphel!*
June 15, 2
Ru%&n'$
F!"#s$ Yes(
Yes( the petition ma prosper*
prosper* The case at
TeofstaBabiera claims that she was born to bar is not co'ere! b Article 343 )or the praer
the spouses Euenio an! "ermoenaBabiera then ther
therei
ein
n is not
not to !ecl
!eclar
are
e that
that Teofs
eofsta
ta is an
#$ an! $% ears ol! respecti'el( at the time o) illeitimate chil! o) "ermoena( but to establish
her birth* PresentacionBabiera+,atotal( !auhter that the )ormer is not the latter5s chil! at all* The
o) the
the late
late spous
spouses
es Euen
Euenioio an!
an! "ermo
"ermoen
ena a present action !oes not impun Teofsta0s fliation
counters this claim( sain that she saw with her to 8pous
8pouseses Euen
Euenio
io an! "ermo
"ermoen
enaBa
aBabie
biera(
ra(
own ees that Teofsta was actuall born to their because there is no bloo! relation to impun in
housem
housemai!
ai! name!
name! Flora
Flora -uinto*
-uinto* Presenta
Presentacion
cion the frst place* Presentacion onl aims to assail
testife! that Teofsta was born throuh the help an! cancel Teofsta0s birth certifcate )or the 'oi!
o) a .hilot/ an! that her mother Flora )ore! the an! simulate! birth certifcate o) the latter woul!
Teofsta0s birth certifcate( ma1in it appear that a9ect the )ormer0s here!itar rihts*
"ermoen
"ermoenaBabaBabiera
iera was the mothermother b )orin
)orin
"ermoen
"ermoena0s a0s sinatur
sinature* e* Presenta
Presentaciocion
n )urther
)urther Also( Teofsta0s birth certifcate cannot be
claims that Teofsta0s real surname is -uinto( her ta1en into consi!eration )or there were alrea!
moth
motherer bein
bein sinle
sinle22 the
the )athe
)atherr( a carpen
carpenter
ter( irreularities rear!in the birth certifcate itsel)*
re)use! to sin the birth certifcate* Teofsta on It was not sine! b the local ci'il reistrar*:ore
reistrar*:ore
her
her !e)en
!e)ense(
se( claim
claimss that
that Prese
Presenta
ntaci
cion
on has
has no importantl( the ,ourt o) Appeals obser'e! that
leal capacit to fle the instant petition pursuant the mother0s sinature therein was !i9erent )rom
to Article 343 o) the Famil ,o!e which states her
her sinat
sinatur
ures
es in othe
otherr !ocum
!ocumen
ents
ts presen
presente!
te!
that
that onl
onl the
the )athe
)atherr coul!
coul! impu
impunn the
the chil!
chil!5s
5s !urin
!urin the
the trial*
trial* The
The most
most sini
sinifca
fcant
nt piece
piece o)
leitimac( an! that the same was not sub6ect to a e'i!e
'i!en
nce( howe'ewe'err( is the !epo epositio
ition
n o)
collateral attac1* "ermoenaBabiera which states that she !i! not
i'e birth to Teofsta( an! that the latter was not
Issue$ hers nor her husban! Euenio0s*
 There is now alm almost uni'ei'ersal
rsal sci
scient
entifc
ifc
are
areem
emen
entt that
that bloo
bloo!
! rou
roupi
pin
n test
tests
s are
are
JANICE (ARIE
(ARIE JAO vs.
vs. CO)RT OF APPEALS,
APPEALS, conc
conclu
lusi
si'e
'e as to non+
non+pa
pate
tern
rnit
it
( alth
althou
ouh
h
e# !%. inconcl
inconclusi'
usi'e
e as to paternit
paternit
 @ that is( the )act
G.R. No. L*491+2 that
that the
the bloo!
bloo! tpe
tpe o) the
the chil!
