Gerardo Concepcion VS Court of Appeals

Facts

Gerardo Concepcion herein petitioner married private respondent Ma. Theresa Almonte and gave birth to Jose
Gerardo. However, spouses relationship was short-lived when petitioner discovered that his wife had married a
certain Mario Gopiao 9 years prior their marriage. Petitioner filed a motion to annul his marriage with Ma.
Theresa on the ground of bigamy.

RTC ruled that private respondent's first marriage was valid and subsisting making the 2 nd marriage with
petitioner bigamous, therefore void. A decree of annulment was granted and declared Jose Gerardo as an
illegitimate child. Custody of the child was awarded to the mother while petitioner was granted visitation rights.

Felt humiliated, private respondent then filed a MR insofar ONLY as the portion of the decision granting
petitioner visitation rights to their son contending that the law is silent as to the visitation rights in favor of the
putative father of an illegitimate child and that their son's surname be changed from Concepcion to Almonte, her
maiden name.

Petitioner opposed t he motion and insisted his visitation rights and the retention of the child's surname as is.
RTC denied the MR saying that the minor needs a father especially that he is a boy who must have a father
figure to recognize something the mother alone cannot give.

Private respondent elevated the case to CA but RTC's decision was affirmed in toto.

Undaunted, Ma. Theresa filed MR and a motion to set the case for oral arguments so that she could better
ventilate the issues involved in the controversy. After hearing the arguments of respective counsels, CA resolved
MR and reversed its prior ruling and held that Jose Gerardo is the son of Ma. Theresa with Mario during her first
marriage and not with Gerardo.

Shocked and stunned, Gerardo moved for a reconsideration but was denied. Hence this appeal.

Issue: WON the presumption of legitimacy would apply in this case

Held

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition saying that sexual union between spouses is assumed. Not only that
both Mario and Ma. Theresa reside in the same city, there was also no evidence presented by the petitioner to
disprove personal access between them. Petitioner, solely relied on Ma. Theresa's statement that she never lived
with Mario and claims that the admission amounts to an assumption that there was never any sexual relation
between her and Mario and that the child was born to them. The court found the argument without merit.

The presumption of legitimacy holds and may be refuted only by evidence to the contrary in which case there
was none provided. The birth certificate of the child and the admission of both parties that Jose Gerardo was
born to them is immaterial. If the court were to validate that stipulation, then it would tantamount to allowing the
mother to disown her child and these are the very acts which the law seeks to prevent.

SC added that the birth certificate was not offered as evidence in the lower court, thus should not be recognized
and if it were to recognize it, a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence and may be rebutted by more
preponderant evidence. Between the certificate of birth which is only prima facie evidence and the quasi-
conclusive presumption of the law (rebuttable only by proof beyond reasonable doubt), the latter shall prevail.
Not only it does bear more weight but it is also conducive to the best interests of the child and in consonance
with the purpose of the law which is to prioritize the best interest of the child.