Liyao Jr v Tanhoti-Liyao (378 SCRA 563) March 7, 2002 FACTS: Corazon Garcia is legally married to, but living

separately from, Ramon M. Yulo for more than 10 years. Corazon cohabited with the deceased William Liyao from 1965 up to the time of thr latters death in December 1975. They lived together with 2 of Corazons children by the previous marriage. On June 1975, Corazon gave birth to a son, William Liyao Jr. During the 3 day stay at the hospital, the deceased visited and stayed with her and the new born and spent for the food and medical expenses. The deceased caused his confidential secretary to secure the birth certificate of his son. Since birth, William Jr. had been in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of a recognized and/or acknowledged child by the fathers direct and overt acts. ISSUE: WON William Jr. is an illegitimate son of the deceased and is therefore entitled to a share in the partition of the deceaseds estate HELD: NO. RATIO: Under the New Civil Code, a child born and conceived during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. The presumption is, however, not conclusive and consequently, may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. Art. 255 NCC. Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the husband's having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twenty days of three hundred which preceded the birth of the child. This physical impossibility may be caused: (1) By the impotence of the husband; (2) By the fact that the husband and wife were living separately, in such a way that access was not possible; (3) By the serious illness of the husband. The fact that Corazon Garcia had been living separately from her husband, Ramon Yulo at the time the petitioner was conceived is of not moment. While physical impossibility is a ground to question legitimacy, Art 255 of the NCC may only be invoked by the husband (or in proper cases, by his heirs). It is settled that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against it s legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. If the husband presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of the mothers alleged paramour.

SSS v Aguas (483 SCRA 383) February 27, 2006 Children: JANET-adopted by Pablo and Rosanna but not legally; Jenelyn and Jefren-children on Rosanna and paramour Romeo

FACTS: Pablo Aguas, a member of the SSS and a pensioner, died on December 1996. His surviving spouse, Rosanna Aguas, filed a claim with the SSS for the death benefits and alleging that the deceased had a child with her named Jeylnn who was born on Oct 1991. Sometime in April 1997, SSS received a sworn letter from Leticia, deceaseds sister contesting the claim for death benefits and alleging that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna but the latter had several children with a certain Romeo dela Pena. It was found that Rosanna and her paramour were married on November 1990 and a child named Jefren was born to them on November 1996. SSS then suspended payment of monthly pension and conducted an investigation. They found that the deceased had no legal children with Rosanna and that Jenelyn and Jefren were Rosannas children with Romeo dela Pena. It was also found that Pablo was not capable of having a child as he was under treatment. Rosanna filed a petition. In its decision, CA relied on the birth certificates of Janet and Jeylnn showing that they were the children of the deceased. ISSUE: WON Rosanna, Jeylnn are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing to the death of Pablo HELD: Partly meritorious only Jeylnn has sufficiently established her right to a monthly pension. RATIO: Jeylnns claim was justified by the photocopy of her birth certificate which bears the signature of Pablo and indicates that she was born on October 1991 which was clearly within the period of a valid marriage between Pablo and Rosanna. Art. 164 FC. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Impugning the legitimacy of a child is strictly personal right of the husband or in exceptional cases, his heirs. In this case, there is no showing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of Jeylnn during his lifetime. Janet was not a real child but merely adopted by the spouses and since there were no legal proceedings to this effect, Janet cannot be a primary beneficiary (not being a legally adopted child). On the claims of Rosanna, she must prove that she was a legitimate spouse dependent for support forom the husband by showing that she is (1) the legitimate spouse and that she is (2) dependent upon him for support. In this case, although it was established that Rosanna is actually the legitimate spouse, she was not able to prove dependence on Pablo. The fact that they were separated de facto, it cannot be said that she is dependent upon him for support. It was also found that Jeylnna and Jenelyn were one and the same considering the 3-month difference in their dates of birth which is inconceivable for it is impossible for a woman to bear and give birth to another child in that period of time.

Republic v Labrador (305 SCRA 438) March 25, 1999 FACTS: Respondent Gladys C. Labrador filed with the RTC for the correction of entries in the record of birth of Sarah Zita Erasmo, her niece. She alleges that her sister, Maria Rosario Canon had a common law relationship with a certain Degoberto Erasmo and during such cohabitation, her sister begot 2 illegitimate children one of which is Sarah Zita Erasmo. She seeks, among others, to change the name of her niece to Sarah Zita Canon pursuant to Art 176 of the FC:

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. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. ISSUE: WON the change of name, which would effectively change the status of the child from legitimate to illegitimate, may be granted in a summary proceeding HELD: NO RATIO: Respondent is correct in citing Art 176 of the FC. But to enforce such provision, the proper recourse is an adversarial contest. It must be stressed that rule 108 does not contemplate an ordinary civil action but a special proceeding. By its nature, the recourse in the case at bar seeks merely to correct clerical errors, and not to grant nor deny substantial rights (which would be the effect of the change sought). Adversary Proceeding - one having opposing parties, contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one in which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.