chil! is a possib
possible
le
Ju% 28, 198- pro!uct o) the mother an! allee! )ather !oes not
conclusi'el pro'e that the chil! is born b such
F!"#s$ parents2 but( i) the bloo! tpe o) the chil! is not
In 3;#4( Arlene 8ala!o was intro!uce! to the possible bloo! tpe when the bloo! o) the
Perico
Perico<ao*
<ao* A)ter
A)ter such
such intro!u
intro!uctio
ction(
n( <ao courte!
courte! mother an! that o) the allee! )ather are cross
Arlene* Not lon therea)ter(
therea)ter( the ha! se=ual matche!( then the chil! cannot possibl be that o)
intercourse an! subse>uentl( the li'e! toether* the allee! )ather*
3;#?( Arlene became prenant* <ao pai! )or all
the e=penses relate! to Arlene0s prenanc but :e!ical science has shown that there are
when the chil!( <anice was born( <ao insiste! that )our tpe
tpess o) blo
bloo! in man wh whiich can be
she coul! not be the )ather o) such chil!* 7hen trans
transmit
mitte!
te! throu
throuh
h here!
here!it
it* Altho
Althouh
uh the
the
the case was fle! with the RT,( the RT, or!ere! pres
presen
ence
ce o) the
the sam
same tpe
tpe o) bloo
bloo!! in two
two
the
the NBI
NBI )or
)or a roup
roup bloo!
bloo! testin
testin*
* The
The roup
roup persons !oes not in!icate that one was beotten
bloo! testin result showe! that <anice coul! not b the other( et the )act that the are o) !i9erent
ha'e
ha'e been
been the
the poss
possib
ible
le o9sp
o9spri
rin
n o) <ao
<ao an!
an! tpes will in!icate the impossibilit o) one bein
Arlene* the chil! o) the other* Thus( when the suppose!
)ather an! the allee! chil! are not in the same
Issue$ bloo! roup( the cannot be )ather an! chil! b
7hether or not roup bloo! testin coul! consanuinit*
be conclusi'e e'i!ence to impun the leitimac
o) <anice*

Ru%&n'$ CO(P)LSAR RECOGNITION

Yes(
Yes( roup bloo! testin coul! be a!mitte!
as conclusi'e e'i!ence to impun the leitimac TAAG vs. TAAG*GALLOR
o) <anice* For the past three !eca!es( the use o) GR. No. 1-4+8
bloo! tpin in cases o) !ispute! parentae has (!/"0 24, 28
alrea!
alrea! become
become an importan
importantt leal proce!ur
proce!ure*
e*
F!"#s$
On <anuar 3$( 3( respon!ent( Felici!a! Issue$
A* Taa+-allor
Taa+-allor(( fle! a petition )or
)or the issuance
issuance o) 7hethe
7hetherr or not respon!e
respon!ent0s
nt0s petition
petition )or
letters o) a!ministration o'er the estate o) Ismael the
the issu
issuan
ance
ce o) lett
letter
ers
s o) a!mi
a!mini
nist
stra
rati
tion
on
Taa* The respon!ent allee! that she is one o) su9icientl states a cause o) action consi!erin
the illeitimate chil!ren o) the late Ismael Taa that respon!ent merel allee! therein that she
an! Ester Aneles* is an illeitimate chil! o) the !ece!ent( without
stat
statin
in
 that
that she
she ha!
ha! been
been ac1n
ac1nowowle
le!
!e!
e! or
On 8eptember 4( ( Ismael Taa !ie! reconiDe! as such b the latter*
intestate( lea'in behin! two real properties both
o) which are in the possession o) petitioner( an! a Ru%&n'$
motor 'ehicle which the latter sol! on 3 October The
The appe
appellllat
ate
e cour
courtt hel!
hel! that
that the
the mere
mere

 prep
prepararat
ator
or
 to the
the sett
settle
leme
ment
nt o) the
the alleation that respon!ent is an illeitimate chil!
!ece!ent0s estate* Petitioner
Petitioner allee!l
allee!l promise!
promise! su9ices* Rule 4; o) the Rules o) ,ourt pro'i!es
to i'e respon!ent an! her brothers P3( * that
that a peti
petiti
tion
on )or
)or the
the issu
issuan
ance
ce o) lett
letter
ers
s o)
each as their share in the procee!s o) the sale* a!min
a!minististrat
ration
ion must
must be fle! fle! b an intere
intereste
ste!
