Paternity and Filiation Cases

7/21/2019 Paternity and Filiation Cases

1/39

PATERNITY & FILIATION

TEOFISTA BABIERA vs. PRESENTACION B.CATOTAL

G.R. No. 138493 June 15, 2

F!"#s$TeofstaBabiera claims that she was born to

the spouses Euenio an! "ermoenaBabiera then#$ an! $% ears ol! respecti'el( at the time o)her birth* PresentacionBabiera+,atotal( !auhtero) the late spouses Euenio an! "ermoenacounters this claim( sain that she saw with her

own ees that Teofsta was actuall born to theirhousemai! name! Flora -uinto* Presentaciontestife! that Teofsta was born throuh the helpo) a .hilot/ an! that her mother Flora )ore! theTeofsta0s birth certifcate( ma1in it appear that"ermoenaBabiera was the mother b )orin"ermoena0s sinature* Presentacion )urtherclaims that Teofsta0s real surname is -uinto( hermother bein sinle2 the )ather( a carpenter(re)use! to sin the birth certifcate* Teofsta on

her !e)ense( claims that Presentacion has noleal capacit to fle the instant petition pursuantto Article 343 o) the Famil ,o!e which statesthat onl the )ather coul! impun the chil!5sleitimac( an! that the same was not sub6ect to acollateral attac1*

Issue$

7hether or not such petition ma prosperconsi!erin Teofsta0s claim that Presentacion hasno leal capacit to fle the instant petition an!can the presumption o) reularit in the issuance

o) her birth certifcate be uphel!*

Ru%&n'$Yes( the petition ma prosper* The case at

bar is not co'ere! b Article 343 )or the praertherein is not to !eclare that Teofsta is anilleitimate chil! o) "ermoena( but to establishthat the )ormer is not the latter5s chil! at all* Thepresent action !oes not impun Teofsta0s fliationto 8pouses Euenio an! "ermoenaBabiera(

because there is no bloo! relation to impun inthe frst place* Presentacion onl aims to assailan! cancel Teofsta0s birth certifcate )or the 'oi!an! simulate! birth certifcate o) the latter woul!a9ect the )ormer0s here!itar rihts*

Also( Teofsta0s birth certifcate cannot beta1en into consi!eration )or there were alrea!irreularities rear!in the birth certifcate itsel)*It was not sine! b the local ci'il reistrar*:ore

importantl( the ,ourt o) Appeals obser'e! thatthe mother0s sinature therein was !i9erent )romher sinatures in other !ocuments presente!!urin the trial* The most sinifcant piece o)e'i!ence( howe'er( is the !eposition o)"ermoenaBabiera which states that she !i! noti'e birth to Teofsta( an! that the latter was nothers nor her husban! Euenio0s*


2/39

JANICE (ARIE JAO vs. CO)RT OF APPEALS,e# !%.

G.R. No. L*491+2 Ju% 28, 198-

F!"#s$In 3;#4( Arlene 8ala!o was intro!uce! to

Perico


3/39

F!"#s$On


4/39

which ha! alrea! been )oreclose! b the !eatho) her )ather( or whether in!ee! she has amaterial an! !irect interest to maintain the suitb reason o) the !ece!ent0s 'oluntar

ac1nowle!ment or reconition o) herilleitimate fliation*

ROOLFO FERNANE, e# !%. vs. RO(EOFERNANE, e# !%.

G.R. No. 14325+Au'us# 28, 21

F!"#s$

The late 8pouses r*


5/39

surname( treatment b the parents an! )amil o)the chil! as leitimate( constant atten!ance tothe chil!5s support an! e!ucation( an! i'in thechil! the reputation o) bein a chil! o) his

parents* "owe'er( it must be note! thatpossession o) status o) a chil! !oes not in itsel)constitute an ac1nowle!ment2 it is onl a roun!)or a chil! to compel reconition b his assume!parent* "is baptismal certifcate( althouh public!ocuments( is e'i!ence onl to pro'e thea!ministration o) the sacraments on the !atestherein specife!( but not the 'eracit o) thestatements or !eclarations ma!e therein withrespect to his 1ins)ol1* It ma be arue! that a

baptismal certifcate is one o) the other meansallowe! b the Rules o) ,ourt an! special laws o)pro'in fliation but in this case( the authenticito) the baptismal certifcate was !oubt)ul when Fr*Ramun!o H* !e -uDman o) 8t*


6/39

Petitioner ,amelo ,abatania0s 'ersion was

!i9erent* "e testife! that he was a suar planter

an! a businessman* 8ometime in ecember(

3;?3( he hire! Florencia as a ser'ant at home*

urin the course o) her emploment( 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 niht 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 prenant 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 reemploe! 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 bulin 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 aain

tol! to o home an! the !i! not see each other

anmore*

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 Reo!os* Petitioner re)use!(

!enin the allee! paternit* "e insiste! she

was alrea! prenant when the ha! se=* "e

!enie! oin to Bacolo! ,it with her an!

chec1in in at the Gisaan :otel* "e 'ehementl!enie! ha'in se= with her on


7/39

chil! o) the !e)en!ant with plainti9+minor0s

mother( Florencia Reo!os*

Issue$7hether or not respon!ent macompulsoril be reconiDe! b petitioner*

Ru%&n'$No* Respon!ent )aile! to show conclusi'e

e'i!ence as to establish his fliation withpetitioner* Asi!e )rom Florencia0s sel)+ser'intestimon that petitioner rente! a house )or her(pri'ate respon!ent )aile! to present su9icient

proo) o) 'oluntar reconition* A certifcate o) li'ebirth purporte!l i!enti)in the putati'e )atheris not competent e'i!ence o) paternit whenthere is no showin that the putati'e )ather ha! ahan! in the preparation o) sai! certifcate* Thelocal ci'il reistrar has no authorit to recor! thepaternit o) an illeitimate chil! on thein)ormation o) a thir! person*

:ore importantl( the )act that Florencia0s

husban! is li'in an! there is a 'ali! subsistinmarriae between them i'es rise to thepresumption that a chil! born within thatmarriae is leitimate e'en thouh Florencia maha'e !eclare! aainst its leitimac or ma ha'ebeen sentence! as an a!ulteress* Onl thehusban! or in e=ceptional cases( his heirs maimpune! the presume! leitimac o) the chil!*

7ith rear!s the personal appearance o)the chil!( the 8upreme ,ourt pro'i!e! that in thisae o) enetic proflin an! !eo=ribonucleic aci!JNAK analsis( the e=tremel sub6ecti'e test o)

phsical resemblance or similarit o) )eatures willnot su9ice as e'i!ence to pro'e paternit an!fliation be)ore the courts o) law*

SAYSON VS CA

FACTS:

Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot ve children na!ely

"a#ricio Rosario $asilisa Re!edios and Teodoro%

Eleno died on Nove!ber &' &()* and Rafaela on "ay

&) &(+,% Teodoro -ho had !arried .sabel $a#tista

died on "arch */ &(+*% 0is -ife died nine years later

on "arch *,&(1&% Their 2ro2erties -ere left in the

2ossession of 3elia Ed!#ndo and 3oribel all

s#rna!ed Sayson -ho clai! to be their children%

On A2ril *) &(1/ "a#ricio Rosario $asilisa and

Re!edios together -ith 4#ana C% $a#tista .sabel5s

!other led a co!2laint for 2artition and acco#nting

of the intestate estate of Teodoro and .sabel Sayson% .t

-as led in the RTC of Albay% The action -as resisted

by 3elia Ed!#ndo and 3oribel Sayson -ho alleged

s#ccessional rights to the dis2#ted estate as the

decedent5s la-f#l descendants%

On 4#ly && &(1/ 3elia Ed!#ndo and 3oribel led

their o-n co!2laint this ti!e for the acco#nting and


8/39

2artition of the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela

Sayson against the co#2le5s fo#r s#rviving children%

And led in the RTC of Albay% The co!2lainants

asserted the defense they raised that 3elia and

Ed!#ndo -ere the ado2ted children and 3oribel -asthe legiti!ate da#ghter of Teodoro and .sabel% As s#ch

they -ere entitled to inherit Teodoro5s share in his

2arents5 estate by right of re2resentation%

$oth cases -ere decided in favor of the herein 2rivate

res2ondents on the basis of 2ractically the sa!e

evidence%

The 4#dge declared in his decision dated "ay *, &(1,

that 3elia and Ed!#ndo -ere the legally ado2tedchildren of Teodoro and .sabel Sayson by virt#e of the

decree of ado2tion% 3oribel -as their legiti!ate

da#ghter as evidenced by her birth certicate%

Conse6#ently the three children -ere entitled to

inherit fro! Eleno and Rafaela by right of

re2resentation% .n his decision dated Se2te!ber /'

&(1, 4#dge 4ose S% Sa7e8 dis!issed Civil Case

holding that the defendants being the legiti!ate heirs

of Teodoro and .sabel as established by the

afore!entioned evidence e9cl#ded the 2laintis fro!sharing in their estate%

$oth cases -ere a22ealed to the Co#rt of A22eals

-here they -ere consolidated and a;r!ed% .n Civil

Case the a22ealed decision is !odied in that 3elia

and Ed!#ndo Sayson are dis6#alied fro! inheriting

fro! the estate of the deceased s2o#ses Eleno and

Rafaela Sayson b#t is a;r!ed in all other res2ects%

.SS

SC 0E?3:

On the 6#estion of 3oribel5s legiti!acy -e hold that

the ndings of the trial co#rts as a;r!ed by the

res2ondent co#rt !#st be s#stained% 3oribel5s birth

certicate is a for!idable 2iece of evidence% .t is one

of the 2rescribed !eans of recognition #nder Article

*,) of the Civil Code and Article &+* of the Fa!ilyCode% .t is tr#e as the 2etitioners stress that the birth

certicate oers only 2ri!a facie evidence of liation

and !ay be ref#ted by contrary evidence% 0o-ever

s#ch evidence is lac@ing in the case at bar%

"a#ricio5s testi!ony that he -as 2resent -hen 3oribel

-as born to Edita Abila -as #nderstandably s#s2ect

co!ing as it did fro! an interested 2arty% The a;davit

of Abila denying her earlier state!ent in the 2etition

for the g#ardianshi2 of 3oribel is of co#rse hearsay let

alone the fact that it -as never oered in evidence in

the lo-er co#rts% Even -itho#t it ho-ever the birth

certicate !#st be #2held in line -ith ?egas2i v% Co#rt

of A22eals -here -e r#led that the evidentiary

nat#re of 2#blic doc#!ents !#st be s#stained in the

absence of strong co!2lete and concl#sive 2roof of its

falsity or n#llity%


9/39

Another reason -hy the 2etitioners5 challenge !#st

fail is the i!2ro2riety of the 2resent 2roceedings for

that 2#r2ose% 3oribel5s legiti!acy cannot be

6#estioned in a co!2laint for 2artition and acco#nting

b#t in a direct action seasonably led by the 2ro2er2arty% The 2res#!2tion of legiti!acy in the Civil Code

9 9 9 does not have this 2#rely evidential character% .t

serves a !ore f#nda!ental 2#r2ose% .t act#ally 9es a

civil stat#s for the child born in -edloc@ and that civil

stat#s cannot be attac@ed collaterally% The legiti!acy

of the child can be i!2#gned only in a direct action

bro#ght for that by the 2ro2er 2arties and -ithin the

2eriod li!ited by la-% The legiti!acy of the child

cannot be contested by -ay of defense or as a

collateral iss#e in another action for a dierent

2#r2ose%

ILLIA( LIAO, JR. vs. J)ANITA TANOTI*LIAO, e# !%.

G.R. No. 1389+1 (!/"0 -, 22

F!"#s$,oraDon -arcia allees that she was

cohabitin with 7illiam Liao )rom 3;#$ up to7illiam0s !eath in ecember( 3;4$ e'en thouh,oraDon is still leall marrie! but li'inseparatel to a Ramon Yulo* 7illiam Liao himsel)was leall marrie! to


10/39

concei'e! !urin a 'ali! marriae is presume! tobe leitimate* This presumption is roun!e! in apolic to protect innocent o9sprin )rom theo!ium o) illeitimac* The presumption o)

leitimac o) the chil!( howe'er( is not conclusi'ean! conse>uentl( ma be o'erthrown be'i!ence to the contrar* Article $$ o) the New,i'il ,o!e pro'i!es .,hil!ren born a)ter onehun!re! an! eiht !as )ollowin thecelebration o) the marriae( an! be)ore threehun!re! !as )ollowin its !issolution or theseparation o) the spouses shall be presume! to beleitimate*/ No e'i!ence other than that o)phsical impossibilit o) the husban! ha'in

access to his wi)e within the frst one hun!re!an! twent !as o) the three hun!re! whichprece!e! the birth o) the chil! can be a!mitte!*8uch phsical impossibilit ma be cause! b JaKB the impotence o) the husban!2 JbK b the )actthat husban! an! wi)e were li'in separatel insuch a wa that access was not possible2 JcK bthe serious illness o) the husban!*

Petitioner cannot impun his own

leitimac* Article $$ o) the ,i'il ,o!e pro'i!esthat onl the husban!( or in proper cases( hisheirs un!er the con!itions set )orth un!er Article# o) the ,i'il ,o!e can impun such leitimac*

An!( in the case at bar( the petition was initiate!b petitioner himsel) throuh his mother( ,oraDon-arcia( an! not throuh Enri>ue an! Berna!ette

Yulo who are the un!ispute! chil!ren o) ,oraDon

an! Ramon Yulo* The chil! himsel) cannot choosehis own fliation*

JIN6IE CRISTIE A. E JES)S vs. ESTATE

OF ECEENT J)AN GA(BOA IONG.R. No. 1428--O"#oe/ 2, 21

F!"#s$anilo an! ,arolina !e


11/39

!as which imme!iatel prece!es the birth o) thechil! !ue to JaK the phsical incapacit o) thehusban! to ha'e se=ual intercourse with his wi)e2JbK the )act the husban! an! wi)e are li'in

separatel in such a wa that se=ual intercourseis not possible2 or JcK serious illness o) thehusban!( which absolutel pre'ents se=ualintercourse* An! onl the )ather( or in e=ceptionalinstances the latter5s heirs( can contest in anappropriate action the leitimac o) a chil! bornto his wi)e* 8ince the petitioners )aile! to showrecor!s o) the impossibilit o) their parents0access to each other !urin the frst 3 !as o)the C !as which prece!e! their birth( the

cannot assail their presume! leitimac* Failinthere)ore to impun their leitimac( petitionerscannot claim that the are the ac1nowle!e!illeitimate chil!ren o) the !ecease!(


12/39

-erar!o was born on ecember ?( 3;;*There)ore( the chil!


