Mendoza v Mella (1966)

- 1939 Paciano Pareja donated lot to son Gavino

- 1943 Gavino disappeared and has not been heard of since
o According to CA, he died the same year
o At the time of disappearance, Gavino lived with family
 Pet: Common-law wife Catalina Mendoza and son Rodolfo
- 1948 Paciano sold lot to Temistocles Mella
- 1952 Mella notified petitioners to vacate lot
o Pet did not respond to the notice
- 1955 Mella commenced action based on the deed of sale from Paciano
- Pet claim
o Rodolfo is the rightful owner by succession and by adverse possession for
more than 10 years

ISSUE:

WoN Rodolfo may be considered as an acknowledged natural child and entitled to

successional rights

HELD:

NO.

- Civil Registry Law was passed in 1930

o Contained provisions for registration of births including illegitimate
parentage
o Voluntary recognition of child if contents are sufficient pursuant to Art 131
old CC
- Cannot be relied as acknowledgement since the Gavino did not sign BC
o There must be a clear statement in document that parent recognizes
child as his own
o No such statement in Rodolfo’s BC
o Gavino and Catalina did not even provide the information in the BC

Lim v CA (1975)

- Felisa Lim and Francisco Uy assert they are the sole heir of Susana Lim
o The two parties are fighting over a lot owned by Susana
- Felisa claims
o To be the natural daughter of Susana
 Presented Certificate of Baptism (states she is Susan’s natural child)
 Felisa’s marriage contract (Susana signed for consent)
- Uy claims
 o To be the only son and heir of Susana
 Presented application for alien registration in Bureau of
Immigration; Susaa named as Uy’s mother
 BI cncelled registration due to Filipino derivation from his mother
Susana
 Identification cert stated the same
- CFI ruled in favour of Felisa
- CA reversed judgment
o None of them was recognized by Susana

ISSUE

WoN Felisa or Uy is entitled to the land

HELD:

None of them are entitled

Felisa

- Effective law at time she was recognized was CC 1889

- Art 131, CC of 1889
o Recognition of natural child be made at record at birth in a will or other
public document
- Felisa claims that marriage contract is public document
o Court held there are 2 kinds of public documents
 Executed by private persons authenticated by notaries
 Issued by public officials by reason of office
o Art 131 refers to the first one
o Marriage contract is not
 Written act with intervention of notary
 Instrument executed in due form before a notary
- Recognition must be “precise, express and solemn” – SANCHEZ ROMAN

Uy

- Uy claims that the property in question was bought by her husband with his own
money before Susana died but took conveyance in her name
o Implied trust exists in favour of her husband
- Title of land is in the name of Susana and oral testimony cannot overcome the
fact that sale was made to Susana and title was issued in her favour
- 2 factors against implied trust by UY
o Implied trust was only raised in MR
o Evidence of alleged purchase by husband is unconvincing
Heirs of Raymundo Banas v Heirs of Bubuano Banas

- Raymundo Banas was natural child born out of wedlock

o Parents were Dolores Castillo and unknown father
- Bibiano Banas shouldered Raymundo’s school expenses
o Raymundo constantly visits Bibiano is his place 1-2 times a week
- In one of the visits Raymundo met Trinidad Vecino
o Niece of Bibiano’s wife
- Raymundo married Trinidad
o Marriage cert states that
 Raymundo’s father is Bibiano
 Pedro Banas (Bibiano’s brother) was a sponsor
- After a while, Raymundo learned that his father was Pedro Banas
o Pedro and Raymundo executed statements to correct the error in
Marriage certificate (Bibiano as father)
- Jan 1931 Raymundo and fam moved to Sta. Cruz Manila
o The Sta Cruz prop was transferred from Bibiano to Raymundo by deed of
sale
- 1954 Bibiano died
- 1962 Raymundo died
- Three years after Raymundo’s death, his heirs filed complaint for recovery of
share, fruits and damages from Bibiano’s heirs