!
"owe'er( petitioner onl a'e each o) them hal) person* The ,ourt( applin the pro'isions o) the
the amount she promise!* Famil ,o!e which ha! then alrea! ta1en e9ect(
rule!
le! thathat sincince -rac -raciaian
no was clai laimin
in
In a :otio tion !at
!ate! Auus
ust C3(  3( illeitimate fliation un!er the secon! pararaph
petition
petitionerer reiterat
reiterate!
e! her sole ownership
ownership o) the o) Article 34 o) the Famil ,o!e( i*e*( open an!
properties an! presente! the trans)er certifcates cont
contin
inuo
uous
us poss
possesessi
sion
on o) the the stat
status
us o) an
o) title thereo) in her name* 8he also a'erre! that illeitimate chil!( the action was alrea! barre!
it is neces
necessar
sar
 to allee
allee that
that respon
respon!en
!entt was b the !eath o) the allee! )ather*
ac1nowle!e!
ac1nowle!e! an! reconiDe! b Ismael Taa as
his
his ille
illei
iti
tima
mate
te chil!
chil!** Ther
There
e bein
bein
 no such
such In contrast( respon!ent
respon!ent in this case ha! not
allea
alleatio
tion(
n( the
the actio
actionn becom
becomes
es one
one to comp
compelel been i'en the opportunit to present e'i!ence to
reconit
reconitionion which
which cannot
cannot be brouht
brouht a)ter
a)ter the show whethe ther she ha! bee been 'olunluntaril
aril

!eath o) the putati'e
putati'e )ather*
)ather* To pre'ent )urther
)urther reconiD
reconiDe!
e! an! ac1nowle
ac1nowle!e!
!e! b her !ecease!
!ecease!
encroachment
encroachment upon the court0s time( petitioner )ather
)ather because
because o) petition
petitioner0s
er0s oppositi
opposition
on to her
mo'e! )or a hearin on her a9irmati'e !e)enses* petition
petition an! motion
motion )or hearin
hearin on a9irmati'e
a9irmati'e
!e)enses*
!e)enses* There is( as et(
et( no wa to !etermine
!etermine i)
The motion was !enie!* her petition is actuall one to compel reconition
which ha! alrea! been )oreclose! b the !eath
o) her )ather( or whether in!ee! she has a
material an! !irect interest to maintain the suit
b reason o) the !ece!ent0s 'oluntar
ac1nowle!ment or reconition o) her
illeitimate fliation*
ROOLFO FERNANE, e# !%. vs. RO(EO
FERNANE, e# !%.
G.R. No. 14325+
Au'us# 28, 21
F!"#s$
The late 8pouses r* <ose * Fernan!eD( an!
-enerosa A* !e Genecia bein chil!less b the
!eath o) their son( purchase! )rom a certain
:ilian )or P* a one month bab bo* The
bo bein re)erre! to was later on i!entife! as
Ro!ol)o Fernan!eD( the herein appellant*
Appellant was ta1en care o) b the couple an!
was sent to school an! became a !ental
technician* "e li'e! with the couple until the
became ol! an! !isable!* On Auust C3( 3;?;(
a)ter the !eath o) r* <ose( appellant an!
-enerosa !e Genecia e=ecute! a ee! o) E=tra+
6u!icial Partition !i'i!in an! allocatin to
themsel'es the estate le)t b the !ecease!* 8ame
!a( -enerosa sol! her share to Ro!ol)o0s son(
E!!ie Fernan!eD* A)ter learnin the transaction(
Romeo( Potenciano( Francisco( <ulita( 7illiam(
:ar( Ale6an!ro( -erar!o( Ro!ol)o an! -reorio(
all surname! Fernan!eD( bein nephews an!
nieces o) the !ecease! <ose * Fernan!eD( their
)ather -enaro bein a brother o) <ose( fle! on
8eptember 3( 3;;%( an action to !eclare the
E=tra+<u!icial Partition o) Estate an! ee! o) 8ale
'oi! ab initio* The claime! that Ro!ol)o is not a
leitimate nor a leall a!opte! chil! o) spouses
r* <ose Fernan!eD an! -enerosa !e Genecia
Fernan!eD( hence Ro!ol)o coul! not inherit )rom
the spouses*
Issue$
7hether or not Ro!ol)o is a leitimate or a
leall a!opte! chil! o) <ose Fernan!eD an!