13/39

Anelita* Tomas0 brother e'en testife! thatTomas himsel) a!mitte! to him that the sub6ectchil! was a!opte!*

Issue$7ho amon the claimants is the true parento) the sub6ect chil!*

Ru%&n'$Bien'eni!a* It was Bien'eni!a who was

able to pro!uce the competent e'i!ences toestablish the chil!0s fliation with her an! herhusban!* 8he substantiate! her claim withsu9icient clinical recor!s( presentin the proper

an! cre!ible witnesses who assiste! her in herchil!0s birth* Not to mention the )act that it coul!be rea!il obser'e! that Bien'eni!a an! the chil!ha'e stron similarities in their )aces( ees(eebrows an! hea! shapes* Resemblancebetween a minor an! his allee! parent iscompetent an! material e'i!ence to establishparentae* 7hereas( Anelita ha! been 1nown toha'e un!erone liation ears be)ore the allee!birth o) the chil! an! the a!mission o) Tomas0

own brother that Tomas was sterile ma1es itimpossible that he an! Anelita coul! ha'epro!uce! sub6ect chil!* :ore importantl( thebirth certifcate o) the chil! state! Tomas LopeDan! pri'ate respon!ent were leall marrie!which is )alse because e'en pri'ate respon!entha! a!mitte! she is a common+law wi)e* This)alse entr puts to !oubt the other !ata in sai!birth certifcate*

A-8TIN G* PROLLA:ANTE

Facts

Respon!ents Fe Anela an! her son :artin

Prollamante sue! :artin0s allee! bioloical

)ather( petitioner Arnel Austin( )or support an!

support pen!ente lite be)ore the HueDon ,it

RT,*

In their complaint( respon!ents allee! that Arnel

courte! Fe( a)ter which the entere! into an

intimate relationship* Arnel suppose!limprenate! Fe on her C%th birth!a but !espite

Arnel0s insistence on abortion( Fe !eci!e! to i'e

birth to their chil! out o) we!loc1( :artin* The

bab0s birth certifcate was purporte!l sine! b

Arnel as the )ather* Arnel shoul!ere! the pre+

natal an! hospital e=penses but later re)use! Fe0s

repeate! re>uests )or :artin0s support !espite

his a!e>uate fnancial capacit an! e'en

sueste! to ha'e the chil! committe! )ora!option* Arnel also !enie! ha'in )athere! the

chil!*

On


14/39

inci!ent was reporte! to the police* 8e'eral

months later( Fe was !ianose! with leu1emia

an! has( since then( been un!eroin

chemotherap* Fe an! :artin then sue! Arnel )or

support*

Fe an! :artin mo'e! )or the issuance o) an or!er

!irectin all the parties to submit themsel'es to

NA paternit testin( which Arnel oppose! b

in'o1in his constitutional riht aainst sel)+

incrimination an! mo'in to !ismiss the

complaint )or lac1 o) cause o) action*

The trial court !enie! the :T an! or!ere! theparties to submit themsel'es to NA paternit

testin at the e=pense o) the applicants* The

,ourt o) Appeals a9irme! the trial court( thus

this petition*

Issue

7N the respon!ent court erre! in !enin thepetitioner0s :otion to ismiss an! !irectin

parties to sub6ect to NA paternit testin an!

was a )orm o) unreasonable search*

"el!

No* The trial court properl !enie! the

petitioner0s motion to !ismiss because the pri'ate

respon!ents0 complaint on its )ace showe! that

the ha! a cause o) action aainst the petitioner*

The elements o) a cause o) action are J3K theplainti90s primar riht an! the !e)en!ant0s

correspon!in primar !ut( an! JK the !elict or

wron)ul act or omission o) the !e)en!ant( b

which the primar riht an! !ut ha'e been

'iolate!* The cause o) action is !etermine! not b

the praer o) the complaint but b the )acts

allee!*

No* In Ople '* Torres( the 8upreme ,ourt struc1!own the propose! national computeriDe!

i!entifcation sstem embo!ie! in A!ministrati'e

Or!er No* C?( we sai!In no uncertain terms( we

also un!erscore that the riht to pri'ac !oes not

bar all incursions into in!i'i!ual pri'ac* The

riht is not inten!e! to stie scientifc an!

technoloical a!'ancements that enhance public

ser'ice an! the common oo!*** Intrusions into

the riht must be accompanie! b proper

sa)euar!s that enhance public ser'ice an! the

common oo!*

"istoricall( it has mostl been in the areas o)

lealit o) searches an! seiDures( an! the

in)rinement o) pri'ac o) communication where


15/39

the constitutional riht to pri'ac has been

criticall at issue* Petitioner0s case in'ol'es

neither an!( as alrea! state!( his arument that

his riht aainst sel)+incrimination is in 6eopar!

hol!s no water*

For too lon( illeitimate chil!ren ha'e been

marinaliDe! b )athers who choose to !en their

e=istence* The rowin sophistication o) NA

testin technolo fnall pro'i!es a much

nee!e! e>ualiDer )or such ostraciDe! an!

aban!one! proen* 7e ha'e lon belie'e! in themerits o) NA testin an! ha'e repeate!l

e=presse! as much in the past* This case comes

at a per)ect time when NA testin has fnall

e'ol'e! into a !epen!able an! authoritati'e )orm

o) e'i!ence atherin* 7e there)ore ta1e this

opportunit to )orce)ull reiterate our stan! that

NA testin is a 'ali! means o) !eterminin

paternit*

7"EREFORE( in 'iew o) the )oreoin( the

petition is hereb ENIE* The ,ourt o) Appeals

!ecision is hereb AFFIR:E in toto*

IN RE ,"AN-E OF NA:E OF


16/39

an! o9icial name* Amon the roun!s )or the

chane o) name which ha'e been hel! 'ali! are

a*K 7hen the name is ri!iculous( !ishonorable or

e=tremel !i9icult to write or pronounce* b*K7hen the chane results as a leal conse>uence

c*K 7hen the chane will a'oi! con)usion*

!*K 7hen one has continuousl use! an! been

1nown since chil!hoo! b a Filipino name an!

was not aware o) the alien parentae*

e*K A sincere !esire to a!opt a Filipino name an!