ISSUE

WoN Bibiano Binas voluntarily acknowledged Raymundo as his natural son

HELD

NO

- Note handwritten by Bibiano with the closing “su padre”

o Does not constitute sufficient proof of valid voluntary recognition
o It is a mere indication of paternal solicitude (concern or care)
o Held in Gustilo v Gustilo that “tu padre” is not sufficient
 Stronger evidence is needed to show express recognition
- Plaintiff argue under rule of incidental acknowledgement the note was sufficient
in form for recognition. They also cited cases
o Wrong. Incidental acknowledgement must be in public document before
admitting note as sufficient evidence
o Cases cited were decided before the adoption of New Civil Code
o Under Old Civil Code, voluntary recognition can be made in record of
birth, will or other public documents
 o Note made was short where 13 y.o. Raymundo was being admonished
because he stayed out late, did not study and was not helping his mother
o Intent to recognize must be apparent in document
- Plaintiff presented school records and certified copy of his marriage cert
o School records are not confirmative of Bibiano’s intention to recognize
since these records are prepared by school authorities and not Bibiano.
o Marriage cert was prepared by church authorities
o Failed to prove that Bibiano furnished the statements or had part in his
enrolment and marriage cert
o Bibiano’s signature in report card is signed as guardian, not parent
- Facts of the case run counter to plaintiff’s claims
o Sworn statement executed to change father in marriage cert
o Bibiano executed sworn statement declaring Raymundo as son of his
brother Pedro
 Thus no intention to acknowledgeVirce hime
- Plaintiff claim they discovered documents re: Raymundo’s filiation after his death
o Letters could not have been written without knowledge of Trinidad since it
is natural to tell his wife everything (Labo???)
- Raymundo should have filed an action for compulsory recognition during his life
time
o Cannot transfer right to file action since it is personal to the natural child

Republic v CA (1998)

- Cynthia Vicencio is daughter of spouses Pablo Vicencio and Fe Leabres

- Marital spat caused Pablo to leave conjugal home
o Pablo never reappeared nor sent support to family
o Ernesto Yu came to aid Fe Labres and children
- Fe filed for dissolution of Conjugal Partnership
o Granted
- Fe filed to change name by removing Pablo’s surname
o Granted
- Fe filed to declare Pablo as absentee
o Granted
- Fe and Ernesto were married in 1986
- It is established that
o Cynthia never really knew her father
o Ernesto was Cynthia’s known father
o Cynthia used Vicencio in school and other activities
 Classmates and neighbors constantly inquire why she had a
different surname
 ManueCaused extreme embarrassment
 o When she joined beauty pageants she would use “YU” as her surname
 Ernesto consented to the use of his surname
 Always thought of Cynthia as her own daughter

ISSUE

WoN Cynthia may change her name to her step-father’s surname?

HELD:

NO.

Sufficient grounds to warrant a change of name

1. Name is ridiculous, dishonourable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce

2. Change is legal consequence of legitimation or adoption
3. Change will avoid confusion
4. Used and known since childhood by Filipino name an unaware of alien
parentage
5. Surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the change of
name has a fraudulent purpose

- Cynthia claims that it falls under “to avoid confusion” WRT to her parentage
o Court held a change of name is a privilege, not a right
o If allowed, it will cause more confusion with grave legal consequences
 Cynthia might claim inheritance when Ernesto dies
o She could change her name to Yu if Ernesto legally adopts her, but he
didn’t
o There is no assurance that the change of name will have a good effect
on her

De Asis v CA

- Vircel Andres, on behalf of her son Glen, filed an action for support and
maintenance from Manuel de Asis
o Alleges that Manuel is the father of Glen
o Manuel denied paternity thus no support
- Vircel later withdrew complaint since Manuel denied paternity
o Mutually agreed to dismiss complaint as long as manuel will not pursue
counterclaim
- Vircel filed the same action again in 1995
- Manuel moved to dismiss complaint on the ground of res judicata, alleging
present suit is barred by prior judgement
 - RTC ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support
o Renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law

ISSUE

WoN action for support is barred by res judicata

HELD:

No.

- Art 301 CC. The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor
transmitted to third party
o This is based on the need of recipient to maintain his existence
o The renunciation of support would mean to voluntarily give up of life itself
- Art 2035, CC support cannot be subject to compromise
o Agreement between Vircel and Maniel is a compromise
o Thus it violates the prohibition against compromise thus void
- In order for to claim support, filiation or paternity must be established judicially
o Parties may not agree if there is filiation or not. It is up to the courts to
decide
o Lack of filiation was not established in the case
- The first dismissal cannot have force and effect
o Cannot bar the filing of another action
o This second action may prosper

Rodriguez v CA (1995)

- Clarito Agbulos, represented by his mother Felicitas, filed for recognition &
support against his alleged father Bienvenido Rodriguez.
- Bienvenido said Felicitas shouldn’t be allowed to reveal name of father because
of Art 280, CC: “When the father or the mother makes the recognition
separately, he or she shall not reveal the name of the person w/ whom she had
the child; neither shall he or she state any circumstance whereby the other party
may be identified.”
o In this case, it was only
- Clarito says that Felicitas should be allowed to testify on identity of the father
pursuant to Art 283, par 4 CC and Sec 30, Rule 130 Revised Rules of Court

ISSUE:

WoN Art 280 CC applies

HELD:
NO.

