XI.

THE FAMILY
A. Members of a Family
Nature and Scope of Family Relations
Art.149, FC: The family, being the foundation of the nation,
is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law
and no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the
family shall be recognized or given effect.
Art.150, FC: Family relations include those:
1) Between husband and wife;
2) Between parents and children;
3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or
half-blood.
Art. 151, FC: No suit between members of the same family
shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified
complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have failed.
If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the case
must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the
subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
Sempio-Diy says:
Application of Art 150-151
1. Verified complaints or petition must show that
efforts toward a compromise have failed.
2. Petition or complaint is required to be verified
as an assurance of the truth that efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but have failed.
3. Reason for the rule is to avoid or diminish
litigations among members of the same family.
4. However, even if the required allegation is made
but it appears at the pre-trial that the same is not
true, the case must be dismissed.

MENDOZA v. CA, 19 SCRA 756 (1967)

Facts:
Luisa Mendoza (respondent in this case) brought a
complaint before the court. Husband claims, no
compromise yet, so no prosper.
Held:
The complaint involved a claim for future support,
that under Art. 2035 of the Civil Code, cannot be
the subject of a valid compromise, and is therefore
outside the sphere of Art. 222.
The husband also argues regarding the validity of
their marriage. However, this also falls under
Art. 2035 as not being the subject of a valid
compromise.
MENDEZ V BIONSON & EUGENIA (1977)
Facts
Zoila Mendez and Matilde Bionson with 10 others vs
Gumapon and more Bionsons for the partition of 2 parcels of
land in Cebu.
Held
The parties are collateral relatives who are not brothers and
sisters. Only members of the same family are required to
exert efforts to arrive at a settlement before an action is
instituted.
Guerrero v RTC, Ilocos Norte (1994)
Facts
Gaudencio Guerrero and Pedro Hernando are brothers-inlaw, their wives are half-sisters. They both claim ownership
of a lot.
Held
- Brothers-in-law are NOT members of the same family as
enumerated in Art 151. No earnest efforts toward a
compromise are needed.
Hontiveros v RTC, Iloilo City (1999)
Facts

Complaint against Gregorio Hontiveros and his wife, Teodora

Ayson by Augusto and Maria Hontiveros. Gregorio-Augusto
brothers
Held
Whenever a stranger is a party to a case, Art 151 will NOT
apply. The inclusion of respondent Ayson and Maria
Hontiveros is out of ambit of said article because they do not
refer to members of the same family which refer to bloodrelatives.
Support
Art. 194-208
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8972
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES TO
SOLO PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Solo
Parents' Welfare Act of 2000."
Section 4. Criteria for Support. - Any solo parent whose
income in the place of domicile falls below the poverty
threshold as set by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) and subject to the assessment of the DSWD
worker in the area shall be eligible for assistance: Provided,
however, That any solo parent whose income is above the
poverty threshold shall enjoy the benefits mentioned in
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act.
Section 6. Flexible Work Schedule.
Section 7. Work Discrimination.
Section 8. Parental Leave. Section 9. Educational Benefits
Section 10. Housing Benefits.
LACSON v. LACSON
Facts:
Edward (petitioner) failed to give support to his daughters.
He merely gave meager amounts for school expenses. The
mother and the respondents were forced to rely on their
uncle, Noel Daban
Held:

The Court held that the respondents ARE entitled for

support in arrears. Art 203: the respondents are
entitled to receive support from the date when a
demand for support was made upon him, which was
1995.

The Court held that the uncle is entitled for

reimbursement from the plaintiff. According to Art
207 of the Family Code, any third person may furnish
support to the needy individual, with right of
reimbursement from the person obliged to give
support.

FUNERALS
Art 305-310
THE FAMILY HOME
Art 152, FC the family home, constituted jointly by
husband and wife, or by an unmarried head of the family, is
a) the dwelling where the family resides and b) the land
on which it is situated
Art 153 Family home constitutes on a house and lot
upon time of occupation as family residence. Family home
continues to exist so long as any of its beneficiaries
actually reside there. It is exempt from execution, forced
sale or attachment except as provided by law.
Art 154 The beneficiaries of the Family Home:
1. Husband and Wife, or an unmarried person who is
Head of the Family
2. Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers
and sisters, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who are a)
living in the
family
home and b) who depend
upon the Head for support

Art 155 Family Home shall be exempt from forced sale,

execution and/or attachment EXCEPT:
1. For non-payment of taxes
2. Debts incurred prior to the constitution of the Family
Home
3. Debts secured by mortgages on the premises before
or after
constitution
4. Debts to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,
material
men and other who have aided in
construction of the building
Art 156 Family Home must be part of ACP/CPG or Exclusive
Property of one spouse with the others consent or may be
constituted by an unmarried head upon his own property.
Property subject to conditional sale on installments, where
ownership is reserved to guarantee payment, may be
constituted as the Family Home
Art 157 Actual value of Family Home must not
exceed:300,000 pesos in Urban Areas, 200,000 pesos in
Rural Areas, or fixed by law
Art 158 the Family Home may be alienated,
encumbered, sold, donated or assigned by the owners
thereof, with written consent of the person constituting the
same, the latters spouse, and the majority of the
beneficiaries of legal age. In case of doubt, the Court
decides.
Art 159 Family Home shall continue to exist even after
death of Spouses or of the Unmarried Head, for a period of
10 years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary.
The heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds
compelling reasons therefor. This rule applies regardless of
who constituted/owns the Home.
Art 160 for creditors not enumerated in Art 155, obtaining
judgment in their favor and having reasonable ground to
believe that the Family Home is worth more than the amount

specified in Art 157, the creditor may apply to the court for
an order of sale by execution.
Court shall so order if it finds that the actual value is more
than the maximum allowed by law at the time of constitution.
If increase in value, exceeding maximum allowed by law, is
caused by improvements done by person or persons
constituting the home, by owners of the property, or by any
beneficiaries, the same rule shall apply.
Art 161 For purposes of availing benefits of a Family Home,
a person may constitute or be a beneficiary in only one
Family Home
Art 162 This Chapter also governs existing Family
Residences insofar its provisions are applicable

MODEQUILLO V. BREVA
FACTS:
Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay
(petitioners) are ordered by CA to pay jointly and
severally
Sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a
parcel of agricultural land registered in the name of
Jose.
The residential land is where the family home is
built since 1969 prior to the commencement of
the case and so it is exempt from execution,
forced sale or attachment under Art. 152 and
153, FC.
Judgment debt sought to be enfo
rced is
not one of those enumerated under Art. 155,
FC.
HELD:
Art. 162, FC only means that all existing family
residences at the time of FCs effectivity are considered family
homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits of a
family home under the FC.

The debt or liability which was the basis of judgment

arose at the time of the vehicular accident (March 16, 1976)
and the money judgment rendered by CA (January 29, 1988).
Both preceded the FCs effectivity on Aug. 3, 1988. Thus, the
case does not fall under the exemptions under the FC.

PATRICIO V. DARIO III

FACTS:
Marcelino Dario died intestate. He was survived by
his wife (Perla Patricio, petitioner) and his two sons
(Marcelino Marc Dario and Marcelino Dario III, private
respondent).
The wife and two sons extrajudicially settled the
estate of their father. Among the properties was a
parcel of land with a residential house and a preschool building built thereon.
Petitioner and Marc formally advised Dario III of their
intention to partition the subject property and
terminate co-ownership. Dario III refused.
Trial court: ordered partition: 4/6 to Perla, 1/6 to
Marc, 1/6 to Dario III. Dario III filed motion
reconsideration but was also denied..
HELD:
Moreover, Art. 159, FC provides that the family home shall
continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the
unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years or for
as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs
cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling
reasons therefore. However, the a) minor contemplated
in this article must not only b) reside in the home but
must also be c) dependent on the head of the family
for legal support (as stated in Art. 154, FC).

VENERACION V. MANCILLA
FACTS:

To secure the payment, Elizabeth executed a real

estate mortgage over her residential lot with a
residential house situated thereon.

HELD:
But it must be proved first that it was indeed a
conjugal home and that their father spent for the acquisition
of such. In this case, it was not proven.
ARRIOLA v ARRIOLA (2008)
SUMMARY: Subject house was built by the decedent on his
exclusive property. Said house has been the residence of
petitioners [2nd family] for 20 years. House is therefore
the family home.
This being so, it is shielded from partition under Article 159 of
FC [family home shall continue despite the death of one or
both spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a
period of 10 years and the heirs cannot partition the same
unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor.] The
family home cannot be partitioned this time, even if it
has passed to the co- ownership of the heirs, parties
herein.
JOSEF V SANTOS
SUMMARY: Petitioner failed to pay respondent for shoe
materials he brought on credit. Petitioner
contends that one of the properties is the family
home and thus exempted from execution. Court
held that Petition is meritorious;
HELD: NO. The lower courts should have conducted a solemn
inquiry into the nature of the real property after the
petitioner has alleged that the property is their family home.
Trial court should have observed the following procedure:
Determine if the obligation falls under the exceptions
under Art. 155, FC
Determine the veracity of petitioners claim that it is a
family home
If it is already found to be the family home, the Court
should determine
o If the obligation was contracted before/after the
effectivity of FC

o
o
o

If petitioners spouse is still alive, as well as

beneficiaries
If the petitioner has more than one residence
Its actual location and value (Art. 157 and 160)

SPOUSES DE MESA V. SPOUSES ACERO

Facts:
Spouses De Mesa filed a new complaint to nullify the
title held by Spouses Acero, stating that their family
home stood on the subject property and it was exempt
from being subject to execution under Art. 153..
Ratio:
The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale
under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal privilege
granted to the judgment debtor and as such, it must be
claimed not by the sheriff, but by the debtor himself before
the sale of the property at public auction. It is not sufficient
that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such
property is a family home. This claim for exemption must
be set up and proved to the Sheriff. x x x.

XV. PATERNITY AND FILIATION

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of

the parents are legitimate.
Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the
wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both
are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife,
provided the both of them authorized or ratified such
insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by
them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be
recorded in the civil registry together with the birth
certificate of the child. (255a, 258a)

PERIDO V. PERIDO

LEGITIIMATE CHILDREN

Art. 163 The filiation of children may be by nature or by

adoption. Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
(n)

Tolentino says:

Paternity and filiation- defined as the relation between

parents and children. It may be natural when derived

from generation or arising from legal fiction, such as in

adoption
Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate

Lucio married Benita and had Felix Ismael and

Margarita as children. Benita died so Lucio soon
remarried.
The first marriage kids somehow had doubt about
legitimacy of the second marriage children because
they were born out of wedlock (born before death of
first wife) and the land cert did not indicate that Lucio
is married to Marcelina.