-enerosa !e Genecia Fernan!eD*
Ru%&n'$
No( Ro!ol)o is neither a leitimate nor a
leall a!opte! chil! o) <ose Fernan!eD an!
-enerosa !e Genecia Fernan!eD* Ro!ol)o )aile! to
come up with e'i!ences to pro'e his fliation* The
onl public !ocument he coul! show was the
Application )or Reconition o) Bac1 Pa Rihts
un!er Act No* ?;4* ?;4* 8uch is a public
!ocument but ne'ertheless( it was not e=ecute!
to a!mit the fliation o) <ose * Fernan!eD with
him* Ro!ol)o also claims that he en6oe! an!
possesse! the status o) bein a leitimate chil! o)
the spouses openl an! continuousl until the
!ie!* Open an! continuous possession o) the
status o) a leitimate chil! is meant the
en6oment b the chil! o) the position an!
pri'ilees usuall attache! to the status o) a
leitimate chil! such as bearin the paternal
surname( treatment b the parents an! )amil o)
the chil! as leitimate( constant atten!ance to
the chil!5s support an! e!ucation( an! i'in the
chil! the reputation o) bein a chil! o) his
parents* "owe'er( it must be note! that
possession o) status o) a chil! !oes not in itsel)
constitute an ac1nowle!ment2 it is onl a roun!
)or a chil! to compel reconition b his assume!
parent* "is baptismal certifcate( althouh public
!ocuments( is e'i!ence onl to pro'e the
a!ministration o) the sacraments on the !ates
therein specife!( but not the 'eracit o) the
statements or !eclarations ma!e therein with
respect to his 1ins)ol1* It ma be arue! that a
baptismal certifcate is one o) the other means
allowe! b the Rules o) ,ourt an! special laws o)
pro'in fliation but in this case( the authenticit
o) the baptismal certifcate was !oubt)ul when Fr*
Ramun!o H* !e -uDman o) 8t* <ohn the
E'anelist Parish o) Linaen+aupan( aupan
,it issue! a certifcation on October 3#( 3;;$
attestin that the recor!s o) baptism on <une 4(
3;C to Auust ?( 3;C# were all !amae!* The
pictures he presente! !o not also constitute proo)
o) fliation*
CA(ELO CABATANIAvs. CO)RT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 124814
O"#oe/ 21, 24
FA,T8
This contro'ers stemme! )rom a petition )or
reconition an! support fle! b Florencia
Reo!os in behal) o) her minor son( pri'ate
respon!ent ,amelo Reo!os*
urin the trial( Florencia testife! that she was
the mother o) pri'ate respon!ent who was born
on 8eptember ;( 3;? an! that she was the one
supportin the chil!* 8he recounte! that a)ter her
husban! le)t her in the earl part o) 3;?3( she
went to Escalante( Neros Occi!ental to loo1 )or
wor1 an! was e'entuall hire! as petitioner0s
househol! help* It was while wor1in there as a
mai! that( petitioner brouht her to Bacolo! ,it
where the chec1e! in at the Gisaan :otel an!
