Chua Keng Giap v. IAC 1.

Chua Keng Giap filed on May 19, 1983, a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao in the regional trial court of Quezon City. He claims that he is the son of Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kao. 2. The private respondent, moved to dismiss for lack of a cause of action and of the petitioner's capacity to file the petition. No cause of action because he is not the son of the abovementioned couple as testified by the mother herself. CONTENTIONS: Respondent: a. Res judicata: The latter, it was claimed, had been declared as not the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kao in S.P. No. Q-12592, for the settlement of the estate of the late Chua Bing Guan. b. Mothers testimonials: SY Kua herself testified that she is not her son. Petitioner: a. paternity and not the maternity of the petitioner is to be decided. Therefore, the testimony of the mother should not be credited. ISSUE: W/N Chua Keng Giap is the son of Chua Bing and Sy Kua. HELD: No he isnt Who better than Sy Kao herself would know of Chua Keng Giap was really her son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say ---- as indeed she has said these many years ---- that Chua Keng Giap was not begotten of her womb. Petition Denied. Cobatbat-Lim vs IAC 166 SCRA 451 Facts: Case at hand is a squabble over the estate of late Dra. Esperanza Cabatbat. Petitioner is Violeta Cabatbat-Lim who claims to be the only child of Esperanza while the resps are the sisters and children of a deceased brother. Priv resps (sisters of Esperanza) filed @ CFI Pangasinan for partitioning of Esperanzas estate (died intestate on 4/23/77). Part of her estate is the Calasiao Bijon Factory which is in possession of Violeta (alleged child of Esperanza and Proceso Cabatbat). They were saying that Violeta is only a ward (ampon) through the ff evidences: born -1948) ivil registry certification of 3/9/77 that there is no birth record of Violeta Cabatbat from 5/26/48 or 49 e was in the Provincial Hospital to watch a cousin give birth and there she met Benita Lastimosa who gave birth to an IC Baby Girl Lastimosa on 5/26/48 (now known as Violeta Cabatbat) Violeta on the other hand tried to adduce evidence that will support her claim. Among which he showed are the following:

Prospero ered at Provincial Hospital

TC held that Violeta is NOT natural child of E and P therefore NOT a legal heir. Issue: WON Violeta is a natural child of Esperanza and Proceso Held: NO. TC and CA findings on filiation is given great accord, conclusive upon the SC. TC then said that the Registry Book of hospital admission doesnt even Esperanza was a patient on 5/26/48 and it doesnt even show that Esperanza was ever admitted from 12/1/47 6/15/48. On 5/26/48, Records only show that there was one birth at that day and that was Benita Lastimosa who gave birth to an IC baby girl Lastimosa. Absence of birth record in the Civil Regitry makes her exhibit doubtable. Moreover, her reliance on NCC 263 is misplaced as such action is not to impugn legitimacy but to claim inheritance as legal heirs from a childless aunt. They do not claim that shes an IC Labagala vs. Santiago 371 SCRA 360 Facts: 1. Siblings Nicolasa, Amanda and Jose Santiago owned a parcel of land, which was registered in Joses name alone 2. February 6, 1984: Jose died intestate a. Nicolasa and Amanda, as his legal heirs, sought the recovery of title, ownership, and possession of his 1/3 share in the property b. The case was filed against Ida C. Labagala who claimed i. To be Joses legitimate child with Esperanza Cabrigas 1. His income tax return listed Ida as his daughter ii. To have been the donee of his 1/3 share of the property 1. A Deed of Sale, covering the entire parcel of the property, was executed on March 1979 in Idas favour BUT 2. The sale was actually a donation iii. To had caused the issuance of a title in her name over the entire parcel of land by virtue of the sale in order to prevent the property from being sold by public auction for Nicolasa and Amandas failure to pay its realty taxes iv. To have always been staying on the property 1. Previous ejectment cases by Nicolasa and Amanda were instituted against her in 1985 2. Cases were resolved in Idas favour 3. Contentions of Nicolasa and Amanda a. Ida is a child of Leo Labagala and Cornelia Cabrigas i. Leo Labagala signed and prepared the birth certificate of Isa Santiago as her father