Held:

There was not enough proof to show that Lucio and

Marcelina were really not married. They should be
clothed with the presumption of marriage. When eldest

child of Marcelina was born, the wife had already died

long before.

1
2

LIYAO JR. V. LIYAO ET AL.

Corazon married Ramon Yulo and have two children

Bernadette and Enrique. They are living separately
from each other however, for almost 10 years.
Corazon cohabited with William Liyao Sr. (married man
with 2 daughters) and they had a son William Liyao Jr.
The case involves Liyao Jr. claiming that he is the
illegitimate child of Liyao Sr. and is asking for
recognition as compulsory heir.

Her status as a legitimate child can no longer be

contested
Presumption of legitimacy cant extend to Janet
since her date of birth wasnt proven (not
verified by register)

Biological-Assisted Reproductive Technology

Can have up to 5 sets of parents
Father
1. Biological
2. Legal/Social

HELD:

Law favors legitimacy rather than illegitimacy of child

Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a
strictly personal right of the husband, or in
exceptional cases, his heirs. Hence, it was then
settled that the legitimacy of the child can only be
impugned in a direct action brought for that
purpose, by the proper parties and within the
period limited by law.

SSS VS AGUAS (FEB 27, 2006; CALLEJO, SR., J.)

FACTS:

Dec 8, 1996: Pablo Aguas, a member of the SSS and a

pensioner, died. Rosanna, his surviving spouse,
claimed his death benefits. She also claimed that he
was survived by Jeylnn (born Oct 29, 1991)
HELD:
Impugning the legitimacy of a child is strictly a
personal right of the husband or his heirs (in
exceptional cases) [Art 170]

Mother
1. Legal/Social
2. Genetic (egg donor)
3. Gestational (not surrogate)

IN RE BABY M, 537 A.2D 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J.

02/03/1988)

HELD:

Parties (William Stern [of the Stern Couples] + Mary

Whitehead [surrogate mother]) agree to go into
surrogacy contract
o Mary was impregnated via artificial
insemination of Williams sperm
But then after giving birth, the surrogate mother
acquired a bond with the child and was unable to let
her go.

1. Contract was in direct conflict with existing statute and

public policy.

previous husbands consent was unnecessary because he

was not the parent of the child.

- involvement of money

DOCTRINE

- no proof of parental unfitness before parental rights

terminated

A child born of consensual AID during a valid marriage

is a legitimate child entitled to the rights and
privileges of a naturally conceived child of the same
marriage.

2. Termination of maternal and visitation rights is contrary to

law

JOHNSON VS CALVERT (1993)

The husband in such a relationship is therefore the parent,

and his consent is required to the adoption of such child be
another.

Mark and Crispina Calvert are a married couple who desired

to have a child.
On January 15, 1990, Mark, Crispina, and Anna signed a
surrogate contract

an embryo created by the sperm of Mark and the egg

of Crispina would be implanted in Anna
Relations deteriorated between the two sides.
HELD:
- Case will be decided on the parties intention or from
whom the mental concept of the child emanated. The
prime movers.
- Gestational surrogacy is different from adoption, not
contrary to public policy

IN RE ADOPTION OF ANONYMOUS (1973)

SUMMARY: A child was born by artificial insemination during
a marriage. Wife and husband separated and the wifes new
husband attempted to adopt the child, claiming that the

Impugned Legitimacy
Art. 166, FC: Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only
on the following grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of
the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the
child because of:

(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have

sexual intercourse with his wife;

within 300 days

marriage;

(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living
separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not
possible; or

2) A child born after 180 days following the celebration

of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
conceived during such marriage, even though it be born
within the three
hundred days after the termination of the
former marriage.

(c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely

prevented sexual intercourse;
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific
reasons, the child could not have been that of the husband,
except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of
Article 164; or

Sempio-Diy says:

Par. 1 requisites:
1) Mother must have married again within 300 days from
the termination of the first marriage;

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial

insemination, the written authorization or ratification of
either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence,
intimidation, or undue influence.(255a)

Art. 167, FC: The child shall be considered legitimate

although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
(256a)

after the termination of the former

2) Child was born within same 300 days after termination

3) Child was born before 180 days after the solemnization
of 2nd marriage

Par. 2 requisites:
1) Mother must have married again within 300 days from
the termination of the first marriage;
2) Child was born within same 300 days after termination

Art. 168, FC: If the marriage is terminated and the mother

contracted another marriage within 300 days after such
termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern
in the absence of proof to the contrary:
1) A child born before 180 days after the solemnization
of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born

3) Child was born after 180 days following the

solemnization of 2nd marriage

Art. 169, FC: The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born

after three hundred days following the termination of the
marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy
or illegitimacy. (261a)

Tolentino says:

Who may impugn

Art. 171, FC: The heirs of the husband may impugn the
filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the
preceding article only in the following cases:

In Absence of Proof: If nobody asserts

legitimacy/illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days
following the termination of the marriage, the child should
be considered the illegitimate child of the mother,
unless she or the child can prove legitimacy.

Action to impugn legitimacy

Art. 170, FC: The action to impugn the legitimacy of the
child shall be brought within
NO CONCEALMENT
1 year from knowledge of birth or recording in civil register, is
husband or heirs reside in same city/municipality
2 years if not same city/municipality
3 years if abroad

1) If the husband should die before the expiration of

the period fixed for bringing his action;
2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint
without having
desisted therefrom; or
3) If the child was born after the death of the husband.
(262a)

ANDAL V. MACARAIG (1951)

Legitimacy of child is assailed by his paternal grandmother,
as his son was with TB and mother had illicit rel with his other
son
Held/Ratio:

WITH CONCEALMENT

Same as above, but reckoning is from time of discovery of

the birth of child or fact of registration, whichever is earlier
Sempio-Diy says:

The legitimacy of a child cannot be attacked collaterally or

by way of defense.

Legitimacy can be questioned only in a direct action or

proceeding under this Article.

Since Mariano was born on June 17, 1943, he is presumed

to be the legitimate son of Emiliano and Maria having
been born within 300 days upon the dissolution of the
marriage on Jan. 1, 1943, when Emiliano died.
This presumption was embodied in Art. 108 of the CC,
which also states that the presumption could be rebutted
only by proof of physical impossibility to have sex
for the husband during the first 120 days of the 300 days
preceding the birth of the child.
There was also no evidence that he was either impotent
or imprisoned.

CHUA KENG GIAP VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

COURT

o
o

Petitioner insists that he is the son of the deceased Sy

Kao and Chua Bing Guan. However, the filiation has
long been settled and in that case, Sy Kao flatly and
unequivocally declared that she was not Chua Keng
Giaps mother.
Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua
Keng Giap was really her son? NONE

Unusual closeness as alleged by the

complainant (giving of toys, playing) is not
conclusive to establish paternity
Pictures of Jewel and the respondent showing
physical similarities likewise not conclusive
evidence
Jewel was born during wedlock of
complainant with her foreigner husband
therefore presumption of legitimacy has
already attached.
Can only overcome by adequate
evidence to the contrary

CABATBAT-LIM VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

Petitioner alleges that she is the daughter of

Esperanza Frianzena-Cabatbat. The respondents,
daughters of Esperanza allege otherwise. TC ruled
against petitioner. Appeal that they cannot contest (Art
170-171 today)

HELD
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents thus
making such ruling conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
Moreover, petitioners recourse to Article 263 is not well
taken because there is no action to impugn the legitimacy
of a child. Rather what is being proven is that she is not
the decedents child at all.

TAN V. TROCIO
-

Tan seeks the disbarment of Atty. Trocio for immorality

and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, raped by Trocio
Alleges that she begot her child, Jewel, because of said
incident
o She already had 8 kids before Jewel with her
foreigner husband

Held:
No, evidence presented does not establish paternity

PEOPLE V. TUMIMPAD
-

Tumimpad and Prieto were charged with the rape of a

15-year old child (Sandra) with Down syndrome (case
says mongoloid)
Issue:
WON physically impossible for Tumimpad to
have raped her?
Held:
Blood test was only adduced as evidence to show that the
accused may have been father of the child that it was not
impossible
BENITEZ-BADUA V. CA
FACTS:

Vicentes sister and nephew prayed for the

administration of Vicentes estate in favor of the
nephew. They alleged that one Marissa BenitezBadua who was raised and cared by them since
childhood is not related to them by blood, nor legally
adopted, and so is not a legal heir.
HELD:

Petitioners insistence of the applicability of Art. 164, 166,

170 and 171, FC cannot be sustained.

Such articles do not contemplate a situation, as in this

case, where a child is alleged not to be a biological
child of a certain couple. Rather, these articles govern
a situation where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his
own a child of his wife.

DE APARICIO V PARAGUYA (1987)

TRIAL COURT: Trinidad is still single at the time she was
conceived. It is a legal presumption that plaintiff is the
daughter of the spouses Anastacio and Trinidad. However,
this was disputable and Trinidad successfully overcame it.
Trinidad admitted that she never lived with Anastacio.
Fr. Lumain acknowledged her as a natural child in the
will.
HELD:

YES. Childs filiation is irrelevant.

In the remote possibility that plaintiff is not a natural

child of Fr. Lumain, the Court still maintain that under
the will, she is entitled to the property because she is
the universal heir.
There are no other compulsory heirs so he may
dispose by will all of his estate or any part of it in
favor of any person having the capacity to succeed.
Proof of Filiation

FC, Art 172 The filiation of legitimate children is established

by any of the following:
(PRIMARY EVIDENCE FOR VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION)

- The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final

judgment
- An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document
or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned
In the absence of which:
(SECONDARY EVIDENCE FOR INVOLUNTARY RECOG)

1 The open and continuous possession of the status of a

legitimate child
2 Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws
CC, Art 220 (Presumption of legitimacy)

MENDOZA ET AL V. MELLA

There was this lot in Sorsogon owned by a Paciano

Pareja. He donated it to his son Gavino in 1939. Gavino
disappeared in 1943 and was presumed to be dead. He
was living in with petitioners during that time.
Paciano sold his land to Mella and told petitioners in
1952 to vacate the land.

Ratio
The birth certificate of Rodolfo was scrutinized. Though it
contains the name of both parents, there is no clear
manifestation made by them that they signed the
original of swore to its contents. There must be clear
statement of recognition for the document to have an
effect on the childs legitimacy.