ha! se=ual intercourse* Petitioner promise! to
support her i) she ot prenant*
Florencia claime! she !isco'ere! she was
carrin petitioner0s chil! 4 !as a)ter their
se=ual encounter* The se=ual intercourse was
repeate! in :arch 3;? in 8an ,arlos ,it* Later(
on suspicion that Florencia was prenant(
petitioner0s wi)e sent her home* But petitioner
instea! brouht her to 8incan( Bacolo! ,it
where he rente! a house )or her* On 8eptember
;( 3;?( assiste! b a hilot in her aunt0s house in
Tilawian( ,a!iD ,it( she a'e birth to her
chil!( pri'ate respon!ent ,amelo Reo!os*
Petitioner ,amelo ,abatania0s 'ersion was
!i9erent* "e testife! that he was a suar planter
an! a businessman* 8ometime in ecember(
3;?3( he hire! Florencia as a ser'ant at home*
urin the course o) her emploment( she woul!
o)ten o home to her husban! in the a)ternoon
an! return to wor1 the )ollowin mornin* This
!isplease! petitioner0s wi)e( hence she was tol!
to loo1 )or another 6ob*
In the meantime( Florencia as1e! permission
)rom petitioner to o home an! spen! New Year0s
E'e in ,a!iD ,it* Petitioner met her on boar! the
,eres bus boun! )or 8an ,arlos ,it an! in'ite!
her to !inner* 7hile the were eatin( she
conf!e! that she was har! up an! petitioner
o9ere! to len! her sa'e mone* Later( the spent
the niht in 8an ,arlos ,it an! ha! se=ual
intercourse* 7hile !oin it( he )elt somethin
6er1in an! when he as1e! her about it( she tol!
him she was prenant with the chil! o) her
husban!* The went home the )ollowin !a*
In :arch 3;?( Florencia( then alrea! wor1in
in another househol!( went to petitioner0s house
hopin to be reemploe! as a ser'ant there*
8ince petitioner0s wi)e was in nee! o) one( she
was re+hire!* "owe'er petitioner0s wi)e notice!
that her stomach was bulin an! in>uire! about
the )ather o) the unborn chil!* 8he tol!
petitioner0s wi)e that the bab was b her
husban!* Because o) her con!ition( she was aain
tol! to o home an! the !i! not see each other
anmore*
Petitioner was there)ore surprise! when
summons was ser'e! on him b Florencia0s
counsel* 8he was !eman!in support )or pri'ate
respon!ent ,amelo Reo!os* Petitioner re)use!(
!enin the allee! paternit* "e insiste! she
was alrea! prenant when the ha! se=* "e
!enie! oin to Bacolo! ,it with her an!
chec1in in at the Gisaan :otel* "e 'ehementl
!enie! ha'in se= with her on <anuar ( 3;?
an! rentin a house )or her in 8incan( Bacolo!
,it*
T, a'e more probati'e weiht to the testimon
o) Florencia !espite its !isco'er that she
misrepresente! hersel) as a wi!ow when( in
realit( her husban! was ali'e* eci!in in )a'or
o) pri'ate respon!ent( the trial court !eclare!
.The chil! was presente! be)ore the ,ourt( an! i)
the ,ourt is to !eci!e this case( base! on the
personal appearance o) the chil! then there can
ne'er be a !oubt that the plainti9+minor is the
3e santos vs Angeles
Facts:
B Antonio 3e Santos !arried Soa $ona and had a
child -hich is herein 2etitioner "aria Rosario
3e SantosD
B Their relationshi2 beca!e strained to the
brea@ing 2oint thereafter Antonio fell in love
-ith a fello- doctor Conchita Talag herein
2rivate res2ondentD
B Antonio so#ght a for!al dissol#tion of his rst
!arriage thr# a divorce fro! a Nevada co#rt
and a-are that said decree -as a -orthless
scra2 of 2a2er in o#r #risdiction they
2roceeded to To@yo and got !arried and they
had eleven children
B Soa died in #ate!ala and less than a !onth
later Antonio and 2rivate res2ondent got
!arried in tagaytay #nder Ghili22ine la-s
B Antonio died intestate having 2ro2erties -ith an