)*K 7hen the surname causes embarrassment an!

there is no showin that the !esire! chane o)

name was )or a )rau!ulent purpose*

BRIONE8 G* :I-EL

F!"#s$On :arch $( ( petitioner


17/39

3e santos vs Angeles

Facts:

B Antonio 3e Santos !arried Soa $ona and had a

child -hich is herein 2etitioner "aria Rosario3e 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 res2ondentDB 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 childrenB Soa died in #ate!ala and less than a !onth

later Antonio and 2rivate res2ondent got

!arried in tagaytay #nder Ghili22ine la-sB 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 AntonioB 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 YesB Art *,( of the Civil Code 2rovides that Ionly

nat#ral children can be legiti!ated% Children

born o#tside -edloc@ of 2arents -ho at theti!e of the conce2tion of the for!er -ere not

dis6#alied by any i!2edi!ent to !arry each

other are nat#ralJB .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#alied fro! !arrying each other d#e to the

i!2edi!ent of a 2rior s#bsisting !arriage%


18/39

B .n this case the ter! nat#ral children by legal

ction -as invented th#s giving rise to another

category of illegiti!ate children clearly not to

be conf#sed -ith nat#ral children as dened in

art *,( b#t by ction of la- to be e6#ated -ithac@no-ledged nat#ral children and

conse6#ently enoying 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 dened #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 legiti!ation to nat#ral

children as dened 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 aected as her testa!entary share

!ay -ell be red#ced in the event that her ten

s#rviving half siblings sho#ld be 2laced on 2ar

-ith her -hen each of the! is rightf#lly entitled

to only half of her share%B =herefore 2etitioner is declared as the sole

legiti!ate child of the decedent


19/39

A3OGT.ON

Republic v. CAG.R. No. 92326 January 24, 1992

On Febr#ary * &(11 Kenaida Corte8a $obiles led a2etition to ado2t 4ason Condat then si9 ,D years oldand -ho had been living -ith her fa!ily since he -asfo#r LD !onths old before the Regional Trial Co#rt of?egas2i City% The 2etition for ado2tion -as led by2rivate res2ondent Kenaida C% $obiles on Febr#ary *&(11 -hen the la- a22licable -as Gresidential 3ecreeNo% ,'/ the Child and Yo#th =elfare Code%


20/39

deter!ined by the stat#te in force at the ti!e of theco!!ence!ent of the action% =e do not nd in the2resent case s#ch facts as -o#ld constit#te it as ane9ce2tion to the r#le%

*%DGetitioner arg#es that even ass#!ing that theFa!ily Code sho#ld not a22ly retroactively the Co#rtof A22eals sho#ld have !odied the trial co#rt5sdecision by granting the ado2tion in favor of 2rivateres2ondent Kenaida C% $obiles only her h#sband notbeing a 2etitioner% =e do not consider this as a tenable2osition and accordingly reect the sa!e% Altho#gh3ioscoro $obiles -as not na!ed as one of the2etitioners in the 2etition for ado2tion led by his -ifehis a;davit of consent attached to the 2etition asAnne9 $ and e92ressly !ade an integral 2art

thereof sho-s that he hi!self act#ally oined his -ifein ado2ting the child% The 2ertinent 2arts of his -rittenconsent and the foregoing declarations and hiss#bse6#ent conr!atory testi!ony in o2en co#rt ares#;cient to !a@e hi! a coB2etitioner%


21/39

not 2ro2erly give their -ritten consentM and dD the2etitioners for ado2tion did not 2resent as -itness there2resentative of the 3e2art!ent of Social =elfare and3evelo2!ent -ho !ade the case st#dy re2ortre6#ired by la-% CA a;r!ed the decree of ado2tion on

the gro#nd that the consent of the 2arent -ho hasabandoned the child is not necessary%

Issue:=ON 0erbertHs consent is re6#ired for ado2tion to bevalid>=ON 0erbert has abandoned their children -cdis2enses his re6#ired consent>

el!: +"( an! N-en Clavanos /le! )e pe)i)ion 0or a!op)ion on

(ep)e*ber 2&, 19', )e applicable la as )eCil! an! +ou) -el0are Co!e, as a*en!e! by"ecu)ive r!er No. 91. I) is )us evi!en) )a)no)i)s)an!in )e a*en!*en)s )o )e la, )eri))en consen) o0 )e na)ural paren) )o )ea!op)ion as re*aine! a re5uisi)e 0or i)svali!i)y.

In re0erence )o aban!on*en) o0 a cil! by isparen), )e ac) o0 aban!on*en) i*por)s anycon!uc) o0 )e paren) ic evinces a se))le!

purpose )o 0oreo all paren)al !u)ies an!relin5uis all paren)al clai*s )o )e cil!. I)*eans nelec) or re0usal )o per0or* )e na)uralan! leal oblia)ions o0 care an! suppor) icparen)s oe )eir cil!ren.

Ghysical estrange!ent alone -itho#t fnancialand moral desertion is not tanta!o#nt toabandon!ent%

0e !aintained reg#lar co!!#nication -ith his-ife and children thro#gh letters and tele2hone%0e #sed to send 2ac@ages by !ail and cateredto their -hi!s%

The concl#sion of the co#rts belo- that

2etitioner abandoned his fa!ily needs !oreevidentiary s#22ort o)er )an is inabili)y)o provi!e )e* )e *a)erial co*0or) thathis ad!ittedly aP#ent inBla-s co#ld 2rovide%

There sho#ld be 2roof that he had soemotionally abandoned the! that his children-o#ld not !iss his g#idance and co#nsel if they-ere given to ado2ting 2arents%

The letters he received fro! his children 2rovethat 2etitioner !aintained the !ore i!2ortante!otional tie bet-een hi! and his children% Thechildren needed hi! not only beca#se he co#ldcater to their -hi!s b#t also beca#se he -as a2erson they co#ld share -ith their dailyactivities 2roble!s and tri#!2hs

the act#ality that 2etitioner carried on an aair-ith a 2ara!o#r cannot be ta@en as s#;cientbasis for the concl#sion that 2etitioner -asnecessarily an #nt father% bad h#sband doesnot necessarily !a@e a bad father%

$e la is clear )a) ei)er paren) *ay

lose paren)al au)ori)y over )e cil! only0or a vali! reason. No suc reason ases)ablise! in )e leal separa)ion case.

Anelie C"R7AN$"( vs 8AJARG.R. No. 99&& January 2, 19'9


22/39

Conrado Faardo and ina Carreon are co!!onla- s2o#ses -ho had a da#ghter na!ed Angelie AnneCervantes% Faardo oered Angelie for ado2tion toCervantes s2o#ses% Cervantes led 2etition forado2tion - the RTC -c granted their 2etition% Then

Cervantes received a letter fro! the res2ondentsde!anding to be 2aid the a!o#nt of G&)''''%''other-ise they -o#ld get bac@ their child% Cervantesref#sed to accede to the de!and% ina too@ the childand ref#sed to ret#rn Angelie saying that she had nodesire to give #2 her child for ado2tion and that thea;davit of consent to the ado2tion she had e9ec#ted-as not f#lly e92lained to her% 0o-ever she -o#ldret#rn the child to the 2etitioners if she -ere 2aid thea!o#nt of G&)''''%''% Cervantes led a 2etition for=rit of 0abeas Cor2#s%

Issue:=ON the -rit sho#ld be iss#ed>

el!: +"(In all con)roversies rear!in )e cus)o!y o0*inors, )e 0ore*os) consi!era)ion is )e *oral,pysical an! social el0are o0 )e cil!concerne!, )ain in)o accoun) )e resourcesan! *oral as ell as social s)an!in o0 )econ)en!in paren)s. Never as )is Cour)