HEIRS OF RAYMUNDO C. BANAS VS.HEIRS OF BIBIANO

BANAS

Plaintiffs allege that Raymundo was the acknowledged

natural son of the late Bibiano Banas; thus, they are entitled
to the latters estate

Rights of Legitimate Children

HELD

1. To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in

conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;

NO. There wasnt any voluntary recognition

Voluntary recognition must be made expressly
by the recognizing parent, either in the record of
birth, in a will, in a statement before a court of
record, or in any authentic writing

su padre, B. Banas isnt sufficient to

constitute and intent to recognize (only a
mere indication of paternal solicitude, not
an indubitable acknowledgment of
paternity)
Incidental acknowledgment would only be given
merit if the alleged recognition is made in a
PUBLIC DOCUMENT, not in private writing like
the letter presented
Filiation claim must be made by the putative
father himself, not school records, etc.

Action to Claim Legitimacy

Art. 173, FC: The action to claim legitimacy may be
brought by the child during his or her lifetime and
shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during
minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs
shall have a period of five years within which to institute the
action.
The action already commenced by the child shall survive
notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties.
(268a)

Art. 174, FC: Legitimate children shall have the right:

2. To receive support from their parents, their ascendants,

and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity
with the provisions of this Code on Support; and
3. To be entitled to the legitimate and other successional
rights granted to them by the Civil Code. (264a)

REPUBLIC VS. CA, VICENCIO (1998)

Respondent Cynthia Vivencio seeks to have her surname

changed from Vicencio to Yu, that of her step-father.

Held/Ratio:

In this case, Cynthia is a legitimate daughter of Pablo and

Fe Esperanza. It means that she generally bears the
surname of her father.

A change of name is not a right, it is a privilege

that is addressed to the sound discretion of the
courts.

Confusion might arise with regard to Cynthias parentage

because of her surname.

DE ASIS v. CA (1999)
Mother brought action to support and maintenance against
alleged father. Agreed to compromise to withdraw claim in
exchange for support.

Ratio

In absence of foregoing, (Secondary/involuntary recognition)

- Paternity and filiation must be first established and judicially

declared, and cannot be left to agreement of parties

3. Open and continuous possession of status of legit/illegit

child

- Future support cannot be subject of compromise (Art 2035)

4. Other means allowed by Rules of Court

- Right to receive support cannot be renounced or

transmitted to third person (CC Art 301)

NOTE: Secondary not admissible when primary exists

Action to claim legit/illegit (Art 173)

ILLEGITIMATE FILIATION
1. Proof of Filiation
FC Art 175 Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on same evidence
as legitimate children (Art 172)

Brought by child during lifetime

Transmitted to heirs should child die during minority or
insanity
o 5 years period to file
Action commenced shall survive even with death of
both parties

HOW TO BRING ACTION TO CLAIM FILIATION

The action must be brought within the same period specified
in Art 173, except when action is based on second paragraph
of Art 172, in which case the action may be bought during
the lifetime of the alleged parent

1. File a separate action

2. Intervene in the settlement of estate of his/her alleged
parent

Rodriguez v. CA (1995)

Proof of filiation (Art 172)

(Primary/voluntary recognition)
1. Birth certificate
2. Admission of filiation in public document OR private
handwritten instrument and signed

DOCTRINE: Filiation may be proven by any evidence

or proof that the defendant is his father, as per RoC
- Article 172 FC has adopted Art. 283 CC, particularly
paragraph 4, where filiation may be proven by any evidence
or proof that the defendant is his father.

Mariategui v. CA (1992)

DOCTRINE: Filiation can be proven using a Birth Certificate.

Without it, the continuous enjoyment of the status as a child
is still sufficient proof of filiation (Art 172 FC)
Aruego Jr. v. CA (1996)
DOCTRINE: Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect
insofar as it prejudices the vested right of persons under the
Civil Code
- In the CC:

father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear

manifestations of parental affection and care, which
cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be
of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of
paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the
child as such in all relations in society and life, not
accidentally, but continuously. duly proven by presented
evidence

Guy v. CA (2006)

Prescription will not yet bar the respondent from filing the
petition, as they have filed within 1 year after attainment of
majority and their father died while they were minors (period
of within 4 years after attainment of majority)
- In the FC:
Prescription is barred, as it requires the filing of the petition
during the lifetime of the concerned parent

Jison v. CA (1998)
DOCTRINE: Testimonial evidence was more than sufficient to
establish her open and continuous possession of status as an
illegitimate child.
However, she cannot rely on her birth and baptismal
certificates since it was not shown that the putative father
had anything to do with the filing of said certificates.
RATIO:
- To prove open and continuous possession of the status of
an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the
manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed

DOCTRINE: - Illegitimate children who were still minors at

the time the Family Code took effect and whose putative
parent died during their minority are given the right to seek
recognition for a period of up to four years from attaining
majority age.
- Under the Family Code, when filiation of an illegitimate child
is established by voluntary admission, the action for
recognition may be brought by the child during his or her
lifetime.
- However, if the action is based upon involuntary, it may
only be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.

Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz (2007)

DOCTRINE: In DNA Testing, any physical residue of the long
dead parent can be resorted to

Jesse Lucas v. Jesus Lucas (2011)

DOCTRINE: To warrant the issuance of the DNA testing
order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the
applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or
good cause for the holding of the test.

2. Rights of Illegitimate Children

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.
However, illegitimate children may use the surname of
their father IF their filiation has been expressly recognized by
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.
PROVIDED, the father has right to institute an action before
the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime.
(Amended by RA 9255 (2004))
The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of
of the legitimate child
a. Right to prove filiation
Uyguangco v. CA (1989)

David v. CA (1995)
DOCTRINE: Illegitimate children shall be under the parental
authority of their mother
c. Surname
Republic v. Abadilla (1999)
DOCTRINE: Illegitimate children shall use the surname of
their mother (FC Art 176)
Republic v. Capote (2007)
DOCTRINE: Under Art. 176: Illegitimate children shall use
the surname and shall be under the parental authority of
their mother
d. Support
People v. Namayan (1995)
DOCTRINE: The crime of rape carries with it, among others,
the obligations to acknowledge the offspring if the character
of its origin does not prevent it and to support the same.
Dolina v. Vallecera (2010)
DOCTRINE: To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must,
in proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if the
same is not admitted or acknowledged A.K.A illegitimate
children are entitled to support and successional rights but
their filiation must be duly proved.

DOCTRINE: If the action to establish illegitimate filiation is

based on the second paragraph of Article 172 secondary
evidence), the action may only be brought during the lifetime
of the alleged parent.
b. Custody

B. Legitimated Children

FC Art 177 Children conceived and born outside of wedlock

of parents who, at the time of conception of the former, were
not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or
were so disqualified only because either or both of them were
below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimated (Amd.
By RA 9858)

Requisites for legitimation

1. Child conceived AND born out of wedlock

FC Art 180 The effects of legitimation shall retroact to the

childs birth to protect not only the child but also his/her
descendants because it can happen that child is already dead
by time parents marry and is survived by children who would
benefit from legitimation of the deceased parent.

FC Art 181 The legitimation of children who died before the

celebration of marriage shall benefit their descendants

2. Parents were not DQ by any impediment to marry each

other AT TIME OF CONCEPTION

Exception: disqualified only because either or both of

them were below eighteen (18) years of age

FC Art 182 Legitimation may be impugned only by those

who are prejudiced in their rights, w/in 5 years from the time
their cause of action accrues

Cannot be legitimated
1. adulterous
policy

2. Incestuous

3. against public

4. bigamous marriages can be adopted, though

FC Art 178 Legitimation shall take place by subsequent valid

marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable
marriage shall not affect the legitimation
In FC: legitimation takes place through subsequent marriage,
as long as Art 177 is met (no need for acknowledgement of
child). Length of time between birth and marriage is
immaterial
FC Art 179 Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights
as legitimate children

RA 9858 (2009) (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE

LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN BORN TO PARENTS BELOW
MARRYING AGE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE THE FAMILY
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Section 1. Article 177 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise
known as the "Family Code of the Philippines", as amended,
is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Art. 177. Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who, at the time of conception of the former, were
not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or
were so disqualified only because either or both of them were
below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimated."

"Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent

valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable
marriage shall not affect the legitimation."
Ramirez v. Gmur (1918)
DOCTRINE: Only children conceived and born out of wedlock
to parents who can validly marry each other at the time of
the conception can be legitimated.
In re Julian Wang (2005)

*modern times: best interests of child as purpose

B. Spanish and American Antecedents
- US adoption laws
- change in domestic relations of adopter and adoptee
- ESP adoption laws
- only changes wrt to person exercising parental authority,
keeps natural family

WON dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary

to Art. 174 of the FC - YES

- resembles guardian more than parent, naked patria

potestas

ADOPTION

- BOTH: welfare of child the paramount consideration

I. Adoption: History and Rationale

C. Modern Day Laws and Policies

A. Ancient Antecedents

Dec 10, 1974: PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare

Code/CYWC)

*ancient times: adoption was adopter-centric

Roman law: to avoid extinction of family and
perpetuate rites of ancestral worship

-repealed all adoption laws in CC

Dec 17, 1986 -amended by EO 91 re: non-resident aliens

Two forms:

Aug 3, 1988 EO 209 (Family Code)

1. adrogatio/arrogation someone who is sui juris/of

age, originally sons above puberty, later included
daughters. Done by assembly or imperial edict

June 7, 1995 RA 8043 (Inter-Country Adoption Act)

2. adoptio to be under paternal power of a new

family. Done by fictitiously selling 3 times, later by
authority of a magistrate.