esti!ated val#e of &)'''
B Grivate res2ondent -ent to co#rt as@ing for
letter of ad!inistration in her favor and alleged
that the decedent -as s#rvived by t-elve
legiti!ate heirs na!ely herself their ten
s#rviving children and 2etitioner -hich -ere
granted by the co#rt there having no o22osition%
B Si9 years after 2etitioner decide to intervene
and arg#ed that 2rivate res2ondentHs children
-ere illegiti!ate -here the co#rt r#led in favor
of 2rivate res2ondent and declared the children
legiti!ated and there#2on instit#ted and
declared the! as heirs of Antonio
B Getitioner so#ght reconsideration b#t -as
denied hence this 2etition
.ss#es:
B =ON co#rt erred in declaring the ten children of
2rivate res2ondent as legiti!ated
0eld:
B Yes
B Art *,( of the Civil Code 2rovides that Ionly
nat#ral children can be legiti!ated% Children
born o#tside -edloc@ of 2arents -ho at the
ti!e of the conce2tion of the for!er -ere not
dis6#alied by any i!2edi!ent to !arry each
other are nat#ralJ
B .n the 2resent case it is clear that all the
children born to 2rivate res2ondent and Antonio
-ere conceived and born -hen the latterHs valid
!arriage to 2etitionerHs !other -as still
s#bsisting% The !arriage #nder 6#estion is
considered void fro! the beginning beca#se
biga!o#s contracted -hen a 2rior valid
!arriage -as still s#bsisting% .t follo-s that the
children begotten of s#ch #nion cannot be
considered nat#ral children 2ro2er for at the
ti!e of their conce2tion their 2arents -ere
dis6#alied fro! !arrying each other d#e to the
i!2edi!ent of a 2rior s#bsisting !arriage%
B .n this case the ter! nat#ral children by legal !ay -ell be red#ced in the event that her ten
ction -as invented th#s giving rise to another s#rviving half siblings sho#ld be 2laced on 2ar
category of illegiti!ate children clearly not to -ith her -hen each of the! is rightf#lly entitled
be conf#sed -ith nat#ral children as dened in to only half of her share%
art *,( b#t by ction of la- to be e6#ated -ith B =herefore 2etitioner is declared as the sole
ac@no-ledged nat#ral children and legiti!ate child of the decedent
conse6#ently enoying the stat#s rights and
obligations of the latter%
B Grivate res2ondent contends that an
ac@no-ledged nat#ral children have the right to
be legiti!ated hence res2ondentHs children
have the right to be legiti!ated as in fact they
-ere dee!ed legiti!ated by the s#bse6#ent
valid !arriage of their 2arents in the Ghili22ines
B This contention of 2rivate res2ondent is not
!eritorio#s legiti!ation is not a right -hich is
de!andable by a child it is a 2rivilege available
only to nat#ral children 2ro2er as dened #nder
art *,(% Altho#gh nat#ral children by legal
ction have the sa!e rights as ac@no-ledged
nat#ral children it is a 6#ant#! lea2 in the
syllogis! to concl#de that they li@e-ise have
the right to be legiti!ated% Art *,( itself clearly
li!its the 2rivilege of l egiti!ation to nat#ral
children as dened there#nder there -as
therefore fro! the o#tset an intent to e9cl#de
children conceived or born o#t of illicit relations
fro! the 2#rvie- of the la-%
B "#ch !ore is involved here than the !ere
2rivilege to be legiti!i8ed% The rights of other
children li@e the 2etitioner in this case !ay be
adversely aected as her testa!entary share

A3OGT.ON
Republic v. CA
G.R. No. 92326 January 24, 1992
On Febr#ary * &(11 Kenaida Corte8a $obiles led a
2etition to ado2t 4ason Condat then si9 ,D years old
and -ho had been living -ith her fa!ily since he -as
fo#r LD !onths old before the Regional Trial Co#rt of
