PROOF OF FILIATION (172-174)

ARTICLE 172
Eceta vs Eceta
Facts:
Petitioner Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta sometime in 1926 and had a son, Vicente.The couple acquired several properties, among
which is the disputed property located in Cubao,Quezon City. Isaac died in 1967 leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory heirs. Vicente died in
1977, but he had an illegitimate child, Ma. Theresa. Thus, his compulsory heirs were his mother and Ma. Theresa. In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for Partition and Accounting with Damages against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her fathers death, she became
Rosalinas co-heir and co-owner of the Cubao property. Rosalina alleged that the property is paraphernal in nature and thus belonged to her exclusively.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Theresa is entitled to be Rosalinas co-owner and co-heir in the disputed property.
Held:
Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. Vicente himself signed Maria Theresas
birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter.By this act alone, Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his paternity over Maria Theresa.
Rosalina Eceta also admitted that Ma. Theresa is her granddaughter. Therefore, she is in no doubt an illegitimate daughter of Vicente and is entitled to be a
co-owner and co-heir of Rosalina in the property.
Constantino vs Mendez
Facts:
Amelita Constantino was a waitress at Tonys restaurant in Sta. Cruz, Manila, and there she met Ivan Mendez sometime in August 1974. The next day, she
was invited by Ivan to dine with him at Hotel Enrico and courted her. Ivan brought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. He later on confessed that he is a married man. Despite this, they repeated their sexual contact in the months
of September and November, 1974 and as a result, Amelita got pregnant. She asked for support but Ivan refused to attend to her. Amelita claimed that she had
no sexual relations with any other man except Ivan. As relief, Amelita prayed for the recognition of the unborn child, the payment of actual, moral and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus costs. Ivan admitted that he met Amelita at Tony's restaurant but denied having carnal knowledge her. He prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. After giving birth to Michael, Amelita filed an amended complaint.The trial court ruled in favor of
Amelita and ordered Mendez to pay her the damages and to recognize her son Michael as his own illegitimate child.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Michael should be recognized as Ivans illegitimate child and should Amelita be entitled to damages.
Held:
The burden of proof is on Amelita to establish her allegations that Ivan is the father of her son. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence
establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed. Amelita's testimony on cross-examination that she had sexual contact with Ivan in Manila
in the first or second week of November, 1974 is inconsistent with her response that she could not remember the date of their last sexual intercourse in
November, 1974. Sexual contact of Ivan and Amelita in the first or second week of November, 1974 is the crucial point that was not even established on direct
examination as she merely testified that she had sexual intercourse with Ivan in the months of September, October and November, 1974. She also admitted
that she was attracted to Ivan and the repeated sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not promise of marriage was the reason that she allowed to
submit herself to Ivan. Therefore she is not entitled to damages. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Bernabe vs Alejo
Facts:
The late Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary Carolina Alejo and was named Adrian Bernabe who was born on September 18,
1981. When Ernesto Bernabe and his legal wife Rosalina, died, the only heir left is Erestina. Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed a complaint praying that
Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and be given a share of his fathers estate. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the
complaint. The trial court declared that since the putative father had not acknowledged or recognized Adrian Bernabe in writing, the action for recognition
should have been filed during the lifetime of the alleged father to give him the opportunity to either affirm or deny the childs filiation.
Issue:
Whether or not Adrian Bernabe may be declared and acknowledged illegitimate son.
Held:
According to the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code
makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new code a chance to dispute the
claim, considering that illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. The
petition is hereby denied.
Jison vs CA
Facts:
Monina Jison filed a complaint in the RTC alleging that Francisco had been married to one Lilia Lopez but impregnated Esperanza Amolar, the nanny of his
daughter, and mother of Monina. And since childhood, she had enjoyed the continuous and implied recognition as an illegitimate child of Francisco by his
acts. She also alleged that Francisco has been giving her support and provided for her education. In view of Franciscos refusal to expressly recognize her,
Monina prayed for a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and that Francisco support and treat her as such. Meanwhile, Francisco alleged that he could
not have had sexual relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period specified in the complaint because she was not anymore his employee at the time.
Further, he never recognized Monina, expressly or impliedly, as his illegitimate child. Francisco contended that Monina had no cause of action against him
and that her action was barred by prescription. He petitioned for dismissal of the complaint and an award of damages.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Monina had established evidence to prove that she is an illegitimate child of Francisco.
Held:
The positive testimonies of Monina and her witnesses all bearing on Franciscos acts and/or conduct showing that he had continuously acknowledged Monina
as his illegitimate daughter have not been successfully refuted. Franciscos vague denial is grossly inadequate to overcome the probative weight of Moninas
testimonial evidence. The Certifications of the Local Civil Registrar of Dingle well as the Baptismal Certificates which the trial court admitted in evidence as
part of Moninas testimony, may serve as circumstantial evidence to further reinforce her claim as an illegitimate daughter of Francisco by Esperanza Amolar.
Also, if Monina was not truly the illegitimate daughter, it would have been unnecessary for him to have gone to such great lengths in order that Monina
denounce her filiation. Francisco merely consists of denials and failed to present sufficient evidence, thus, his petition is denied.