*UN Convention on Rights of Child (CRC, 1990): primary

consideration

*adoption must imitate nature

*middle ages must imitate nature led to stigma and
perception of inferiority

Feb 25, 1988 RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act)

-treaty ratified by RP in 1990

Ruling: higher standard clause law of State or
international laws in force prevail over those in CRC
2009: RA 9523

2012: RA 10165 (Foster Care Act)

- Aida Marquez charged with Kidnapping

- Marquez alleges Merano offered Justine to her for adoption

II. Types and Nature of Adoption

A. Types of adoption
Adoption
-

Socio-legal process of providing a permanent family to

a child whose parents have voluntarily or involuntarily
relinquished parental authority over the child.
- Juridical act that creased a relationship similar to
legitimate paternity and filiation
- Welfare of child paramount, for benefit of child
Types of Adoption
1) Agency adoption DSWD-licensed agency finds
adoptive families for children who are committed
-process: inquiry, application, interviews for case
study, matching, trial custody, and finalization

Ratio
- When parents surrender care and custody of child to
someone else, they are not prevented from reconsidering
and demanding child back; they retain the right.
- Custodians are legal strangers without the adoption decree
B. Proceeding in rem
Adoption requires a judicial proceeding
-

2) Relative Adoption biological parents relinquish

child to relative or member of extended family
-sans matching and trial custody
3) Intermediary adoption parents place child in
intermediary/middle person who knows someone who
wants to adopt

Adoption is a proceeding in rem

-

- For relative and independent adoptions, adopters file

petition to adopt directly within Family Court
-DSWD involved only for case and home reports
- Note: not always favorable that parents choose adopters
People v. Marquez (2011)
Facts

Adoption is proven only by judicial decree issued by a

court of competent jurisdiction.
Agreements between birth parents and caregiver nor
the de facto custody of child gives rise to adoption
Mere registration of birth certificate (simulated birth)
also has no effect and is punishable by law
Unlike in biological filiation, open and continuous
possession of status is not prove adoption

Establishes the status of the adoptee as legit child of

the adopters
Law requires publication in a newspaper of general
circulation of the adoption order to given constructive
notice to family and other interested persons to
intervene if ever (as binding as actual notice)
o Actual notice to parents is not required if child
was abandoned or residence is unknown
However, actual notice is given to DSWD so they can
prepare the case study
Lazatin v. Campos (1979)

Facts
- Petitioner Renato Lazatin filed to intervene in estate
proceedings of Dr. Lazatin and de Asis, spouses, claiming he
is an admitted illegitimate child
-basis: affidavit of Benjamin, brother of Dr. Lazatin
-no adoption decree, rather showed secondary
evidence
Ratio
- Petitioners evidence insufficient to prove he was adopted
- Adoption may only be done through court, (Rule 99,
RoC)
- Pieces of evidence presented cannot be admissible since
there is no adoption decree presented
- Pedigree evidence is admissible but better proof is
available and must be produced
- Secondary evidence is only admissible when proof
that primary evidence existed but was lost
Republic v. and Caranto (1996)

- Minor defect only (using incorrect name of child BUT there

is little difference - ch and d) - SolGen admits it is a mere
clerical error
- Same rhyme and tone would not cause confusion. Purpose
of publication, to inform/give notice, is served.

b) WON action for correction of entries in the civil registry

may be done in the same action for adoption - NO.
- Since the case falls under Rule 108 (Change of
name), Sec. 3 of said rule requires the local civil
registrar to be impleaded in the proceeding. He is an
indispensable party
- Nothing was mentioned that in addition the correction of his
name in the civil registry was also being sought. Thus,
decision of the RTC with regard to the correction of the name
is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
- Adoption is a proceeding in rem and creates between
two persons a relationship similar to legitimate
paternity and filiation. Not natural, wholly artificial so
statutory requirements must be strictly carried out, or
else adoption is a nullity

Facts
- Caranto couple filed for adoption of Midael C. Mazon, 15 y/o,
who had been living with Jaime Caranto since he was seven
years old. (Along with name change to Michael)
Issues/Ratio
a) WON RTC acquired jurisdiction over petition for adoption
YES

III. Evolution of Philippine Laws on Adoption

Old Civil Code (1889)
July 24, 1899 via Royal Decree - earliest law governing
adoption in RP. Applicable until Enactment of NCC
Adoption as adopter-centric

-For persons w/o children to experience the joys of paternity

and have an object of their instincts of parenthood
-thus, OCC Art 174 prohibited adoption of those who
had legitimate and legitimated descendants
- Even repeal by Act 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) retained
the old rationale that favored adopter
In re Adoption of Guzman (1941)
Facts
- May 20, 1940, spouses Petronilo Ramirez and Anacleta
Camandre filed a petition for the adoption of Emiliano
Guzman, of age and natural son of said Petronilo Ramirez
with one Cristina Guzman.

- To extend to orphan or abandoned child the protection of

society in the person of the adopter
- Still slightly adopter-centric as NCC adopted OCC provisions
Santos-Ynigo v. Republic (1954) Still old view
Prasnik v. Republic (1956) Modern view
NCC provisions protecting adoptee
- Resident aliens whose government has broken relations
with RP not allowed to adopt (CC Art 335 (5))
- Person convicted of crime involving moral turpitude, when
imprisonment > 6 years (CC Art 335 (5))

Issue

PD 603 (CYWC) and EO 209 (FC)

WON a non-minor child can be adopted - NO

- Art 27 of CYWC allowed any person of age and full

possession of civil rights to adopt, repealing restriction in CC
Art 335(1) which prohibited those with legitimate,
legitimated, and acknowledged natural children and natural
children by legal fiction from adopting

Ratio

- FC: left no doubt that welfare of adopted child is paramount

- Law applicable to the case is the old Code Procedure, the

petition having been filed prior to July 1, 1940, when the new
Rules of Court took effect.

RA 8043 (Inter-Country Adoption Law) and RA 8552

(Domestic Adoption Act)
RA 8043 (1995) in response to FC Art 184

B. New Civil Code

Aug 30, 1950 - RA 386 (NCC)
Modern view: Adoption as adoptee-centric

- Governs adoption by foreigner or Filipino residing abroad

RA 8552 (1998) spearheaded by DSWD
RA 9523 (2009) amd. RA 8552
-hastened declaration of abandoned children were parents
left no written commitment by converting from judicial to

admin process (Dec for Availability for Adoption 1 mo, Dec

of Abandonment 1 yr.)
RA 10165 (2012) Foster Care Act

i) Biological parent of adoptee

ii) Spouse of the adoptees parent
iii) Sibling of adoptee (Added by IRR)

IV. Inter-country adoption laws

Moral turpitude - everything done in contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals.
V. Domestic Adoption: Eligibility and Consent
Requirements
A. Eligibility of Adopters
A.1 Qualifications of Filipino Adopters
RA 8552 Art III, Sec 7
Who may adopt:
a) Filipino citizen

- Includes: (Teves v. COMELEC)

-

Murder
Rape
Theft
Robbery
Estafa
Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act
Bigamy
Concubinage
Forgery
Smuggling

1. Legal age
2. Full capacity of legal rights
3. Good moral character, no conviction for crime w/ moral
turpitude

- Guardian may adopt ward only after termination of

guardianship. Mischief sought to be avoided: having to
account for wards money during guardianship. Once all
financial responsibilities are met, guardianship is terminated

4. Emotionally and psych capable to take care of children

5. At least 16 years older than adoptee in position to
support in keeping with means of family, has undergone
pre-adoption services (Added by IRR)

Exception to 16 years:

In re Adoption of the Minor Edwin Villa (1967)

Facts
- Atty. Luis Santos, Jr. and Edipola Villa Santos would like to
adopt the 4-yr old Edwin Villa y Mendoza.

- Edipola and Edwin are siblings. (Edipola is already 32 yrs.

old, anlayo nung age gap!)
EXCEPTION to residency and certification:

Issue

i) Former Filipino adopting relative w/in 4th degree of

consanguinity or affinity

WON an elder sister may adopt a younger brother - YES

Ratio

ii) Adopting legitimate child of his Filipino spouse

- Regarding the dual relationship, it should be noted

that relationship established by the adoption is
limited to the adopting parents and does not extend
to their other relatives, except as expressly provided
by law. One relationship is by nature, the other by
fiction.
- Lastly, we do not have any provision in the law that
expressly prohibits adoption among relatives, thus
they ought not to be prevented.

or

iii) Married to Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly

with spouse a relative w/in 4th degree of consanguinity
affinity of the spouse

IRR, Sec 3
Alien any person, not a Filipino, who enters and remains in
the RP and in possession of a valid passport or travel
documents and visa
Continuous

A.2 Additional Qualifications of Foreign Adopters

RA 8552 Art III, Sec 7
Who may adopt:
b) Aliens possessing same qualifications above, plus:
1. His country has diplomatic relations with RP

- Does not mean uninterrupted (as compared to paternity

and filiation)
- Allows temporary absence of professional, business or
emergency reasons not exceeding 60 days
Residence actual and legal stay
Additional requirements
RA 8552 Sec 7(b)

2. Living in RP for at least 3 continuous yrs prior to

application and until adoption decree is entered

- Certificate of residence in RP Immigration or DFA

3. Certified by his diplomatic/consular office that he

has legal
capacity to adopt in his country

- Certification from consular/diplomatic office that appellant

has legal capacity to adopt in his country

4. His government allows adoptee to enter his country

as his adopted child

- Certificate from his govt that child will be allowed to enter

his country and reside there permanently as an adopted child

-cannot allow that child automatically acquire

citizenship or adopters
-adequate protection of childs interest while at the
same time preserving authority of receiving state

Provided: Consent of other spouse

3) Spouses are legally separated consent of spouse
not needed

-ISSUE: Federal governments

-In absence of certificate, documents stating approved
application with immigration services, consular offices
producing certificates attesting their state policy to
accept adopted children entering the country
accepted as compliance but subject to the discretion
of the Family courts

In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts

the illegitimate child of the other, joint parental authority
shall be exercised

Republic v. CA and Bobiles (1992)

(From IRR)

Facts

- Applicants Home Study Report must be accompanied by

several documents including: police clearance from all places
in the past 2 years immediately prior to residing in RP

- Feb 2 1988, Zenaida Bobiles filed petition to adopt Jason

Conda(6), living with her family since he was 4 mos.

-baka fugitive on the run

- However, FC took effect on Aug 3, 1988. Under that law,

joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory (Art 185)

A.3 Joint Adoption by Spouses

Ratio

PD 603 Art 29: allowed either spouse to file a petition for

adoption - husband and wife may jointly adopt

a) Vested right

FC Art 185: mandated joint adoption

RA 8552: retained
RA 8552, Art III, Sec 7 Husband and wife shall jointly
adopt, EXCEPT in the ff cases:
1) One spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of
the other
2) One spouse seeks to adopt his/her illegitimate child

- During the time of the petition, Zenaida Bobiles had the

right to file the petition on her own without joining her
husband therein - the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action is reckoned.
Republic v. CA and Toledano (1994)
Facts
- 1990: Sps. Clouse filed a petition to adopt Solomon Alcala,
younger brother of respondent Evelyn Clouse. Alvin Clouse is
natural-born citizen of USA. Married in 1981. 1988: Evelyn
was naturalized

Law in effect when petition was filed determines jurisdiction

of courts
Ratio
- Art 184 (3): Aliens are not qualified, except
a) Former Filipino adopting relative by consanguinity
b) Adopting legitimate child of Filipino spouse
c) Married to Filipino and adopting jointly a relative by
consanguinity of the Filipino
- Alvin Clouse does not belong to any of the categories (1)
not on any of exceptions, 2) Solomon is not child or relative
by consanguinity of spouse 3) Wife was no longer a Filipino
citizen at time of adoption)
- While Evelyn may seem to qualify under Art 184(3), Art 185
mandates joint adoption by husband and wife
Republic v. Miller (1999)
Facts
- 1998: Sps. Claude and Jumrus Miller (Americans residing in
Angeles since 1985) filed petition to adopt Minor Michael
Madayag - Minor has been in their custody and care 2 weeks
after birth
Issue
WON aliens can adopt a Filipino child before the effectivity of
the general prohibition in the FC YES
Ratio
Subsequent enactment of FC will not impair vested rights (Art
256)

