Solano vs.

CA, Bienvenido/Emeteria Garcia GR L 41971

November 29, 1983

FACTS: Bienvenido and Emeteria filed an action for recognition against Melita Solano Meliton died during the pendency of the petition and his
daughter substituted him while asking for the probate of the will of the decedent. RTC specified the legal issues as 1) the recognition of Garcias, 2)
correct status of Zonia, 3) the hereditary share of each of them in view of the probated will. In deciding, RTC declared Garcias as illegitimate children
of late Meliton.; the institution of Sonia as sole heir declared null and void, the 3 children shall share equally the estate CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not total intestacy resulted from the declaration that the institution of sole heir from decedents will.
RULING: That being compulsory heirs, the Garcias were preterited from Melitons will, and as a result, Sonias institution as sole heir is null and void
pursuant to Art. 854
The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born
after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir, but the devises and legacies shall be valid
The intention of the decedent is to favor Sonia with certain portions of his property which the testator had the right to such so that it
should be upheld as to the one-half portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of Sonias share is hereby declared to be 4/6 of the
estate and Garcias 1/6 each. The usufruct in favor of will should not be invalidated all together.

preterition of illegitimate children should annul the institution of the heir only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired.

TAYAG VS CA G.R. No. 95229 Regalado, J. June 9, 1992

Facts: Chad Cuyugan, son of the deceased Atty. Ricardo Ocampo, the fruit of his illicit amorous relationship with EMILIE, the plaintiff and legal
guardian, was born in Angeles City on October 5, 1980 bad been sired, showered with exceptional affection, fervent love and care by his putative
father for being his only son as can be gleaned from indubitable letters and documents of the late Atty. Ocampo to herein plaintiff. CORITO, the
daughter of the deceased and herein defendant, is the known administratrix of the real and personal properties left by her deceased father, said Atty.
Ocampo, who died intestate in Angeles City on September 28, 1983. The defendant contended that the suit as barred by prescription and Cuyugan
has no legal and judicial personality to bring the suit. Petitioner submits that Article 175 of the Family Code applies in which case the complaint
should have been filed during the lifetime of the putative father, failing which the same must be dismissed on the ground of prescription. Private
respondent, however, insists that Article 285 of the Civil Code is controlling and, since the alleged parent died during the minority of the child, the
action for filiation may be filed within four years from the attainment of majority of the minor child.
Issue: Whether or not Article 175 of the Family Code should be given a retroactive effect.
Ruling: Article 256 of the Family Code states that "this Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." It becomes essential, therefore, to determine whether the right of the minor child to file an
action for recognition is a vested right or not. The Supreme Court ruled that under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the right of action
of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in court under the regime of the Civil Code and prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code. The court adopts the ruling in the recent case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the fact of filing of the petition already
vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the same proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the time, and such
right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law. The trial court is therefore, correct in applying the provisions of Article
285 of the Civil Code and in holding that private respondent's cause of action has not yet prescribed. Petition Denied