ii. Birth certificate of Ida Santiago had the same birth date and place as the claimed day and place of Ida Labagala (1969, Manila) iii. Ida did not present a birth certificate of an Ida Santiago and only alleged that she had been using the surname since her childhood iv. Jose stated in a Civil Case (No. 56226) that he did not have any child. b. The Deed of Sale was forged i. It was not signed by Jose but only thumbmarked, which Jose had never done ii. Ida was unemployed then and could not have afford the price of P150k iii. Ida concealed the sale as she registered the deed only on Jan. 26, 1987 or 8 years after the sale Issue: WON Ida Labagala is Joses child Held: NO 1. NCC 263 does not apply a. Applies only for situations where doubt exists that a child is indeed a mans child by his wife (issue of legitimacy) b. Not for situations where a child is alleged not be the child at all of a particular couple 2. Birth certificate of Ida Labagala is conclusive proof of her filiation with Leo and Cornelia a. BC was signed and prepared by the father, Leo b. Ida did not present any birth certificate in the name of a Ida Santiago c. Baptismal and Income Tax Return are not proofs of filiation but only of the fact that a baptism had been administered and that tax has been paid in a certain amount, respectively 3. Use of a family name does not establish pedigree 4. Ida contradicted herself in relation to her filiation with Cornelia a. In her testimony, she denied knowing Cornelia In her petition, she admitted that De Jesus vs. Estate of Juan Gamboa Dizon 366 SCRA 499 Facts: - Aug 23, 1964 Danilo Jesus and Carolina Jesus were married. Their union produced two children, Jacqueline (March 1, 1979) and Jinky Jesus (July 6, 1982). - June 7 1991, Juan G. Dizon acknowledged Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as his own illegitimate children with Carolina Aves de Jesus - 12 March 1992 Juan Dizon died. Jacqueline and Jinky then filed an action to be part of the heirs of his estate as his illegitimate children in a notarized document. - TC: ulitimately dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and for being improper since its not the proper forum to question their paternity and filiation. Thus the present case ISSUE: WON Jinky and Jacquelin are the illegitimate children of Juan Dizon HELD: NO - Presumption of law is that of legitimacy. Those who are born in wedlock without conclusive proof that there was physical impossibility for the parents to conceive the child are considered legitimate. Upon the expiration of periods found in FC 170 and 171, this presumption of civil status

becomes fixed and unassailable. It is only when the legitimacy of the child has been disputed can paternity of the husband be rejected. While the recognition of illegitimacy by Dizon was made in accordance with the rules on recognizing illegitimacy, this does not negate the legitimacy they hold with Danilo Jesus. Petitoners were born during the marriage of their parents. The certificates of live birth also identify Danilo de Jesus as their father. Thus, before they can be recognized as illegitimate children, they must first contest their status as legitimate children of Danilo Jesus. Liayo v Liyao 378 SCRA 563, March 7, 2002 FACTS: 1. Ramon Yulo and Corazon Garcia are married but are legally separated 2. They have two children, Enrique and Bernadette 3. William Liyao and Respondent Juanita Liyao are also married. 4. William and Juanita have two daughter, Tita and Linda Christine 5. While their marriages were subsisting, Corazon and William cohabited until the latters death. 6. Out of this union, petitioner William Jr, was born. 7. William Junior claimed to be the illegitimate son of William. Contentions of petitioner 1. petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of the child of said William Liyao, petitioner having been recognized and acknowledged as such child by the decedent during his lifetime." always recognizes him as his son and that when there were guests William would say, Hey, look I am still young, I can still make a good looking son." 2. his mother, Corazo Garcia, had been living separately for ten (10) years from her husband, Ramon Yulo, at the time that she cohabited with the late William Liyao and it was physically impossible for her to have sexual relations with Ramon Yulo when petitioner was conceived and born ISSUE: Is the evidence presented sufficient to prove that William Jr. is the illegitimate son of William Sr.? HELD: There is no need for the court to go to the substantive issues because from the onset, petitioner lacks the required personality to file the suit. the grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child mentioned in Article 255 of the Civil Code may only be invoked by the husband, or in proper cases, his heirs under the conditions set forth under Article 262 of the Civil Code. Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs for the simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces and he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that infidelity or expose it in view of the moral and economic interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none - even his heirs - can impugn legitimacy; that would amount to an insult to his memory.

It is therefor clear that the present petition initiated by Corazon G. Garcia as guardian ad litem of the then minor, herein petitioner, to compel recognition by respondents of petitioner William Liyao, Jr, as the illegitimate son of the late William Liyao cannot prosper. It is settled that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. If the husband (in this case Ramon Yulo), presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mothers alleged paramour. On the other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of the husband who successfully defeated the presumption. ISSUE 2: Do the acts of Enrique and Bernadette Yulo, the undisputed children of Corazon Garcia with Ramon Yulo, in testifying for herein petitioner amount to impugnation of the legitimacy of the latter? HELD: No. As earlier stated, it is only in exceptional cases that the heirs of the husband are allowed to contest the legitimacy of the child. There is nothing on the records to indicate that Ramon Yulo has already passed away at the time of the birth of the petitioner nor at the time of the initiation of this proceedings. Notably, the case at bar was initiated by petitioner himself through his mother, Corazon Garcia, and not through Enrique and Bernadette Yulo. It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law. Art. 262. The heirs of the husband may impugn the legitimacy of the child only in the following cases: (1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; (2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted from the same; (3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (112)