?egas2i City% The 2etition for ado2tion -as led by
2rivate res2ondent Kenaida C% $obiles on Febr#ary *
&(11 -hen the la- a22licable -as Gresidential 3ecree
No% ,'/ the Child and Yo#th =elfare Code% <nder said
code a 2etition for ado2tion !ay be led by either of
the s2o#ses or by both of the!% 0o-ever after the
trial co#rt rendered its decision and -hile the case -as
2ending on a22eal in the Co#rt of A22eals E9ec#tive
Order No% *'( the Fa!ily Code too@ eect on A#g#st
/ &(11% <nder the said ne- la- oint ado2tion by
h#sband and -ife is !andatory% Getitioner contends
that the 2etition for ado2tion sho#ld be dis!issed
o#tright for it -as led solely by 2rivate res2ondent
-itho#t oining her h#sband in violation of Article &1)
of the Fa!ily Code -hich re6#ires oint ado2tion by the
s2o#ses% .t arg#es that the Fa!ily Code !#st be
a22lied retroactively to the 2etition led by "rs%
$obiles as the latter did not ac6#ire a vested right to
ado2t 4ason Condat by the !ere ling of her 2etition
for ado2tion%
Issues:
&%D Can the Fa!ily Code be a22lied retroactively to the
2etition for ado2tion led by Kenaida C% $obiles andM
*%D ranting that the FC sho#ld be a22lied
retroactively sho#ld the ado2tion in favor of 2rivate
res2ondent only her h#sband not being a 2etitioner%
el!:
&%DArticle *L, of the Fa!ily Code 2rovides for
retroactive eect of a22ro2riate relevant 2rovisions
thereof s#bect to the 6#alication that s#ch
retros2ective a22lication -ill not 2re#dice or i!2air
vested or ac6#ired rights in accordance -ith the Civil
Code or other la-s% A vested right is one -hose
e9istence eectivity and e9tent does not de2end #2on
events foreign to the -ill of the holder% The ter!
e92resses the conce2t of 2resent 9ed interest -hich
in right reason and nat#ral #stice sho#ld be 2rotected
against arbitrary State action or an innately #st and
i!2erative right -hich enlightened free society
sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individ#al rights
cannot deny% Vested rights incl#de not only legal or
e6#itable title to the enforce!ent of a de!and b#t
also an e9e!2tion fro! ne- obligations created after
the right has vested% <nder the Child and Yo#th
=elfare Code 2rivate res2ondent had the right to le a
2etition for ado2tion by herself -itho#t oining her
h#sband therein% =hen "rs% $obiles led her 2etition
she -as e9ercising her e92licit and #nconditional right
#nder said la-% <2on her ling thereof her right to le
s#ch 2etition alone and to have the sa!e 2roceed to
nal ad#dication in accordance -ith the la- in force
at the ti!e -as already vested and cannot be
2re#diced or i!2aired by the enact!ent of a ne- la-%
=hen 2rivate res2ondent led her 2etition in S2ecial
Groceeding No% &/1, the trial co#rt ac6#ired
#risdiction thereover in accordance -ith the governing
la-% 4#risdiction being a !atter of s#bstantive la- the
established r#le is that the #risdiction of the co#rt is
 There is nothin in the law which re>uires
the courts to appoint resi!ents onl as
a!ministrators or uar!ians* "owe'er(
notwithstan!in the )act that there are no
statutor re>uirements upon this >uestion( the
courts( chare! with the responsibilities o)
protectin the estates o) !ecease! persons(
war!s o) the estate( etc*( will fn! much !i9icult
in complin with this !ut b appointin
a!ministrators an! uar!ians who are not
personall sub6ect to their 6uris!iction*
Notwithstan!in that there is no statutor
re>uirement2 the courts shoul! not consent to the
appointment o) persons as a!ministrators an!