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim (2009)

Facts
- Monina and Primo Lim, childless married couple. Made it
appear that Michelle and Michael were their real children.
- 2000: Monina married Angel Olario, an American citizen
- On 2002, Monina filed separate petitions for the adoption of
Michelle and Michael, who were 25 (already married) and 18
years old respectively.
Ratio
a) Must jointly adopt
b) Alien spouse not qualified
Exceptions for joint adoption:
1) Children are legitimate children of either spouse
2) Children are illegitimate child of either spouse
3) Spouses are legally separated
- Consent not sufficient. Since alien spouse, there are
other requirements,
1) Prove his country has diplomatic relations with RP
2) Living in RP for 3 continuous years prior to filing

3) Maintain residency until decree is entered

iv) Integrated well w/ community

4) Legal capacity to adopt in his country

5) Adoptee allowed to enter his country as his adopted
child

- Residency and certification may be waived if (not

applicable)
1) Former Filipino adopting relative w/in 4th degree of
consanguinity or affinity
2) Adopting legitimate child of his Filipino spouse

or

3) Married to Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly

with spouse a relative w/in 4th degree of consanguinity
affinity of the spouse

- True that at age of majority, parental authority is

terminated. However, parental authority is just one of
the effects of legal adoption (See RA 8552, Art V)
A. 4 Adoption by Foster Family
DSWD Department Order 2000: Foster child may be adopted
by foster family, guidelines:

RA 10165 (Foster Care Act, 2012)

Sec 17 Foster parent may adopt foster child if all
qualifications for an adopter under the Domestic or InterCountry Adoption Act are met
- Same procedures, but trial custody may be waived if
harmonious relationship already exists
- Gives primacy to the childs best interest by preserving
bond between child and foster parents

B. Eligibility of the Adoptee

FC Art 183: only minors can be adopted, except for those in
Art 187 (child by nature of the adopter or his spouse, or if
prior to adoption, consistently treated as own child)

a) Child is legally free, not matched for adoption

b) Foster family is qualified to adopt
c) Separation from foster family will be traumatic
i) Harmonious relationship bet child and family

RA 8552, Sec 8 Who may be adopted

The ff. may be adopted:

ii) Children of family accept the foster child

a) Any person below 18 y/o who has been administratively or

judicially declared available adoption (new from RA 8552)

iii) Accepted by extended family/relatives

b) Legitimate s/d of one spouse by the other spouse

c) Illegitimate s/d by a qualified adopter to improve status to

legitimacy
d) Person of legal age, if prior to adoption, said person has
been consistently considered and treated as own child since
minority

Dependent Child w/o parent, guardian, or custodian, or said

persons with to be relieved of care and custody

Exceptions to requirement of Certificate Declaring Legally

Available in adoption proceedings (RA 9523 IRR, Sec 4)

e) Child whose adoption has been previously rescinded

1. Adoption of illegit child by either biological parent

f) Child whose biological/adoptive parent/s have died

2. Adoption of child by stepparent

PROVIDED: No proceedings w/in 6 months from death

- Amended by RA 9523 IRR, a child declared available for
adoption is: a child who was issued by DSWD a certification
that child is legally available for adoption due to
abandonment, neglect or dependence, or voluntarily
committed

3. Adoption of child by relative w/in 4 degree of

consanguinity or affinity

Exceptions to minority

- DSWD issues certificate w/o need to file a case in court

before declaration

- RA 8552 Sec 8: b) (Legitimate s/d of other spouse) and c)

(Illegitimate s/d to improve to legitimacy) son and
daughter, meaning even if no longer minor age

Terms for children involuntarily surrendered (RA 9523 and SC

Rule on Adoption)

- RA 8552 Sec 8: d) (Consistently considered and treated by

adopter as his own child since minority)

Abandoned Child no proper parental care or guardianship,

or parents have deserted him for at least three (3)
continuous months
Foundling person whose facts of birth are unknown
Neglected Child basic needs are deliberately unattended or
inadequately attended for three (3) continuous months

In Re Robert Paul
Held
57 y/o adopting 50 y/o lover is cynical distortion of the
function of adoption. Adoption not means of obtaining legal
status for non-marital sexual relationship.

2 kinds of neglect
a) Physical malnourished, ill-dressed, no shelter
b) Emotional maltreated, abused, exploited,
overworked, made to beg, exposed to vices

C. Consent necessary for adoption

RA 8552, Sec 9 Whose consent is necessary to the Adoption

(ABLISS)
a) Adoptee, if 10 y/o or over
b) Biological parents of child, if known, or legal guardian, or
government instrumentality which has legal custody of the
child
c) Legitimate s/d, 10 y/o and over, of adopters and adoptee
d) Illegitimate s/d, 10 y/o and over, of adopter if living with
adopter and the spouse
e) Spouse of adopter and adoptee

- But if husband alleges that consent was obtained

through mistake, fraud, violence, undue influence,
then child is illegitimate -> consent of husband
superfluous
- When mothers husband (presumed father) signs affidavit
denying paternity, mothers consent will suffice
- If no such denial, Deed of Commitment signed by mother
alone will not suffice -> will be considered abandoned

C. 2 Biological Parents of Illegitimate Children

- Role of mother: exercises parental authority over
illegitimate children (FC Art 176) -> only consent of mother
required

- Consent must be obtained before these rights and duties be

terminated and re-established in adoptee/s

- Minority of mother does not diminish her authority,

cannot be controlled by parents decision (See
FC Art 176 (parental rights not dependent on age) and
Art 216 (parental auth to grandparents only in default
of parents))

- If legitimate child, both parents have to both consent, since

father and mother jointly exercise parental authority over
children

- Parents or guardians of minor are encouraged

to serve as witness to signing Deed of
Commitment

C. 1 Biological Parents of Legitimate Children

- Child by artificial insemination: such children are considered

as legitimate children of husband and wife. In In Re: Adoption
of Anonymous, it was held that consent of father is
required before adoption of said child
- Likely the same in RP, as child born through artificial
insemination w/ consent of both husband (written
consent before birth of child) and wife is legitimate
child of that marriage

Voluntary

-BUT cannot force her to decide in a certain way

- Role of illegitimate father: controversial
- RA 8552 IRR: biological parent if legitimate, childs
mother and father by nature. If illegitimate and
unacknowledged, mother alone.
- If illegitimate but acknowledged by father, IRR
requires fathers consent for adoption -> contradicts
FC Art 176

Statcon: IRR v. Law

If IRR were law, then maxim: special over general law
BUT since IRR not law, cannot trump a law
- Simple art of acknowledging should not give illegit father
right over child unless maintained substantial relationship
- NY law (Domestic Relations Law): different legal rights of
unmarried fathers based on WON full substantive rights, due
process rights and no rights at all.
Factors of substantive relation:
a) Relationship with childs mother
b) Willingness to acknowledge child
c) Support in keeping w/ capacity
d) For older children, regular and sustained
communication with child
- If not under above qualifications, due process rights, can
present evidence to court to avoid termination of parental
rights. If no commitment at all, no rights (Lehr v. Robertson)
- Gray areas: unable to establish relationship because child
was kept secret, or prevented by mother, incapacitated due
to domestic violation or incarceration
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 US 248 (1983)
Facts
- Jonathan Lehr is the putative father of a child born out of
wedlock. Lorraine Robertson, mother of the child married
another man after the child was born. New couple filed to
adopt child

- Appellant filed a petition to vacate the adoption order on

the ground that it was obtained in violation of his rights
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue/Ratio/Held
1. Appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause were not
violated.
The mere existence of a biological link does not merit
equivalent protection to fathers who acknowledge
2. Nor were appellant's rights under the Equal Protection
Clause violated.
- Because he has never established a substantial
relationship with his child, the New York statutes at
issue did not operate to deny him equal protection.
EPC does not prevent a State from according the two
parents different legal rights
C. 3 When Parent(s) Consent is Not Required
Abandonment by parents of biological child
- Abandonment: any conduct which indicates settled purpose
to forgo all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims
to the child, neglect or refusal to perform obligations of care
and support which parents owe their children
- Physical estrangement alone, w/o moral and financial
desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment
- Merely permitting child to remain undisturbed in care of
another is not the abandonment contemplated by law
Santos v. Aranzanso (1966)
Facts

- 1949: Simplicio Santos and Juliana Reyes filed petition to

adopt minors Paulina and Aurora Santos
- 8 years later: wife dies intestate. Julianas cousins alleged

- Maria Clara, sister of Anna Marie, and her husband Ronald

Clavano petitioned to adopt the three kids because Anna
Marie wanted to go abroad and could not take care of the
minor children.

- Marriage between couple was bigamous.

Ratio

- Adoption was also void for lack of written consent of

parents who were living and did not abandon them

a) That there is no abandonment, because despite the

meager amounts that Herbert was able to send and
deposit in bank accounts, the main fact is that there
were efforts exerted to provide for the family.

Ratio
a) Parental consent not requisite
Adoption court made a finding on abandonment
Abandonment: any conduct on part of parent which evinces
a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relinquish
all parental claims to the child. Neglect or refusal to perform
the natural and legal obligations of care and support which
parents owe to their children.
- Although CFI judgment did not use word abandoned,
the findings set in decision constitute abandonment
b) A judgment can be set aside on ground of fraud only in a
separate action brought for that purpose, NOT by
collateral attack, thus CA erred

- There should be proof that he had so emotionally

abandoned them that his children would not miss his
guidance and counsel if they were given to adopting
parents.
Landingin v. Republic (2006)
Facts
-2002: Diwata Landingin, USA citizen, filed petition to adopt
minors Elaine, Elma, and Eugene Ramos Children of her
brother Manuel Ramos and Amelia
- Manuel died and children were left with grandmother.
Amelia went to Italy and remarried there and had two
children.
Ratio

Cang v. Clavano (1998)

Facts
- Herbert Cang and Anna Marie were married and had 3
children. They judicially separated (affair with family friend)
and Anna Marie was granted the custody of the children.
Herbert went to the States and divorced her.

a. Written consent of biological parents are necessary to the

validity of decree for adoption.
Alleged that in an interview, Amelia consented to adoption.
But there was no written consent, and she was not presented
in court.
b) Amelia has not abandoned children.

Abandonment is complete neglect and refusal to

perform natural and legal obligations of love and
support.
- Financial consideration should not be paramount
consideration in deciding to deprive parental
authority to a mother.
Duncan v. CFI (1976)
Facts

Other individuals whose consent is required:

- Adoptee who is at least 10 y/o, after counseling
- Legitimate children at least 10 y/o
- Illegitimate children at least 10 y/o who are living
with adopter
- Adopters spouse
- Adoptees spouse

- May 1967, Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez, as de facto

guardian, gave consent to child handed to her by client.