!evia)e! 0ro* )is cri)erion. FaardosH co!!on la- relationshi2 -ill not

accord the !inor that desirable at!os2here-here she can gro- and develo2 into an #2rightand !oralB!inded 2erson

ina also has a child -ith another !arried !an-c beca!e AngelieHs sister% For a !inor li@eAngelie Anne C% CervantesD to gro- #2 -ith asister -hose father is not her tr#e father

co#ld also aect the !oral o#tloo@ and val#es ofsaid !inor%

;pon )e o)er an!, Cervan)es o areleally *arrie! appear )o be *orally,pysically, /nancially, an! socially capable

o0 suppor)in )e *inor an! ivin er a0u)ure be))er )an a) )e na)ural *o)er

#esi!es, Anelie as been leally a!op)e! bype)i)ioners i) )e 0ull nole!e an! consen)o0 respon!en)s. A !ecree o0 a!op)ion as )ee


23/39

=ACARI $A=ARG vs CAG.R. No. '&%44 June 3, 1992

Adelberto $#ndoc -ho is &' years old shot4ennifer Ta!argo -ith an air riQe ca#sing in#ries -hich

res#lted in her death% 3a!ages -as led by by2etitioner "acario Ta!argo 4ennifer5s ado2ting 2arentagainst S2s $#ndoc -hile they -ere still living% Grior tothe incident s2o#ses Sabas and Felisa Ra2is#ra hadled a 2etition to ado2t Adelberto% The 2etition forado2tion -as granted after the said incident% .n theirAns-er s2o#ses $#ndoc Adelberto5s nat#ral 2arentsreciting the res#lt of the foregoing 2etition forado2tion clai!ed that not they b#t rather theado2ting 2arents s2s% Ra2is#ra -ere indis2ensable2arties to the action since 2arental a#thority had

shifted to the ado2ting 2arents fro! the !o!ent thes#ccessf#l 2etition for ado2tion -as led% RTCdis!issed the co!2laint r#ling that nat#ral 2arents ofAdelberto indeed -ere not indis2ensable 2arties to theaction%

They led an a22eal% S2o#ses $#ndoc arg#esthat 2arental a#thority -as vested in the latter asado2ting 2arents as o the time o the fling o thepetition or adoption that isbeoreAdelberto had shot4ennifer -hich an air riQe% The $#ndoc s2o#ses

contend that they -ere therefore free of any 2arentalres2onsibility for Adelberto5s allegedly tortio#scond#ct%

el!: N$e la i*poses civil liabili)y un!er vicariousliabili)y, upon )e 0a)er an!, in case o0 is!ea) or incapaci)y, )e *o)er, 0or any!a*aes )a) *ay be cause! by a minor childo lives i) )e*.

Garental liability is !ade a nat#ral or logicalconse6#ence of the d#ties and res2onsibilities of2arents their 2arental a#thority -hich

incl#des the instr#cting controlling anddisci2lining of the child%

The shooting occ#red -hen 2arental a#thority-as still lodged in $#ndoc s2o#ses the nat#ral2arents of the !inor Adelberto%

.t -o#ld th#s follo- that the nat#ral 2arents -hohad then act#al c#stody of the !inor Adelbertoare the indis2ensable 2arties to the s#it forda!ages%

;n!er Ar)icle &' o0 )e Cil! an! +ou) -el0areCo!e, >aren)s an! uar!ians are responsible 0or)e !a*ae cause! by )e cil! un!er )eirparen)al au)ori)y in accordance with the civilCode. Ar)icle 221 o0 )e 8a*ily Co!e o0 )e>ilippines as si*ilarly insis)e! upon )ere5uisi)e )a) )e cil!, !oer o0 )e )or)ious ac),sall ave beer in )e ac)ual cus)o!y o0 )eparen)s sou) )o be el! liable 0or )e ensuin!a*ae.


24/39

2arental a#thority cannot be 2ro2erly regardedas having been retroactively transferred to andvested in the ado2ting 2arents at the ti!e theair riQe shooting ha22ened%

retroactive eect !ay not be given to the

decree of ado2tion so as to i!2ose a liability#2on the ado2ting 2arents accr#ing at a timewhen adopting parents had no actual orphysically custody over the adopted child

Re)roac)ive a


25/39

I(A#"?I$A ?A= vs J(" (I#;?G.R. No. 1439'9 July 14, 2%%3

S2o#ses 3r% 3iosdado ?aho! and .sabelita?aho! are !arried b#t -as not blessed - a child%

They decided to ta@e into their care .sabelita5s ne2he-4ose "elvin Sib#lo% After several years they decided tole a 2etition for ado2tion% RTC iss#ed an ordergranting the 2etition that !ade all the !ore intensethan before the feeling of aection of the s2o#ses for"elvin% A sad t#rn of events ca!e !any years later%"rs% ?aho! co!!enced a 2etition to rescind thedecree of ado2tion beca#se 4ose "elvin ref#sed to ta@e#2 the s#rna!e ?aho!%

Grior to the instit#tion of the case RA 1))* orthe 3o!estic Ado2tion Act -ent into eect% The ne-stat#te deleted fro! the la- the right of ado2ters torescind a decree of ado2tion% Therefore 4ose "elvin!oved for the dis!issal of the 2etition on thisgro#nds% ?aho! arg#ed that R%A% No% 1))* sho#ld notretroactively a22ly to cases -here the gro#nd forrescission of the ado2tion vested #nder the regi!e ofthen Article /L1 of the Civil Code and Article &(* of theFa!ily Code%

Getition is ordered dis!issed on the gro#nd thatRA 1))* deleted the right of an ado2ter to rescind anado2tion earlier granted #nder the Fa!ily Code and ita22ears clear that the legal gro#nds for the 2etitionhave been discovered and @no-n to 2etitioner for!ore than ve )D years hence the action if any hadalready 2rescribed% 0ence a22eal%

Issue:=ON ado2tion decreed on ') "ay &(+* !ay still berevo@ed or rescinded by an ado2ter after theeectivity of R%A% No% 1))*>=ON ?aho!Hs gro#nds already 2rescribed>

el!: +"( an! +"(R.A. No. '&&2 secure! )ese ri)s an!privilees 0or )e a!op)e!. $e ne lai)!re )e ri) o0 an a!op)er )o rescin! )ea!op)ion !ecree an! ave )o )e a!op)e! cil!)e sole ri) )o sever )e leal )ies crea)e! bya!op)ion.

.n Re2#blic vs% Co#rt of A22eals the Co#rtconcl#ded that the #risdiction of the co#rt isdeter!ined by the stat#te in force a) )e )i*e

o0 )e co**ence*en) o0 )e ac)ion% TheS#2re!e Co#rt r#led that the controversyshould be resolved in the light o the lawgoverning at the time the petition was led%

.t -as !onths after the eectivity of R%A% No%1))* that herein 2etitioner led an action torevo@e the decree of ado2tion granted in &(+)%$y then the ne- la- had already abrogatedand re2ealed the right of an ado2ter #nder theCivil Code and the Fa!ily Code to rescind adecree of ado2tion%

=hile R%A% No% 1))* has #n6#aliedly -ithdra-nfro! an ado2ter a conse6#ential right to rescindthe ado2tion decree even in cases -here theado2tion !ight clearly t#rn o#t to be#ndesirable it re!ains nevertheless thebo#nden d#ty of the Co#rt to a22ly the la-%

$e eercise o0 )e ri) i)in a prescrip)iveperio! is a con!i)ion )a) coul! no) 0ul/ll )e


26/39

re5uire*en)s o0 a ves)e! ri) en)i)le! )opro)ec)ion. =a))ers rela)in )o a!op)ion,inclu!in )e i)!raal o0 )e ri) o0 ana!op)er )o nulli0y )e a!op)ion !ecree, aresub@ec) )o reula)ion by )e ()a)e.