uar!ians who are not personall sub6ect to the
6uris!iction o) our courts here*
SPECIAL PARENTAL A)TORIT
ST. (ARS ACAE( vs. CARPITANOS
G.R. No. 1433+3
Fe/u!/ +, 22
F!"#s$
e)en!ant+appellant 8t* :ar0s Aca!em o)
ipolo ,it con!ucte! an enrollment !ri'e )or
the school ear 3;;$+3;;#* A )acet o) the
enrollment campain was the 'isitation o) schools
)rom where prospecti'e enrollees were stu!in*
As a stu!ent o) 8t* :ar0s Aca!em( 8herwin
,arpitanos was part o) the campainin roup*
Accor!inl( on the )ate)ul !a( 8herwin(
alon with other hih school stu!ents were ri!in
in a :itsubishi 6eep owne! b !e)en!ant Gi'encio
Gillanue'a on their wa to Laraan Elementar
8chool( apitan ,it* The 6eep was !ri'en b
<ames aniel II then 3$ ears ol! an! a stu!ent o)
the same school* Allee!l( the latter !ro'e the
6eep in a rec1less manner an! as a result the 6eep
turne! turtle* 8herwin ,arpitanos !ie! as a result
o) the in6uries he sustaine! )rom the acci!ent*
The parents o) 8herwin fle! a case aainst <ames
aniel II an! his parents( <ames aniel 8r* an!
-ua!a aniel( the 'ehicle owner( Gi'encio
Gillanue'a an! 8t* :ar0s Aca!em be)ore the
RT, o) ipolo ,it an! claime! )or !amaes*
Issue$
7hether or not the petitioner 8t* :ar0s
Aca!em is liable )or !amaes )or the !eath o)
8herwin ,arpitanos*
Ru%&n'$
-RANTE an! RE:ANE to the RT, )or
!etermination o) an liabilit o) the school* The
,ourt hel! that )or the school to be liable there
must be a fn!in that the act or omission
consi!ere! as nelient was the pro=imate cause
o) the in6ur cause! because o) nelience( must
ha'e causal connection to the acci!ent* There is
no showin o) such*
"ence( with the o'erwhelmin e'i!ence
presente! b petitioner an! the respon!ent
aniel spouses that the acci!ent occurre!
because o) the !etachment o) the steerin wheel
ui!e o) the 6eep( it is not the school( but the
reistere! owner o) the 'ehicle who shall be hel!
responsible )or !amaes )or the !eath o) 8herwin
,arpitanos*
EN IS S)PPORT E(ANABLE
LACSON vs. LACSON
G.R. No. 15+44
Au'us# 28, 2+
F!"#s
The sisters :aowee aban Lacson an!
:aonaa aban Lacson are leitimate !auhters
o) petitioner E!war! G* Lacson an! his wi)e( Lea
aban Lacson* :aowee was born on ecember %(
3;4%( while :aonaa( a little less than a ear later*
Not lon a)ter the birth o) :aonaa( petitioner le)t
the con6ual home in :olo( Iloilo ,it( 'irtuall
)orcin mother an! chil!ren to see1( apparentl
)or fnancial reason( shelter somewhere else* For
a month( the stae! with Lea0s mother+in+law(
Alicia Lacson( then with her JLea0sK mother an!
then with her brother Noel aban* A)ter some
time( the rente! an apartment onl to return
later to the house o) Lea0s mother* As the trial
court aptl obser'e!( the sisters an! their
mother( )rom 3;4# to 3;;%( or )or a perio! o)
eihteen J3?K ears( shuttle! )rom one !wellin
place to another not their own*
Issue
7hether or not petitioner is oblie! to i'e
support*
Ru%&n'$
Petitioner a!mits bein oblie!( as )ather(
to pro'i!e support to both respon!ents( :aowee
an! :aonaa* It is his threshol! submission(
howe'er( that he shoul! not be ma!e to pa
support in arrears( i*e*( )rom 3;4# to 3;;%( no
pre'ious e=tra6u!icial( let alone 6u!icial( !eman!
ha'in been ma!e b the respon!ents* "e
in'o1es the )ollowin pro'ision o) the Famil
,o!e to complete his pointArticle C M The
obliation to i'e support shall be !eman!able
)rom the time the person who has a riht to
recei'e the same nee!s it )or maintenance( but it
shall not be pai! e=cept )rom the !ate o) 6u!icial
or e=tra6u!icial !eman!*
To petitioner( his obliation to pa un!er
the a)ore >uote! pro'ision starts )rom the flin
o) ,i'il ,ase No* 3?$ in 3;;$( since onl )rom
that moment can it be sai! that an e9ecti'e
!eman! )or support was ma!e upon him