- According to Tolentino, Art 280 only applies to voluntary recognition, and not
compulsory recognition
o Sequencing of the Spanish CC proves this
 Art 131 SCC – The acknowledgment of a natural child must be
made in record of birth, will or other public document
 Art 132 SCC - *Same as Art 280 CC*
- Compulsory recognition
o Identity of parent may be revealed when child compels the father to
recognize him
o Prohibition does not include the inquiry WRT to identity, it merely refers to
the act of recognition
- In FC there is no prohibition
o Meant to liberalize the rule on the investigation of paternity of illegitimate
children
o FC repealed CC: By allowing illegitimate children to prove filiation the
same as legitimate children

Aruego Jr. v CA (1996)

- Jose Aruego Sr.

o Married man
o 1959 Had amorous relationship with Luz Fabian until he died on 1982
 Had Antonia Aruego and Evelyn Aruego (Born 1962 &1963)
o Aruego had 5 children with deceased Gloria Torre (Another woman)
- Complain herein from Antonia and Evelyn were to recognize them as illegitmate
heirs and thus entitled to a share of the inheritance
o There was a continuous possession of status of illegitimate children
 Acknowledged them verbally among his family
 Supported education
 Allowed to use his surname
 Paid maternal bills, baptism
 Maintained contact with them
 Introduced them to family and friends as his children
- RTC only declared Antonia as illegitimate child; entitled to ½ share
- EO 209 (a.k.a. FC) was implemented
o Pet states it must be given retroactive effect
o FC 172,173 and 175 of FC must be applied instead of 285 CC
 Possession of status must be brought during the lifetime of the
alleged parent
o Case was brought 1 year after death of Aruego Sr.
ISSUE:

WoN FC is applicable?

HELD:

NO.

- The suit was filed during the tenure of the CC, thus the FC is not applicable.
o The action must proceed in accordance with the law in force at the time
of filing.
o If the FC is applied, it will prejudice and impair the rights of Antonia
 When action was filed, Antonia was still a minor thus, part of the
exceptions stated in Art 285 CC

Jison v CA

- Monina Jison filed complaint before RTC for recognition as illegitimate child of
Francisco Jison
o
- Monina alleges
o End of 1945, Francisco impregnated her mother Esperanza Amolar
o Esperanza was the nanny of Francisco’s daughter, Lourdes
o Monina had enjoyed continuous and implied recognition as illeg by his
acts and that of his family
o Francisco gave her support and spent for education
o Francisco paid for Esperanza’s funeral
o Monina was allowed to live in Francisco’s house or with relatives if wife
was not there
o Francisco gave consent to Monina’s wedding
- Monina was able to present
o 11 witnesses to testify the relationship of Esperanza, Francisco and Monina
o Monina was able to identify members of the household staff at Nelly
Garden
o Testified that Francisco gave her money to go to Spain on the condition
that she sign an affidavit denying the latter as his father
- Francisco alleges
o He did not have sexual relations with Esperanza because she ceased to
be employed in 1944 and had no communication with her since then
o Never recognized Monina expressly or implicitly
o Monina did not have right or cause of action against him and is barred by
estoppel, laches and or prescription

ISSUE:
WoN Monina established her filiation as Francisco’s illegitimate daughter

HELD

YES

- Court held the instant case is governed by Art 175 in relation to Art 172 and 173
FC
- Evidence presented by Monina overwhelmingly established following facts
o Francisco is her father and she was conceived during Esperanza’s
employment
o Francisco recognized Monina as his child via overt acts and conducts
o Such recognition manifested throughout the years, publicly
- The affidavit signed by Monina is not needed if it is true that she is not an
illegitimate child
- Francisco’s testimonies were mere denials and unsubstantial responses
o Burden of proof was shifted to Francisco, but he was unable to overturn it

Alberto v CA (1994)