- Consent must be authenticated before RoC

Ratio

- Adoptees spouse: to inform that should adoptee and

spouse have no heirs, adopters will inherit

There can be only one other person who could be the

guardian exercising patria potestas over the child. No other
person could be called guardian of said infant, she having
extended physical shelter and custody and care over infant

VI. Procedure for Agency Adoption

- She is therefore the de facto guardian of abandoned

child, no one else can give consent.

A. Effects of Adoption

*If decided under RA 8552

-consent is not from de facto guardian but from legal
guardian or DSWD, the government instrumentality
entrusted with custody of the child

- Nasa Book lang ito lol

VII. Effects of Adoption and Recission

RA 8552, Sec 16 Parental Authority

Except in cases where biological parent is the spouse of
adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent and
adoptee shall be severed and the same shall be vested on
the adopters

-file petition before the DSWD to declare child as

abandoned
RA 8552, Sec 17 Legitimacy

C. 4 Consent by Children and Third Parties

Adoptee shall be considered legitimate s/d of the adopter for

all intents and purposes and is entitled to all rights and
obligations provided by law to legitimate s/d w/o
discrimination. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love,
guidance and support in keeping w/ means of the family

- Therefore, Surname, Support, Succession (like legit and

illegit)

A.2 Legitimacy of the Child

RA 8552: for all intents and purposes

RA 8552, Sec 18 Succession

In legal and intestate succession, adopter(s) and adoptee
shall have reciprocal rights of succession w/o distinction from
legit filiation. HOWEVER, if adoptee and biological parent(s)
left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern
A. 1 Parental Rights
A. 1a Parental Authority of the Adopters
By virtue of the adoption decree, parental authority of
biological parents is terminated and vested in adopter
Tamargo v. CA (1992)

- Includes rights such as surname, support, succession, and

also the intangibles such as love, attention, encouragement,
and guidance

A.3 Name of Adopted Child

A. 3a Surname
SURNAME OF THE ADOPTER (See if separated)
Johnston v. Republic: married woman adopting singly ->
only her maiden surname (since husband did not adopt, else
misleading if used husbands surname)

Held/Ratio

If legally separated (no cut and dry answer)

Rule: those exercising parental authority should be held

responsible.

The surname of the female adopter is her legal name and not
her husbands surname that she merely acquired by the
marriage (Johnston)

To avoid liability during trial custody period, must prove that

parental authority was (even only briefly), with the biological
parents
It is unfair for parental authority to retroact to the Rapisuras
to unduly burden them with liability or a tortuous act
that they neither couldve foreseen nor prevented.
A. 1b Visitation Rights of Biological Parents
The law does not prohibit agreements on post-adoption
visitation. BUT it is also not mandated, nor courts mandated
to recognize it if not beneficial to the child.

In Laperal v. Republic, since LS is not separation of the

vinculum, wife retains name and surname employed before
LS.

Author: Adopter should not be barred from reverting to use of

her maiden surname. After all, CC Art 370 is not mandatory:
married woman may use. Married womans legal name
continues to be her maiden surname.

Republic v. CA and Wong (1992)

Ratio
*While it is in the law that adopted shall bear surname of the
adopter, change of name is more an incident rather than the
subject of adoption proceedings -> the status of paternity
and filiation between adopter and adoptee is subject, as the
primary consideration is the childs welfare
- Usual effect: transfer of custody, duty of obedience
by child, and other legal consequences and incidents
SUBJECT to limitations imposed by statute.

A. 3b First name

prod and subs requirements for Rule 103, RoC Change of

Name

*With RA 8552, adopters have right to choose name of

adopted child - > one of the joyful experience of being
parents, consistent with all intents and purposes
A. 3c Middle Name
LAW IS SILENT, BUT SINCE LEGITIMATE CHILD BY VIRTUE OF
ADOPTION, ENTITLED TO BEAR THE SURNAME OF FATHER
AND MOTHER
PAG MAG ISA ANG NAGADOPT, WALANG MIDDLE NAME,
SURNAME NG ADOPTER

THE DECREE OF ADOPTION SHALL STATE THE NAME BY

WHICH THE CHILD IS TO BE KNOWN, ADOPTERS HAVE RIGHT
TO CHOOSE NAME OF ADOPTED CHILD

Facts

RA 8552, Sec 13: the decree of adoption shall state the

name by which the child is to be known

- Honorato B. Catindig filed petition to adopt minor

illegitimate child Stephanie, with a middle name change

*The aforementioned amendments preclude Hernandez

(infra) ruling from happening again.

Ratio

Republic v. Hernandez (1996)

Held/Ratio
Change of name cannot prosper
- Kevin is an infant barely over a year old, he has not
exercised full civil rights or engaged in contractual
obligations, ergo no way state or other person may be
prejudiced
- Changing given name in civil registry is a substantial
change that can only be done through strict compliance with

Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (2005)

- Law is silent on which middle name adoptee should use.

- Being a legitimate child by virtue of adoption, Stephanie is
entitled to all rights of legit child w/o discrimination.
- Also, use of natural mothers surname as middle name with
maintain her maternal lineage, since she is still an heir of
biological parent
A. 4 Nationality
DOES NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP OF THE ADOPTER TO
ADOPTED

Tolentino: right to confer citizenship is exclusive to state. Yes,

adopted has same rights as legitimate child, but this refers to
CIVIL RIGHTS, NOT POLITICAL RIGHTS. Adoption creates
relation bet adopter and adopted, but not necessarily State
and adopted.
Rule: Philippine law does not prescribe automatic acquisition
of adopters nationality (political, up to the state of adopted).
Laws conferring foreign citizenship on adopted, does not
divest child of Filipino citizenship. In this case, the child now
enjoys dual citizenship.

CONSIDERED TOTAL STRANGERS WRT TO INHERITANCE

(SAYSON V. CA, INFRA)
BUT since RA 8552 says entitled to all legal rights provided
by law to legit children, there is a need to revisit this
reasoning.
Adoptee inherits as compulsory heir of adoptive parents,
same share as legitimate child.

A. 5 Succession
FC: ADOPTED SHALL REMAIN INTESTATE HEIR OF PARENTS
AND OTHER BLOOD RELATIVES
RA 8552, Sec 18: In legal and intestate succession,
adopter(s) and adoptee shall have reciprocal rights w/o
distinction from legitimate filiation. If adoptee and the
biological left a will, law of testamentary succession shall
govern
Adoptee inherits as compulsory heir of adoptive parents,
same share as legitimate child.

Sayson v. CA (1992)
Ratio
- Challenge to validity of adoption cannot be collaterally
attacked
- Attack in separate, direct proceeding, not in this petition for
partition

Issue remains: inherit from biological parents?

Adopted child succeeds in the same way as legitimate child

A. 5a Between Adoptee and Adopter

- But Delia and Edmundo do not have the right of

representation because the grandparents are considered
strangers to the adopted child. The relationship created by
adoption exists only between the adopting parents and the
adopted child. Thus, while the adopted children have
the right to succeed their parents, they do not have
the right of representation.

ADOPTEE INHERITS AS COMPULSORY HEIR OF ADOPTIVE

PARENTS, SAME SHARE AS LEGITIMATE CHILD.
A. 5b Between Adoptee and Adopters relatives
RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED ONLY BETWEEN ADOPTEE AND
ADOPTER, SO CHILD HAS NO RIGHT TO INHERIT FROM
RELATIVES OF ADOPTERS. PARENTS OF ADOPTERS WERE

A. 5c Between Adoptee and Biological Parents

B. Rescission of Adoption

8552: SILENT

RA 8552, Section 19 Grounds for Rescission

FIRST VIEW: ADOPTED HAS NO RIGHT, SINCE IT WAS NOT

REPRODUCED. ART 16-18: ALL LEGAL TIES SHALL BE
SEVERED, W/C WOULD INCLUDE RIGHT TO SUCCESSION

-Petition of adoptee (w/ assistance of DSWD if minor or

incapacitated), GROUNDS

SECOND VIEW: IN ABSENCE OF EXPRESS REPEAL, ART 189(3)

OF FC IS GOOD LAW. ALSO, RESOLVE DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF
ADOPTEE.

a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by

adopters,
despite counseling
b) attempt on life of adoptee

- Biological child should not be prevented from inheriting if

biological parents condition improve
- BUT: sever all ties. Edi leave something to biological child in
a will.
- Mischief: adopters die, adoptee goes back to parents with
estate, then biological parents might kill adoptee in order to
inherit

c) sexual assault or violence

d) abandonment/failure to comply with parental
obligations
Adoption not subject to rescission of adopters. But may
disinherit adoptee as provided in CC Art 91
Parent-child rel created by law is also for better or for
worse

A.6 Benefits to which Adopters are entitled

IRR Sec 34: adoptive parents also enjoy all benefits to which
biological parents are entitled. MATERNITY AND PATERNITY
BENEFITS ENJOYED IF ADOPTEE IS BELOW 7 YEARS OF AGE
AS DATE CHILD IS PLACED WITH ADOPTERS
Civil Service Commission WON Mrs. Tan could avail of
maternity leave since she has adopted YES
Section 11 of CSC Memorandum Circular 2 years service: 60
days maternity leave full pay, if 1-2 years: 60 days of half
pay
-Binding on government service only

Who may file, and until when

Only adopted may file
Must file FIVE (5) years after reaching age of majority,
or 5 years from recovery from incompetency
Lahom v. Sibulo (2003)
Ratio
- Vested rights do not apply, not present at time of filing.

Republic v. CA and Bobiles and Republic v. Miller statute in

force at time of commencement of action.
- Dura lex sed lex. But she can forfeit benefits accruing to
child if underserved. May deny adopted child his legitime
and by will and testament, exclude him from share in
disposable portion of estate CC 915
CC 919 Grounds to disinherit an adopted child (page
233)
B. 2 Effects of Rescission
RA 8552, Sec 20 Effects of Rescission
Parental authority restored to biological parents (if known), or
legal custody of DSWD shall be restored if
minor/incapacitated
Reciprocal rights and obligations of adopter to adoptee shall
be extinguished.

Simulation of birth is the tampering of the civil registry

making it appear in the birth records that a certain
child was born to a person who is NOT his/her
biological mother, causing such child to lose his/her true
identity and status
Ex. of simulation of birth
1 Pregnant woman admits herself in hospital under an
assumed name, intending to have newborn
registered as the child of another.
*As hospital expenses are out of pocket, unlike if
bills were to be paid by an insurance company,
a pregnant woman could easily get away with
this.
2 Pregnant woman provides hospital with data pertaining
to the couple who would later on pass themselves as
the childs parents.
3 These fraudulent data would then appear in the childs
birth certificate

Civil registrar shall cancel amended birth certificate and

restore original

*Art. 166 FC - Record of birth appearing in the civil register

or final judgment establishes legitimate filiation.