Conco*i)an)ly, a right of actioniven by s)a)u)e*ay be )aen aay a) any)i*e be0ore i) asbeen eercise!.


27/39

IN $" =A$$"R 8 $" A>$IN 8($">ANI" NA$+ A($RGA GARCIAG.R. No. 14'311. =arc 31, 2%%&

0onorato Catindig led a 2etition to ado2t his

!inor illegiti!ate child Ste2hanie Nathy Astorgaarcia% 0e 2rayed that Ste2hanieHs !iddle na!eAstorga be changed to Garcia her !otherHss#rna!e and that her s#rna!e Garcia be changedto Ca)in!i his s#rna!e% The co#rt granted thedecree of ado2tion b#t na!ed Ste2hanie asISTEG0AN.E NAT0Y CAT.N3.%J Cantindig led a!otion for clarication andor reconsideration 2rayingthat Ste2hanie sho#ld be allo-ed to #se the s#rna!eof her nat#ral !other ARC.AD as her !iddle na!e%RTC denied this 2etition on the gro#nd that there is no

la- or #ris2r#dence allo-ing an ado2ted child to #sethe s#rna!e of his biological !other as his !iddlena!e%

The Re2#blic thro#gh the O;ce of the Solicitoreneral OSD agrees -ith 2etitioner that Ste2haniesho#ld be 2er!itted to #se as her !iddle na!e thes#rna!e of her nat#ral !other beca#se it is necessaryto 2reserve and !aintain Ste2hanieHs liation -ith hernat#ral !other beca#se #nder Article &1( of the Fa!ilyCode she re!ains to be an intestate heir of the latter%

Th#s to 2revent any conf#sion and needless hardshi2in the f#t#re her relationshi2 or 2roof of thatrelationshi2 -ith her nat#ral !other sho#ld be!aintained% And there is no la- e92ressly 2rohibitingSte2hanie to #se the s#rna!e of her nat#ral !other asher !iddle na!e% =hat the la- does not 2rohibit itallo-s% ?astly it is c#sto!ary for every Fili2ino to havea !iddle na!e -hich is ordinarily the s#rna!e of the!other%

Issue:=ON an illegiti!ate child !ay #se the s#rna!e of her!other as her !iddle na!e -hen she is s#bse6#entlyado2ted by her nat#ral father>

el!: +"(?a Is (ilen) as )o )e ;se 0 =i!!le Na*e. $e*i!!le na*e or )e *o)ers surna*e is onlyconsi!ere! in Ar)icle 3&B1 )o i!en)i)y o0 na*esan! surna*es be)een ascen!an)s an!!escen!an)s, in ic case, )e *i!!le na*e or)e *o)ers surna*e sall be a!!e!. No)ably,)e la is lieise silen) as )o a) *i!!le na*ean a!op)ee *ay use.

For civil 2#r2oses the ado2ted shall be dee!ed

to be a legiti!ate child of the ado2ters and bothshall ac6#ire the reci2rocal rights andobligations incl#ding the ri) o0 )e a!op)e!)o use )e surna*e o0 )e a!op)ers

4#stice Cag#ioa said that I it sho#ld be!andatory that the child #ses the s#rna!e ofthe father and 2er!issive in the case of thes#rna!e of the !other%J

#ein a lei)i*a)e cil! by vir)ue o0 era!op)ion, i) 0ollos )a) ()epanie is en)i)le! )oall )e ri)s provi!e! by la )o a lei)i*a)ecil! i)ou) !iscri*ina)ion o0 any in!,inclu!in )e ri) )o bear )e surna*e o0 er0a)er an! er *o)er

it is a Fili2ino c#sto! that the initial or s#rna!e

of the !other sho#ld i!!ediately 2recede the

s#rna!e of the father


28/39

Article V of RA 1))* la- on ado2tionD 2rovide

that the ado2tee re!ains an intestate heir of

hisher biological 2arent

0ence Ste2hanie can -ell assert or clai! her

hereditary rights fro! her nat#ral !other in thef#t#re

I) is a se))le! rule )a) a!op)ion s)a)u)es, beinu*ane an! salu)ary, soul! be liberallycons)rue! )o carry ou) )e bene/cen) purposeso0 a!op)ion. $e in)eres)s an! el0are o0 )ea!op)e! cil! are o0 pri*ary an! para*oun)consi!era)ion, ence, every reasonablein)en!*en) soul! be sus)aine! )o pro*o)e an!0ul/ll )ese noble an! co*passiona)e ob@ec)iveso0 )e la.

since there is no la- 2rohibiting an illei)i*a)ecil! ado2ted by her nat#ral father li@eSte2hanie to #se as !iddle na!e her !otherHss#rna!e -e nd no reason -hy she sho#ld notbe allo-ed to do so%

GARENTA? A


29/39

B Garents of 4#lie Ann led a civil case against the

2arents of =endell to recover da!ages arising

fro! the latterHs vicario#s liability #nder article

*&1' of the civil code -hich -as dis!issed by

the trial co#rt b#t reversed by the CA hence

this 2etition

.ss#e:

B =ON the co#rt erred in !a@ing the 2arents of

=endell civilly liable

0eld:

B No


30/39

B Getitioner led a 2etition for habeas cor2#s

-hich -as granted by the trial co#rt b#t -as

reversed by the CA hence this 2etition

.ss#e:

B =ON the 2etition for habeas cor2#s -as 2ro2er

0eld:

B Yes r#le &'* of the r#les of co#rt 2rovides that

the -rit of habeas cor2#s shall e9tend to all

cases of illegal conne!ent or detention by

-hich any 2erson is de2rived of his liberty or by

-hich the rightf#l c#stody of any 2erson is

-ithheld fro! the 2erson entitled theretoB .n the case at bar Christo2her is an illegiti!ate

child since at the ti!e of his conce2tion his

father 2rivate res2ondent -as !arried to

another -o!an other than the childHs !other%

As s#ch 2#rs#ant to art &+, of the Fa!ily Code

Christo2her is #nder the 2arental a#thority of

his !other -ho as a conse6#ence of s#ch

a#thority is entitled to have c#stody of hi!%

Since ad!ittedly 2etitioner has been de2rived

of her rightf#l c#stody of the child by 2rivateres2ondent she is entitled for the iss#ance of

the -rit of habeas cor2#sB The fact that 2rivate res2ondent has recogni8ed

the !inor child !ay be a gro#nd for ordering

hi! to give s#22ort to the latter b#t not for

giving hi! c#stody of the child%

TENER AGE PRES)(PTION R)LE

ESPIRIT) vs. CO)RT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 115+4(!/"0 15, 1995

F!"#s$ Petitioner Renal!o Espiritu an!