- Ma. Theresa Alberto (pet) claims to be the natural child of deceased Juan
Alberto
o The latter wants to participate in JMA’s estate
o JMA’s widow (Yolanda-resp) denies that Ma. Theresa was ever
recognized as natural child
- Pet claims
o Juan and Aurora Reniva (pet’s mother) were sweethearts before he
married respondent
o Pet used Alberto surname in all school records and JMA was known as her
father
o JMA gave support to her through his cousin, Fr. Arcilla
o At 9 years old, she was met by JMA’s sister wherein the latter gaver her
500 pesos and 2 telephone numbers where she could reach him
o JMA was supposed to visit her on her birthday, but he was assassinated
o Fr. Arcilla allowed her to see JMA at PGH where JMA died. The latter
informing the guard that Ma, Theresa was his daughter
o At the wake, she was recognized by the family and JMA’s friends as his
daughter
- Resp claims
o Yolanda was sole witness for respondents
o Presented letters that JMA never recognized Ma. Theresa

ISSUE
WoN Petitioner sufficiently proved that she was in the continuous possession of the status
of natural child of Juan Alberto?

HELD

YES

- Letters shown by Yolanda only established that Aurora was having a hard time
raising petitioner and was seeking financial assistance
o Showed that deceased was in fact giving support to petitioner
- Yolanda only needed to present relatives that will negate the pet’s claim
o She was unable to present any witness
- JMA had intent to recognize her
o Allowed her to use his surname
o Giving her and mother support
o Openly introducing her to his family and friends as his daughter
- Pet falls under Sec 285 CC par 1
o She was a minor (14 years old) when his father died 1967
o She reached the age of majority (21 then) at 1974
o Filed the action 3 days before the action prescribes

Guy v CA

- 1997 Minors Karen and Kamille Oanes Wei (resp), represented by their mother
Remedios, filed a petition to administer estate of Sima Wei
- Resp allege
o They are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wie
o Known heirs of Sima Wei are his wife and children with surname Gyy
- Resp pray that
o Court appoint a regular administrator and Micheal Guy (pet) be the
special administrator
- Pet prayed
o Dismissal of complaint since the estate had no debts and can be settled
w/o letters of administration
- Pet allege
o Resp should have established filiation during the life of the Sima Wei
o Resp have been paid their part of the estate and that Remedios signed a
release and waiver of claim for financial and educational assistance
given by Pet

ISSUE:

WoN Release and waiver of claim precludes respondents from claiming successional
rights?
WoN respondents are barred by prescription to prove the filiation

HELD:

NO.

- There was no clear intent expressly mentioned in the contract that they waive
their hereditary rights
o It only stated that Remedios received P300,000 and educational plan for
her minor daughter as full settlement of any and all claims whatsoever
from the estate.
o There was no specific mention of hereditary share in estate
- ASSUMING that Remedios truly waived the rights
o Art 1044 CC
 Parents and guardians may not renounce the rights without judicial
approval
o This provision is to protect the ward
- How can resp waive their rights if they have not yet proven their filiation

NO

- Give such ruling would be premature since evidence has not yet been
presented
- Depends on what kind of evidence the resp will present. If primary, any time. If
secondary, not allowed since action is allowed only during the life of the parent.
- RTC may still accept evidence necessary to prove respondents filiation since the
RTC jurisdiction extends to matters incidental to exercise of powers in handling
estate

Lucas v Lucas (2011)

- Petitioner filed an action to establish illigitmate filiation with respondent

o They must submit to DNA testing before the RTC
- Resp was not served a copy of petition but he came to know about it
o His counsel obtained a copy from the court
- Pet filed Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case
o Approved by court
o Published in the national newspapers once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks
- Unaware of the order, resp filed Special Appearance and Comment
o Allege that he did not receive the summons
o The publication was improper since it was a sensitive case
- Resp filed motion to dismiss
o Granted
ISSUE:

WoN petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case in the paternity suit

WoN a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order

HELD:

PREMATURE

- When parties have presented evidence, it will be determined if a DNA testing

order is warranted, considering that no such order has yet been issued by court
- No evidence was presented by pet
o Cannot be determined if there is a need for DNA testing

YES

- Rule on DNA evidence was enacted in order to guide the bench and bar for
introduction of said evidence in the judicial system
- When conditions are met, it does not give a right to order DNA testing
o There must still be prima facie evidence presented to establish a
reasonable possibility of paternity
o However, the issuance of a DNA testing order remains within the discretion
of the court

Uyguangco v CA (1989)