Succession rights to revert to pre-adoption status, but only as

of date of judgment of rescission. Vested rights acquired
before rescission are respected

*Can only be impugned under stringent grounds in Art. 166,

FC.

Does not wipe out adoption ab initio. Only future effects

cease, and the status of child
VIII Violations and Penalties: Focus on Simulation of
Birth

Who gets penalized for SB

A. Simulation of birth (SB)

Sec. 21(b) of RA 8552

Sec. 3(j) of RA 8552

Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of

the birth of a child under the name(s) of a person(s)
who is NOT his/her BIOLOGICAL PARENT(S) shall be
guilty of simulation of birth x x x

B. Procedure for Rectification

Sec. 22 of RA 8552 Rectification of Simulated Births
A person who has, prior to the effectivity of this Act,
simulated the birth of a child shall not be punished for such
act:

Art. 347, Revised Penal Code

xxx
Any physician or surgeon or public officer, who, in violation of
the duties of his profession or office, shall cooperate in the
execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two
next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties
therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary
special disqualification.

Domestic Adoption Act

Alludes to any physician or nurse or
hospital personnel

Provided, that the simulation of birth was made for the best
interest of the child and that he/she has been
consistently considered and treated by that person as
his/her own son/daughter:

Provided further, that the application for correction of the

birth registration and petition for adoption shall be filed
Revised Penal Code
within 5 years from the effectivity of this Act and
Specifies physicians and surgeons.
completed thereafter:

*Common occurrence in hospitals:

Women leave children in the hospital to avoid paying bills,
and the staff, able to locate couples wanting children and to
pay bills, does the crime.
*DAA IRR all hospitals, physicians, and midwives in
attendance at the birth of a child shall register such birth
not later than 30 days from the date of said birth as
required under the Civil Register Law.

Provided finally, that such person complies with the

procedure as specified in Article IV of this Act and other
requirements as determined by the Department.

*From March 1998 to 2003, those who sought to rectify SB

could file single petition for: (3-in-1 petition)
(a) correction of entries in the birth certificate or
cancellation of the birth cert

(b) declaration of abandonment to make child available

for adoption, in case biological parents do not sign Deed of
Voluntary Commitment

as petitions for adoptees best interests and

consistently considered and treated as own.
- Should include simulations done after RA 8552
effectivity date.

(c) petition for adoption

*SC Rule on Adoption, Sec 8:

- Not intended to encourage SB but merely recognizes such

children are left without protection, bereft of legal rights to
support, surname, succession.

Petition applying to rectify must also allege:

a
b
c

Petitioner is applying for rectification of an SB

The SB was made prior to effectivity date of RA
8552 and application for rectification and petition for
adoption filed within 5 years
SB was made for the best interests of the adoptee
Adoptee consistently considered and treated by
petitioner as own child

C. Penalties
*RA 8552 penalty range: fine (P50k-200k) to prision
mayor
*Violations include:

*There might be confusion as to it was the filing of the single

petition or the amnesty for SB, comparing 8552 Provision
with the SC Rules on Adoption. => amnesty is regulated by
the RA.
* No prohibition to file petition after 5-year period, but
penalty may be incurred.
**If it were the other view held, that after 5 years, hindi na
single petition yung ifa-file:

Rectifying births by 3 separate procedures might be

used to circumvent law
MORE 1) EXPENSIVE AND 2) TIME CONSUMING
*Maam: To address confusion over rectification of SB, a
solution: EXTEND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.
- *Congress encouraged to pass new law offering
amnesty to those who simulated birth of child as long

Obtaining consent for adoption through coercion,

undue influence or fraud
Non-compliance with procedures and safeguards
provided by law
Subjecting child to be adopted to danger, abuse, or
exploitation

Penalty for Simulation of birth

Sec. 22(j), RA 8552
Any person x x x guilty of simulation of birth x x x shall be
punished by prision mayor in its medium period and a
fine not exceeding P50,000.00.

Penalty for syndicates

Sec. 21, RA 8552

Acts punishable under this Article, when committed by a

syndicate or where it involves 2 or more children shall
be considered as an offense constituting child trafficking
and shall merit the penalty or reclusion temporal.
*Syndicate = 3 or more persons conspiring to do any
unlawful act & carry it out

reading of such children for civic consciousness and

efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and
physical character and well-being
Parental authority and responsibility:
a) Caring for and rearing for civic consciousness and
efficiency
b) Development of moral, mental and physical well-being

RA 8522 IRR, Sec 44

- Duty of every person, child caring or placing agency having
knowledge of violation to report to nearest police station,
LGU, or DSWD, which in turn is compelled to act within 24
hrs. lest criminal/admin liabilities be incurred.

FC Art 210
Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced
or transferred except in the cases authorized by law
Parental authority as a personal right, cannot be renounced
except in cases authorized by law
a) Guardianship

RA 8522 IRR, Sec 44, Par 2

b) Adoption

- Failure of adopters to start legalization of adoption of

children after 6 months trial custody period = an act not in
the best interest of the child.

c) Surrender to orphanage or asylum

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

Parental Authority General Provisions
FC Art 209
Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the
person and property of their unemancipated children,
parental authority and responsibility shall include caring and

FC Art 211
Father and mother shall jointly exercise parental
authority over the persons of their common children.
In case of disagreement, fathers decision shall prevail,
UNLESS there is a judicial order to the contrary

Children shall always observe respect and reverence towards

their parents and are obliged to obey them as long as they
are under parental authority
Childrens duty

(Tender-years presumption) No child under 7 years of age

shall be separated from the mother, UNLESS court finds
compelling reason otherwise

At any age:
a) Observe respect and reverence
Under parental authority
b) Obey them as long as they are under parental authority

FC Art 214 In case of

a) Death
b) Absence
c) Unsuitability
Of parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised
by the surviving grandparent.

FC Art 212
In case of absence or death of either parent, parent
present shall continue exercising parental authority.
The remarriage of the surviving parent does not affect the
parental authority over the children, unless the court
appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or
property of the child

In case several survive, the one designated by the court,

taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the
preceding article, shall exercise the authority
PD 603, Art 58
Parents and guardians are responsible for damage caused by
the child under their parental authority

Parents must continue to exercise authority in absence of one

of them. Even if remarried, the authority continues

Tender Years Presumption

FC Art 213

Held: The tender-years presumption is unconstitutional for

violating EPC. Discriminates between father and mother.

In case of separation of parents, parental authority shall

be exercised by the parent designated by the court. The
court shall take into account all relevant considerations,
especially the choice of the child over seven (7) years of
age, UNLESS chosen parent is unfit.

Ex Parte Devine (1981)

Male gains custody only if female unfit, even if both fit, child
goes to female.
Moe v. Dinkins age as proxy for maturity

Ex Parte Devine sex as proxy for fitness to become parent

Espiritu v. CA (1995)
Held: TYP is not absolute, may be overcome by compelling
reasons

Held: Lesbianism of mother not enough to overcome TYP,

she was fit anyway
Must show that mother has provided circumstances not
conducive to childs moral development.
In this case, child was too young anyway.

Can use evidence not for the advancement of trial (interview

for school purposes, foreign travel)
- In this case, mother emotionally disturbed children with her
affair
Sy v. CA (2007)
Held: Art 213 applies as presumption, absent proof to
mothers unfitness
-

No substitute for mothers love and devotion

Parental Unfitness

Role of Childs Preference

Laxamana v. Laxamana (2002)
Held: Case remanded to take into account the choice of the
children who were above 7 at that time
Relying solely on psychiatric and psych evaluation is
improper.

Presumption of Primary Caretaker

Feldman v. Feldman (1974)

Held: Peculiar sex practices do not ipso facto constitute
unfitness for custody, if these practices do not affect the
children.
Santos v. CA (1995)
Held: Parental authority cannot be renounced except cases
authorized by law
- Fact that he kidnapped child does not render him unfit.
- Fact that soldier should not be material to his fitness
- Unable to provide for 3 years, now making up for it sign of
intent to correct the wrong he did
Gualberto v. Gualberto (2005)

Garska v. McCoy (1981)

Held: Presumption of primary caretaker: preparing/planning
of meals, bathing, grooming, bed, medical care, disciplining,
educating etc. person who provides this is the primary
caretaker
Mnookin: Flip coin
Random, but
a) Governments responsibility for best interest hard to
ignore
b) Venting is good for the sould

OTHER RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN EXERCISE OF PARENTAL

AUTHORITY
Art 220 Parents exercising parental authority over their
unemancipated children have the following rights and duties:

1. Keep the children in their company, to support, educate

and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to
provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means
2. Provide them with love and affection, advice and counsel,
companionship and understanding
3. Provide moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate honesty,
integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift,
stimulate interest in civic affairs and compliance with
citizenship duties
4. Furnish them with education, recreation, and protect them
from bad company and bad habits
5. Represent them in all manners affecting their interests
6. Demand from them respect and obedience (Right)

Art 223 Parents or those with parental authority may seek

court for an order providing for the disciplinary
measures over the child. Child shall be entitled to
assistance of counsel, of his choice or by court appointment,
with summary hearing.
If the court finds the petitioner at fault in said hearing,
it may order the deprivation or suspension of parental
authority of the petitioner or adopt other measures, as it
deems proper

Art 224 measures in preceding article may include

commitment of the child for not more than 30 days in entities
or institutions engaged in child care or in childrens homes
duly accredited by the proper agency. The parent with
authority shall not interfere with care of the child whenever
committed but shall provide for support. Upon proper petition
or on its own, the court may terminate such measures.
Property

8. Other duties imposed by law

Art 225 Father and mother jointly exercise guardianship

over property of the common unemancipated child without
necessity of court appointment. In case of disagreement, the
father prevails unless court says otherwise.

Art 221 Parents/guardians/other with parental authority

shall be civilly liable for injury and damages caused by
acts/omissions of unemancipated children under their care

If market value of childs property exceeds 50k, parents shall

be required to furnish a bond amounting to 10% of such, in
fulfillment of obligation of general guardians XXX

Art 222 Courts may appoint a guardian of childs property,

or ad litem when so required

Art 226 Child owns any property earned by his own

work/industry or by onerous/gratuitous title. It shall be used

7. Impose discipline as may be required by circumstances

for his support and education unless title of transfer says

otherwise. Rights of parents over fruits and income shall be
limited to childs support. Needs of the family shall be
secondary.

HELD:
Sale of minor children's property executed by the mother is
void. Judicial approval is necessary because the powers and
duties as legal administrator are only powers of possession
and management; no power to mortgage, encumber or
dispose.