respon!ent Teresita :asau!in frst met in Ilian,it where Renal!o was emploe! b theNational 8teel ,orporation an! Teresita wasemploe! as a nurse in a local hospital* Teresitale)t )or Los Aneles( ,ali)ornia to wor1 as a

nurse* Renal!o was sent b his emploer( theNational 8teel ,orporation( to Pittsburh(Pennsl'ania as its liaison o9icer an! Renal!oan! Teresita then bean to maintain a commonlaw relationship o) husban! an! wi)e* On 3;?#(their !auhter( Rosalin! Therese( was born*7hile the were on a brie) 'acation in thePhilippines( Renal!o an! Teresita ot marrie!(an! upon their return to the nite! 8tates( theirsecon! chil!( a son( this time( an! i'en the nameReinal! Gince( was born on 3;??*

The relationship o) the couple !eteriorate!until the !eci!e! to separate* Instea! o) i'intheir marriae a secon! chance as allee!lplea!e! b Renal!o( Teresita le)t Renal!o an!the chil!ren an! went bac1 to ,ali)ornia*Renal!o brouht his chil!ren home to the


31/39

Philippines( but because his assinment inPittsburh was not et complete!( he was sentbac1 b his compan to Pittsburh* "e ha! tolea'e his chil!ren with his sister( -uillerma Lauan! her )amil*

Teresita( meanwhile( !eci!e! to return tothe Philippines an! fle! the petition )or a writ o)habeas corpus aainst herein two petitioners toain custo! o'er the chil!ren( thus startin thewhole procee!ins now reachin this ,ourt* Thetrial court !ismisse! the petition )or habeascorpus* It suspen!e! Teresita5s parental authorito'er Rosalin! an! Reinal! an! !eclare!Renal!o to ha'e sole parental authorit o'erthem but with rihts o) 'isitation to be aree!upon b the parties an! to be appro'e! b the,ourt*

Issue$7hether or not the petition )or a writ o)

habeas corpus to ain custo! o'er the chil!renbe rante!*

Ru%&n'$8upreme ,ourt !ismisse! the writ o)

habeas corpus petition b the mother an! retainthe custo! o) the chil!ren to the )ather* Theillicit or immoral acti'ities o) the mother ha!alrea! cause! emotional !isturbances(personalit conicts( an! e=posure to conictinmoral 'alues aainst the chil!ren*

The chil!ren are now both o'er se'en earsol!* Their choice o) the parent with whom thepre)er to sta is clear )rom the recor!* From allin!ications( Renal!o is a ft person* The chil!renun!erstan! the un)ortunate shortcomins o) theirmother an! ha'e been a9ecte! in their emotionalrowth b her beha'ior*


SANTOS vs. CO)RT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 11354(!/"0 1+, 1995

F!"#s$Petitioner Leouel 8antos( 8r*( an arm

lieutenant( an!


32/39

The spouses Be!ia then fle! a QPetition )or,are( ,usto! an! ,ontrol o) :inor 7ar! Leouel8antos


33/39

Also( petitioner5s emploment o) tric1er inspiritin awa his bo )rom his in+laws( thouhun6ustifable( is li1ewise not a roun! to wrestcusto! )rom him*


PERE vs. CO)RT OF APPEALSG.R.No. 1188-(!/"0 29, 199+

F!"#s$Ra PereD is a !octor practicin

in ,ebu while Nerissa( his wi)e( JpetitionerK is areistere! nurse* A)ter si= miscarriaes( twooperations an! a hih+ris1 prenanc( Nerissafnall a'e birth to Ra PereD II in New

Yor1 on


34/39

Ru%&n'$Yes* Asi!e )rom Article 3C o) the Famil

,o!e( the Re'ise! Rules o) ,ourt also contains asimilar pro'ision* Rule ;;( 8ection # JA!optionan! ,usto! o) :inorsK pro'i!es .8E,* #*Procee!ins as to chil! whose parents areseparate!*Appeal* + 7hen husban! an! wi)e are!i'orce! or li'in separatel an! apart )rom eachother( an! the >uestions as to the care( custo!(an! control o) a chil! or chil!ren o) theirmarriae is brouht be)ore a ,ourt o) FirstInstance b petition or as an inci!ent to an otherprocee!in( the court( upon hearin thetestimon as ma be pertinent( shall awar! thecare( custo!( an! control o) each such chil! aswill be )or its best interest( permittin the chil!to choose which parent it pre)ers to li'e with i) itbe o'er ten ears o) ae( unless the parentchosen be unft to ta1e chare o) the chil! breason o) moral !epra'it( habitual !run1enness(incapacit( or po'ert = = =* No chil! un!er se'en

ears o) ae shall be separate! )rom its mother(unless the court fn!s there are compellinreasons there)or*/

The pro'isions o) law >uote! abo'e clearlman!ate that a chil! un!er se'en ears o) aeshall not be separate! )rom his mother unless thecourt fn!s compellin reasons to or!erotherwise* The use o) the wor! .shall/ in Article3C o) the Famil ,o!e an! Rule ;;( 8ection # o)the Re'ise! Rules o) ,ourt connotes a man!atorcharacter*

The eneral rule that a chil! un!er se'enears o) ae shall not be separate! )rom hismother fn!s its reason in the basic nee! o) achil! )or his mother0s lo'in care* Onl the mostcompellin o) reasons shall 6usti) the court0sawar!in the custo! o) such a chil! to someoneother than his mother( such as her unftness toe=ercise sole parental authorit* In the past the)ollowin roun!s ha'e been consi!ere! ample

6ustifcation to !epri'e a mother o) custo! an!parental authorit nelect( aban!onment(unemploment an! immoralit( habitual!run1enness( !ru a!!iction( maltreatment o) thechil!( insanit an! bein sic1 with acommunicable !isease*

It has lon been settle! that in custo!cases( the )oremost consi!eration is alwas thewel)are an! best interest o) the chil!* In )act( noless than an international instrument( the,on'ention on the Rihts o) the ,hil! pro'i!es.In all actions concernin chil!ren( whetherun!erta1en b public or pri'ate social wel)areinstitutions( courts o) law( a!ministrati'eauthorities or leislati'e bo!ies( the bestinterests o) the chil! shall be a primarconsi!eration*

In the case( fnancial capacit is not a!eterminati'e )actor inasmuch as both partiesha'e !emonstrate! that the ha'e ample means*Nerissa0s present wor1 sche!ule is not sounmanaeable as to !epri'e her o) >ualit time


35/39

with her son* Huite a number o) wor1in motherswho are awa )rom home )or loner perio!s o)time are still able to raise a )amil well( applintime manaement principles 6u!iciousl* Also(!eleatin chil! care temporaril to >ualife!persons who run !a+care centers !oes not!etract )rom bein a oo! mother( as lon as thelatter e=ercises super'ision( )or e'en in ourculture( chil!ren are o)ten brouht up bhousemai!s un!er the eale ees o) the mother*

Althouh Ra0s is a eneral practitioner( therecor!s show that he maintains a clinic( wor1s )orse'eral companies on retainer basis an! teachespart+time* "e cannot possibl i'e the lo'e an!care that a mother i'es to his chil!*

7ANCIL vs. BEL(ESG.R. No. 132223June19, 21

F!"#s$Boni)acia Gancil( is the mother o) Ree!er ,*

Gancil( a 8 Na' ser'iceman who !ie! on 3;?#*urin his li)etime( Ree!er ha! two chil!ren

name! Galerie an! Gincent b his common+lawwi)e( "elen -* Belmes* Boni)acia obtaine! a)a'orable court !ecision appointin her as lealan! 6u!icial uar!ian o'er the persons an! estateo) Galerie an! Gincent*