ARTICLE 173
Conde vs Abaya
Facts:
Casiano Abaya died unmarried in April 1899. Roman Abaya, his brother and administrator of his estate appealed on the decision of the Court of First
Instance, giving Paula Conde sole hereditary rights to the inheritance of his brother. Paula Conde is the mother of Casianos natural children, Jose and
Teopista. In reply to the foregoing motion of Roman Abaya, Conde filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged by
Roman Abaya, but that she considered that her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing of the matter, and, in consequence of the evidence that she
intended to present she prayed that she be declared to have preferential rights to the property left by Casiano Abaya, and that the same be adjudicated to her
together with the corresponding products thereof. She would like to enforce the acknowledgment of her deceased child under the old Civil Code.
Issues:
Whether Conde, as the mother of the presumed natural child, after his/her death may bring an action to acknowledge the deceased child as a natural child.
Held:
The petition for acknowledgment will not prosper on the ground that the right of action which devolves upon the child to claim his legitimacy may be
transmitted to his heirs only in the event that the child dies during minority or in a state of insanity. The actions for the acknowledgment of natural children
can be instituted only during the life of the presumed parents, except in cases where the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case
the latter may institute the action before the expiration of the first four years of its majority. And if, after the death of the father or mother, some instrument,
before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. The case at bar did not qualify, not even as exception. Therefore, the
right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child is, in principle and without exception, extinguished by his death, and cannot be transmitted as a
portion of the inheritance of the deceased child.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND LEGITIMATED CHILDREN (175-182)
ARTICLE 176
Marquino vs. IAC
Facts: Respondent Bibiana Romano-Pagadora filed an action for Judicial Declaration of Filiation, Annulment of Partition, Support, and Damages against
petitioner Eutiquio Marquino on the CIF of Negros Occidental. Also impleaded as defendants, were the wife of Eutiquio Marquino and their legitimate
children all surnamed Terenal-Marquino. The records show that Bibiana was born of Gregoria Romano and allegedly of Eutiquio Marquino.
At that time, Eutiquio was still single. Bibiana became personally known to the Marquino family when she was hired as domestic helper in their household at
Dumaguete City. She always received financial assistance from them. Thus, she claimed that she enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an
acknowledged natural child by direct and unequivocal acts of her father and his family. TheMarquinos, on the other hand, strongly denied her allegations.
During the pendency of the case and before respondent Bibiana could finish presenting her evidence, she died. Her heirs were ordered substituted for her as
parties-plaintiffs. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. They averred that the action for recognition is intransmissible to the heirs being a personal act. The
trial court dismissed the case. Respondents appealed to the respondent IAC. Eutiquio Marquino died while the case was pending appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the right of action to compel recognition is intransmissible in character.
Held: The child can bring the action during his or her entire lifetime, not during the lifetime of the parents, and even after the death of the parents. In other
words, the action does not prescribe as long as he lives. In the case at bench, it is evident that Bibiana was a natural child. She was born out of wedlock of
Gregoria Romano and allegedly of Eutiquio Marquino who at that time was single. Bibiana sued for compulsory recognition while Eutiquio was still alive.
Sadly, she died before she could present her proof of recognition. Her death tolled the action considering its personal nature and intransmissibility.

ARTICLE 177 - 180

Abadilla vs. Tabiliran
FACTS: Ma. Blyth Abadilla, a Clerk of Court, filed a complaint against Judge Tabiliran on the grounds of gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption
unbecoming of a judge. With respect to the charge on gross immorality, she contended that the judge scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla
Baybayan during subsistence of his marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Tabiliran and Priscilla got married in May 1986. On the other hand, with respect to the
charge on deceitful conduct, petitioner claims that the judge caused his 3 illegitimate children with Priscilla be registered as legitimate by falsely executing
separate affidavits stating the delayed registration was due to inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight when in fact, he knew these children cannot be
legally registered as legitimate. The judge averred that 25 years had already elapsed since the disappearance of her wife in 1966 when he married Priscilla
hence the cohabitation was neither bigamous nor immoral. However, as early as 1970, based on the record, Priscilla had begotten her 3 children (1970, 1971
and 1975).
ISSUE: WON the 3 children can be considered legitimate.
HELD: The 3 children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage
between Tabiliran and Teresita. Only natural children can be legitimated. Children born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of
the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are natural.
Under Article 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were
not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. Reasons for this limitation:
1) The rationale of legitimation would be destroyed;
2) It would be unfair to the legitimate children in terms of successional rights;
3) There will be the problem of public scandal, unless social mores change;
4) It is too violent to grant the privilege of legitimation to adulterous children as it will destroy the sanctity of marriage;
5) It will be very scandalous, especially if the parents marry many years after the birth of the child.
ADOPTION
Teotico vs Del Val
Facts: Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre died in Manila leaving properties worth P600,000.00. She left a will written in Spanish where she affixed
her signature on every page. The said will was acknowledged before a notary public by the testatrix and her witnesses. Among the many legacies and devises
made in the will was one of P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, husband of her niece Josefina. To said spouses the testatrix left the usufruct of her interest in the
Calvo building, while the naked ownership thereof she left in equal parts to her grandchildren who are the legitimate children of said spouses. The testatrix
also instituted Josefina Mortera as her sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed of in the will. Vicente B. Teotico
filed a petition for the probate of the will in the CFI of Manila. Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be an adopted child of the deceased sister of the testatrix, as
well as an acknowledged natural child of a deceased brother of the same testatrix, filed an opposition to the probate of the will alleging the following grounds:
(1) said will was not executed as required by law; (2) the testatrix was physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at the time of its execution; and (3)
the will was executed under duress, threat or influence of fear. Vicente B. Teotico, filed a motion to dismiss the opposition alleging that the oppositor had no
legal personality to intervene. The probate court, after due hearing, allowed the oppositor to intervene.
Issue/s: Whether or not the oppositor Del Val has a legal personality to intervene in a probate proceeding.