- Apolonario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975

o Left his wife (Dorotea), 4 legitimate children and propertyies
- Graciano Uyguangco claims to be an illegitimate son but was left out of
extrajudicial settlement
- Graciano alleges
o He was born in 1952 (Anastacia Bacjao)
o He was urged by his father, Dorotea and his half-brothers, to move to
father’s hometown
o He received support while studying
o Was assigned as storekeeper by father at Uyguangco store
- Pet allege
o He cannot present primary evidence to prove filiation

ISSUE:

WoN respondent is allowed to prove that he is illegitimate child of deceased without

documentary evidence required in the CC

HELD:
NO

- He can no longer introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of

status of illegitimate child by rules of court
o Must be in accordance with FC not RoC or CC since the latter has
superseded the Civil Code
o The action must be brought about during the life of the parent
o “Sempio-Dy” the putative parent should be given an opportunity to affirm
or deny the filiation
- The complaint to be part of the settlement circumvents the need to prove
filiation

Acebedo v Arquero (2003)

- Edwin Acebedo alleges that his wife, Dedje Acebedo, a former stenographer of
the MTC
o Cohabited as husband and wife with Eddie Arquero
o Bore a child named Desiree Arquero on 1989
o Attached to complaint was
 the baptismal cert of child with Eddie and Dedje as parents
 Marriage contract of the two
- Resp answered
o Denies the charge of immorality
o Affidavit of desistance executed by complainant
o Complainant’s sworn statement acknowledging paternity of a child born
out of wedlock
- OCA recommends that the resp be held guilty of immorality
o Court employee entered into an agreement with Edwin that they may
seek any partner and cohabit with said partner

ISSUE

WoN Baptismal certificate may be used to determine the filiation ?

Won Acebedo is guilty of immorality

HELD:

NO.

- The entry of respondent’s name in the bapt cert cannot be used to prove
filiation
o It is only proof of administration of baptism with rites of Catholic Church
o Does not prove veracity of declarations and statement contained therein
YES

- Even though “Kasunduan” was executed by the spouses, it is still immoral

o Art 1 of family code states “Marriage… is an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law and not
subject to stipulation”
- Although every office in government is a public trust, the judiciary demands a
greater degree of moral righteousness and uprightness
o Court firmly laid down standards of morality and decency for those in
service of judiciary
o The behaviour inside and outside of the court must both be free from
impropriety

NOTES:

1. Photograph of person at baptism does not prove he is the father

David v CA (1995)

- Ramon Villar (a businessman) is married and is a father of four

- Ramon had an intimate rel with his secretary (Daisie David) which bore children
o Christopher J in 1985
o Christin 1986
o Cathy Mae on April 1988
- Ramon’s legal family subsequently accepted Daisie’s children
- 1991 Villar asked Daisie if he could bring 6y.o. Christopher to Boracay
o However, Villar refused to give back the child since he has enrolled him in
Holy Family Academy
- Pet filed writ of HC
o Granted by RTC
o Reversed by CA because Daisie lives of parents for support

ISSUE:

WoN petitioner is entitled to custody over Christopher J.

HELD:

YES

- Art 213 FC
o Choice of child over 7 years old unless parent chosen is unfit
- Child expresses his preference to live with his mother
 - Mother has income from her work as a secretary in Computer company and also
receives support from family
o Employer arranged her working hours so that she can attend to her
children
o Christopher J might not live a life of affluence as compared to his father
o However, petitioner can support him and still give him a decent life

People v Namayan (1995)

- Margie Pagaygay, a mentally retarded person, was raped by accused Tortillano

Namayan
- Accused was sentenced to
o reclusion perpetua
o to recognize the child as a result of the act
o to support child until it turns 21
- Accused claims that he was in jail during the months when the child was
conceived

ISSUE:

WoN accused is the father of the child?

HELD:

YES.

- Jailor states
o It is not his duty to watch over the prisoners
 Thus the jailer is in no position to testify that accused was in jail
during the commission of rape
- Medical witnesses state
o At July 30, 1991 the complainant was pregnant aging 4 to 5 months
o The act of sexual intercourse occurred between March 15 and April 15
 A period 1 month before conception
- Accused states
o He was released on April 12
o However witnesses state that he was seen in public on March 19
 This sufficiently establishes that the accused was present at the time
and place of the rape
o Complainant did not shout or complain about sex
 She is mentally retarded thus she is unable to give consent to sex
 She was dominated by fear and ignorance rather than reason
- Compulsory acknowledgment is proper
 o Crime of rape carries with it the obligation to acknowledge the offspring
and to give support

Gan v Reyes (2002)