(PATERNITY AND FILIATION)

GRANDE vs. ANTONIO (2014)

Issue: Does the father have a right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children
upon recognition of their filiations?

HELD:

R.A. 9255 art. 176. “Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this code.
HOWEVER, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father through the record of birth
appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private
handwritten instrument is made by the father...”

The general rule: an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her mother. EXCEPT, in case
his or her:
(1) filiation is expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in
the civil register; or

(2) When an admission in a public document or private HANDWRITTEN instrument is

made by the father. – In such situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname of
the father.

Note:
Art. 176 give illegitimate children have the right to decide if they want to use the surname
of their father or not. It is not the father or the mother who is granted by law the right to
dictate the surname of their illegitimate children.

Dela Cruz, et. Al. vs. Gracia (2009)

Facts: An unsigned autobiography of the deceased putative father acknowledging the
pregnancy of his common law wife was used as evidence to prove paternity filiation in order for
the legitimate child to use the father’s surname upon birth. May it be admitted considering that
it is unsigned?

Held:
Art. 175 of the family code:
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the
same evidence as legitimate children.

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgement; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten

instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of a legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Rules with respect to the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging
parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a
legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

1.) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to
prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same
must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

2.) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and
competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been
made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such
evidence. (this is applicable if the instrument is unsigned)
(Note) The welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration in resolving
questions affecting him.

Conception vs. CA (2005)

HELD:

The law and only the law determine who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for ones
legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised. Not even the birth certificate of the
minor can change his status for the informations contained therein are merely supplied by the
mother and/or the supposed father. It should be what the law says and not what a parent says it
is.

Between the certificate of birth which is prima facie evidence of Jose Gerardos
illegitimacy and the quasi-conclusive presumption of law (rebuttable only by proof beyond
reasonable doubt) of his legitimacy, the latter shall prevail. Not only does it bear more weight, it
is also more conducive to the best interests of the child and in consonance with the purpose of
the law.

Article 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.

A mother has no right to disavow a child because maternity is never uncertain.[38] Hence, Ma.
Theresa is not permitted by law to question Jose Gerardos legitimacy.
Present case:
The child Jose Gerardo under the law is the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between
[Ma. Theresa] and Mario Gopiao; he cannot be deemed to be the illegitimate child of the void and non-
existent marriage between [Ma. Theresa] and [Gerardo], but is said by the law to be the child of the
legitimate and existing marriage between [Ma. Theresa] and Mario Gopiao (Art. 164, Family Code).

He has no standing in law to dispute the status of Jose Gerardo. Only Ma. Theresas husband Mario or, in a
proper case,[25] his heirs, who can contest the legitimacy of the child Jose Gerardo born to his
wife.[26] Impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional
cases, his heirs.[27] Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was void from the very beginning, he
never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child .