Held: It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the
will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate. Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to intervene
because she has no interest in the estate either as heir, executor, or administrator, nor does she have any claim to any property affected by the will, because it
nowhere appears therein any provision designating her as heir, legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. In the supposition that, the will is denied
probate, she would acquire such right only if she were a legal heir of the deceased, but she is not under our Civil Code. The oppositor cannot also derive
comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of Francisca Mortera because under our law the relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the
adopter and the adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. The
case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings.
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim, et al.
Facts:
Petitioner, an optometrist, married Primo Lim but they were childless. Lucia Ayuban entrusted them minor children whom they registered to make it appear
that they are the parents. The children were named Michelle and Michael Jude. They took care of the children and sent them to exclusive schools. They used
the surname Lim in all their school records and documents. When Primo Lim died, the petitioner married Angel Olario, an American citizen. Thereafter,
petitioner decided to adopt the children. At the time of the filing of the petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael
was 18 years and seven months old. Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of Consent and so with
Michael. Olario likewise executed the same. In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle was
considered as an abandoned child and the whereabouts of her natural parents were unknown. The DSWD issued a similar Certification for Michael. The trial
court dismissed the petitions.
Issue/s:
Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.
Held:
Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt In Section 7, Article III of RA 8552, the use of the word
shall means that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the child
which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The
rule also insures harmony between the spouses. There are certain requirements that Olario must comply being an American citizen, mere giving of consent is
not sufficient. Also, petitioner does petitioner fall under any of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 7. The petition is dismissed.
DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998
Republic vs CA and Bobiles
FACTS:
Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat who had been living with her family since 4 months old. Salvador Condat, father of the child,
and the social worker assigned was served with copies of the order finding that the petition was sufficient in form and substance. The copy was also posted on
the bulletin board of the court. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition. The judgment declared that surname of the child be changed to Bobiles.
ISSUE: WON the petition to adopt Jason should be granted considering only Zenaida filed the petition.
HELD: The petition for adoption was filed when the law applicable was PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code), where such petition may be filed either of
the spouses or both of them. After the trial court rendered its favorable decision and while the case was pending on appeal in CA, Family Code took effect
where joint adoption of both spouses is mandatory.

Non-joinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action or a special proceeding. The Family Code will have retrospective application if it will not prejudice
or impair vested rights. When Zenaida filed the petition, she was exercising her explicit and unconditional right under said law in force at the time and thus
vested and must not be prejudiced. A petition must not be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with law not yet in force and effect at the time.
Furthermore, the affidavit of consent attached by the husband showed that he actually joined his wife in adopting Jayson. His declarations and subsequent
confirmatory testimony in open court was sufficient to make him a co-petitioner. Future of an innocent child must not be compromised by arbitrary
insistence of rigid adherence to procedural rules on the form of the pleadings. Hence, Petition was denied.
Tamargo vs CA
FACTS: In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries that resulted in her death. The
petitioners, natural parents of Tamargo, filed a complaint for damages against the natural parents of Adelberto with whom he was living the time of the tragic
incident. In December 1981, the spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto Bundoc. Such petition was granted on November 1982 after the tragic
incident.
ISSUE: WON parental authority concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to make adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed
against the adopted child where actual custody was lodged with the biological parents.
HELD: Parental liability is a natural or logical consequence of duties and responsibilities of parents, their parental authority which includes instructing,
controlling and disciplining the child. In the case at bar, during the shooting incident, parental authority over Adelberto was still lodged with the natural
parents. It follows that they are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child
under their parental authority in accordance with the civil code.
SC did not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time
when they had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactivity may be essential if it permits accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor
of the adopted child. Under Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the
period of trial custody however in this case, trial custody period either had not yet begin nor had been completed at the time of the shooting incident. Hence,
actual custody was then with the natural parents of Adelberto. Petition for review was hereby granted.