On Auust 3C( 3;?4( "elen submitte! anopposition to the sub6ect uar!ianshipprocee!ins asse'eratin that she ha! alrea!fle! a similar petition )or uar!ianship be)ore theRT, o) Paa!ian ,it* On


36/39

7ho between the mother an! ran!mothero) minor Gincent shoul! be his uar!ian

Ru%&n'$Respon!ent "elen Belmes( bein the

natural mother o) the minor( has the pre)erentialriht o'er that o) petitioner Boni)acia to be hisuar!ian* Article 33 o) the Famil ,o!epro'i!es QArt* 33* The )ather an! the mothershall 6ointl e=ercise parental authorit o'er thepersons o) their common chil!ren* In case o)!isareement( the )ather0s !ecision shall pre'ail(unless there is a 6u!icial or!er to the contrar*===*Q In!ee!( bein the natural mother o) minor

Gincent( "elen has the correspon!in natural an!leal riht to his custo!*

QO) consi!erable importance is the rulelon accepte! b the courts that the riht o)parents to the custo! o) their minor chil!ren isone o) the natural rihts inci!ent to parenthoo!(0a riht supporte! b law an! soun! public polic*The riht is an inherent one( which is not create!b the state or !ecisions o) the courts( but!eri'es )rom the nature o) the parentalrelationship*Q

Boni)acia conten!s that she is more>ualife! as uar!ian o) Gincent* Boni)acia0s claimto be the uar!ian o) sai! minor can onl berealiDe! b wa o) substitute parental authoritpursuant to Article 3% o) the Famil ,o!e( thusQArt* 3%* In case o) !eath( absence or

unsuitabilit o) the parents( substitute parentalauthorit shall be e=ercise! b the sur'i'inran!parent* ===*Q

Boni)acia( as the sur'i'in ran!parent(

can e=ercise substitute parental authorit onl incase o) !eath( absence or unsuitabilit o) "elen*,onsi!erin that "elen is 'er much ali'e an!has e=ercise! continuousl parental authorito'er Gincent( Boni)acia has to pro'e( inassertin her riht to be the minor0s uar!ian("elen0s unsuitabilit* Boni)acia( howe'er( has notpro9ere! con'incin e'i!ence showin that"elen is not suite! to be the uar!ian o) Gincent*Boni)acia merel insists that "elen is morallunft as uar!ian o) Galerie consi!erin that herli'e+in partner rape! Galerie se'eral times* But

Galerie( bein now o) ma6or ae( is no loner asub6ect o) this uar!ianship procee!in*

E'en assumin that "elen is unft asuar!ian o) minor Gincent( still Boni)acia cannot>uali) as a substitute uar!ian* 8he is an

American citiDen an! a resi!ent o) ,olora!o*Ob'iousl( she will not be able to per)orm theresponsibilities an! obliations re>uire! o) auar!ian* In )act( in her petition( she a!mitte!the !i9icult o) !ischarin the !uties o) auar!ian b an e=patriate( li1e her* To be sure(she will merel !eleate those !uties to someoneelse who ma not also >uali) as a uar!ian*


37/39

There is nothin in the law which re>uiresthe courts to appoint resi!ents onl asa!ministrators or uar!ians* "owe'er(notwithstan!in the )act that there are nostatutor re>uirements upon this >uestion( the

courts( chare! with the responsibilities o)protectin the estates o) !ecease! persons(war!s o) the estate( etc*( will fn! much !i9icultin complin with this !ut b appointina!ministrators an! uar!ians who are notpersonall sub6ect to their 6uris!iction*Notwithstan!in that there is no statutorre>uirement2 the courts shoul! not consent to theappointment o) persons as a!ministrators an!uar!ians who are not personall sub6ect to the

6uris!iction o) our courts here*

SPECIAL PARENTAL A)TORIT

ST. (ARS ACAE( vs. CARPITANOSG.R. No. 1433+3

Fe/u!/ +, 22

F!"#s$e)en!ant+appellant 8t* :ar0s Aca!em o)

ipolo ,it con!ucte! an enrollment !ri'e )orthe school ear 3;;$+3;;#* A )acet o) the

enrollment campain was the 'isitation o) schools)rom where prospecti'e enrollees were stu!in*

As a stu!ent o) 8t* :ar0s Aca!em( 8herwin,arpitanos was part o) the campainin roup*

Accor!inl( on the )ate)ul !a( 8herwin(alon with other hih school stu!ents were ri!inin a :itsubishi 6eep owne! b !e)en!ant Gi'encio

Gillanue'a on their wa to Laraan Elementar8chool( apitan ,it* The 6eep was !ri'en b


38/39

ha'e causal connection to the acci!ent* There isno showin o) such*

"ence( with the o'erwhelmin e'i!encepresente! b petitioner an! the respon!ent

aniel spouses that the acci!ent occurre!because o) the !etachment o) the steerin wheelui!e o) the 6eep( it is not the school( but thereistere! owner o) the 'ehicle who shall be hel!responsible )or !amaes )or the !eath o) 8herwin,arpitanos*

EN IS S)PPORT E(ANABLE

LACSON vs. LACSONG.R. No. 15+44

Au'us# 28, 2+

F!"#sThe sisters :aowee aban Lacson an!

:aonaa aban Lacson are leitimate !auhterso) petitioner E!war! G* Lacson an! his wi)e( Leaaban 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)tthe con6ual home in :olo( Iloilo ,it( 'irtuall)orcin mother an! chil!ren to see1( apparentl)or fnancial reason( shelter somewhere else* Fora month( the stae! with Lea0s mother+in+law(

Alicia Lacson( then with her JLea0sK mother an!then with her brother Noel aban* A)ter sometime( the rente! an apartment onl to return

later to the house o) Lea0s mother* As the trialcourt aptl obser'e!( the sisters an! theirmother( )rom 3;4# to 3;;%( or )or a perio! o)eihteen J3?K ears( shuttle! )rom one !wellinplace to another not their own*

Issue7hether or not petitioner is oblie! to i'e

support*

Ru%&n'$Petitioner a!mits bein oblie!( as )ather(

to pro'i!e support to both respon!ents( :aoweean! :aonaa* It is his threshol! submission(howe'er( that he shoul! not be ma!e to pasupport in arrears( i*e*( )rom 3;4# to 3;;%( nopre'ious e=tra6u!icial( let alone 6u!icial( !eman!ha'in been ma!e b the respon!ents* "ein'o1es the )ollowin pro'ision o) the Famil,o!e to complete his pointArticle C M Theobliation to i'e support shall be !eman!able)rom the time the person who has a riht torecei'e the same nee!s it )or maintenance( but itshall not be pai! e=cept )rom the !ate o) 6u!icialor e=tra6u!icial !eman!*

To petitioner( his obliation to pa un!erthe a)ore >uote! pro'ision starts )rom the flino) ,i'il ,ase No* 3?$ in 3;;$( since onl )romthat moment can it be sai! that an e9ecti'e!eman! )or support was ma!e upon him


39/39

Paternity and Filiation Cases

Documents

Transcript of Paternity and Filiation Cases