CABANAS V. PILAPIL (1974)

*mother and uncle claim to be the trustee of a minor child
beneficiarys proceeds in deceased fathers insurance policy
HELD:
Mother has right to administer of the property of
the child in the absence of the father, not the uncle.

People v. Silvano (1999)

HELD: Rape can never be justified as parental punishment!

Shields v. Gross (1983)

LIBI v IAC (1992)
Ex-couples Julie Ann and Wendell died by gunshot wounds.
Julie Anns parents filed for damages against Wendells
parents.

Plaintiffs mother Teri Shield gave two consents in favor of

the defendant. The pictures were used in a whole lot of ad
campaigns and magazines. She filed a case to enjoin
defendants from further use of the photos

HELD

HELD

Parents are primary liable for damages caused by minor

children from quasi-delicts and criminal offenses except when
they exercised due diligence. In this case, parents did not
exercise due diligence since the son gained access to the key
of the safety deposit box where gun was, they did not know
of his job, and the picture of him with a gun.

She cannot disaffirm the prior consent executed on her

behalf back She cannot nullify the consent given by her
mother on her behalf. Her mother did this as her proper
guardian and the decision to give that consent back then is
binding to her even after attaining majority.

LINDAIN V CA (1992)
SUMMARY: When plaintiffs were minors, their mother sold
parcels of land whose title was under their names.

SUBSTITUTE AND SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Substitute Parental Authority

Special Parental Authority

FC Art 216: In default (death, absence, unsuitability) of

parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following
persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the
child in the order indicated:

FC Art 218: The school, its administrators and teachers, or

the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall
have special parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.

(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;

of

(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years

age, unless unfit or disqualified; and

of

(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years

age, unless unfit or disqualified.

Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the

property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of
preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)

FC Art 217: In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or

abused children and other children similarly situated,
parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children's homes, orphanages and
similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government
agency. (314a)

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized

activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution. (349a)

FC Art. 219 Those given the authority and responsibility

under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor.
The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising
substitute parental authority over said minor shall be
subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding
paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised
the proper diligence required under the particular
circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles
shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on
quasi-delicts. (n)

For damages caused by unemancipated minors:

- Persons/Institutions with special parental authority principally and solidarily liable

- Parents, judicial guardians or persons with substitute

parental authority - subsidiary liable
EXCEPTION: Liabilities will not apply if exercise of proper
diligence is proven

Substitute Parental
Authority
Grandparents, oldest sibling,
actual custodian
In case of death, absence or
suitability
Subsidiarily liable for
damages caused by act or
omission under supervision
of people with special
parental authority
Law is silent on corporal
punishment

Special Parental
Authority
School, administrator and
teachers
Exercised concurrently with
parental authority
Principally and solidarily
liable for damages caused
by act or omission of minor
under their custody
Cannot inflict corporal
punishment

CC Art. 2180: (Under Quasi-Delicts)

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live
in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their

employees in the service of the branches in which the latter

are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
Liabilities:
1. Father and mother (upon death of father)
- For their minor children
2. Guardians
- For minor children under their authority and living
with
3. Owners and managers of establishments
- Liable for damages caused by their employees (in
said branch of employment or on occasion of their
functions)

4. Employers

HELD

- Liable for damages caused by their employees and

household helpers doing their tasks, even if employers
arent engaged in business or industry
5. The State
- When it acts through a special agent
6. Teachers, heads of establishments of arts and trades
- Liable for damages caused by their pupils, as long as they
remain in their custody
Exception to liability: When it is proven that diligence was
observed to prevent said damage from happening.

Nothing in the law that requires that for the liability to attach,
pupil must live in school as erroneously HELD in Exconde and
Mercado
DIFFERENCE between Palisoc and Amadora
Palisoc: during school hours, liable if impleaded
Amadora: not during school hours, but what matters
was the purpose. School is still liable, because the
children are there
School activity: sanctioned or official activity, WON inside
school or outside school

Palisoc v. Brillantes (1971)

Facts:
Fist fight, recess
HELD:

St. Marys Academy v. Carpitanos (2002) STRAY?

School custody means protective and supervisory custody

over students as long as the students are within the schoolincluding during recess. Nothing in the law requires that
students must live and board at the school. Student should
just be within the control and influence of school authorities.
Amadora v. CA (1988)
Facts
Physics project - shot to death Student killed classmate by
beating him. The head of the school and the teacher-incharge were HELD liable together with the offender - though
latter was NOT boarding in school

Facts
Enrollment drive - vehicle overturned
HELD
For the school to be HELD liable, there must be a showing
that the act or omission was the proximate cause of the
injury.
It was the reckless driving of Daniel and the mechanical
failure of the vehicle when its steering wheel got detached
and thus caused the vehicle to lose control and turn turtle.
Vancil v. Belmes (2001)

Facts
Wife and mother in-law

If market value of childs property exceeds 50k, parents

shall be required to furnish a bond amounting to 10% of
such, in fulfillment of obligation of general guardians

HELD
Surviving grandparent can exercise substitute parental
authority only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of
respondent.
Moreover, petitioner is a naturalized American citizen and is
a resident of Colorado. She is also old and has a conviction
for libel so to award her guardianship over the person of
Vincent is questionable.
The SC also said that the courts should refrain from
appointing persons as guardians who are not within the
jurisdiction of our courts for, they will find it difficult to
protect the wards.

Verified petition for approval of such bond shall be filed in the

proper court where the child resides, or if in a foreign
country, in the court where property is situated. It shall be
docketed as a special summary proceeding where all issues
shall be resolved.
Ordinary rules of guardianship shall be merely suppletory
except when child is under substitute parental authority, or
guardian is a stranger, or parent has remarried then
ordinary rules apply

FC Art 226 Child owns any property earned by his own

work/industry or by onerous/gratuitous title. It shall be used
for his support and education unless title of transfer says
otherwise.

SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL

AUTHORITY

FC Art 225 Father and mother jointly exercise guardianship

over property of the common unemancipated child without
necessity of court appointment. In case of disagreement, the
father prevails unless court says otherwise.

Rights of parents over fruits and income shall be limited

primarily to childs support and secondarily to the collective
daily needs of the family

Child owns the fruits of his own work regardless of legal

guardianship over his property
o
o

Usufruct has right to use, but no right to own!

Only limited usufruct by his parents granted
by parental authority, hence it is subordinated
by fulfillment of parental duties

Usufruct is limited to fruits of the childs

property
Childs salary is not included since it
counts as property of the child in itself
How the usufruct is extinguished:
o

o
o
o
o
o

Emancipation of child
Death of the child
Loss of parental authority by judicial decree
Consent of parent to child living independently
Cases of disinheritance and incapacity to
succeed by parent (unworthiness)

FC Art 227 If parents entrust management/administration of

any of their properties to unemancipated child, net proceeds
of property shall belong to the owner (parents).
The child shall be given a monthly allowance not less than
what would be paid to an administrator who was a stranger,
UNLESS the owner grants all the proceeds to the child. All
proceeds given as such shall not be charged against the
childs legitime.

Allows for compensation of a child whom the parents have

entrusted with management of property
o

What would be paid to a stranger

1. Death of parents
2. Death of the child
3. Emancipation of the child

FC Art 229 Parental authority also terminates upon the

following unless revived:
1. Upon adoption of the child
2. Upon appointment of a general guardian
3. Judicial declaration of abandonment of a child in a
case for that purpose

the

4. Upon a competent courts final judgment, divesting

parent of authority

5. Judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of

person
with authority

Parental Authority is revived by:

1. Judicial rescission
2. Judicial order revoking appointment
3. Judicial declaration reversing abandonment
4. Judicial restoration

Termination
FC Art 228 Parental authority terminates upon the
following:

5. Judicial pronouncement of reappearance, or now capable

Suspension

FC Art 230 Parental authority is suspended upon

conviction of crime with a penalty of civil interdiction.
Authority automatically reinstated upon service of penalty or
pardon/amnesty

administrators and teachers may not inflict corporal

punishment upon the child under any circumstances.
RA 7610 Anti-Child Abuse Act
Sec 5 Child prostitution and sexual abuse

FC Art 231 Other instances of suspension of parental

authority

of

Sec 6 Attempting to commit a child into prostitution

Sec 7 Child Trafficking

1. Excessive harshness or cruelty towards the child

Sec 8 Attempt to commit child trafficking

2. Corrupting orders, counsel or example

Sec 9 Obscene publications and indecent shows

3. Compels child to beg

Sec 10 other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation

4. Subjects child or allows him to be subjected to acts

lasciviousness

Sec 27 who may file complaint?

5. Includes culpable negligence of parents leading to

any of
the above

Termination - Needs judicial action

Suspension - Does not need judicial action

Sec

FC Art 232 Subjecting the child or allowing him to be

subjected to sexual abuse shall cause the person responsible
to be permanently deprived of parental authority.

FC Art 233 Person with substitute authority exercises the

same degree of authority as the childs parents. School

Offended party
Parents/guardians
Ascendants or collateral relatives within 3rd civil degree
of consanguinity
Officer, social worker or representative of a child
caring institution, DSWD
Barangay chairman
At least 3 concerned citizens present when the offense
occurred
28 Protective custody of the child - DSWD

Sec 31(c) Penalties

-

Maximum period when offender is ascendant, parent,

guardian, stepparent or collateral relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the 2nd civil degree
Abiera v. Orin

FACTS

Son, special admin of fathers estate files action

HELD

HELD

While Art. 313, CC: Parental authority cannot be renounced

or transferred in cases of guardianship or adoption approved
by the courts, or emancipation by concession The courts,
may, in cases specified by law, deprive parents of their
parental authority.

No, rights of administrators are purely personal

Likewise, the right of administration applies only to the
estate and properties being administered
-

Juans right as administrator (given his parental

authority) of his childrens property and estate died
with him
o Therefore, he could not have transferred it to
Sebastian
Juan could have taken action as himself, not
his son who is the admin of his estate
Sebastian as administrator of his fathers properties could
only invoke rights which pertained to those properties
Cortes v. Castillo and Herrera

Art. 332, CC provides: The courts may deprive the parents

of their authority to suspend the exercise of the same if they
should treat their children with excessive harshness or should
give them corrupting orders, counsels, or examples, or
should make them beg or abandon them.
Evidence in the case leads to the conclusion that she had the
intention to forgo all parental responsibilities and claims with
respect to the child. She abandoned her when she needed
her most (4mos old) and waited for 5 years.

FACTS
Wife adultery twice, no means of support
HELD
Aside from inability to support her children, the fact that she
had been convicted of adultery is proof that she may have
corrupt moral values that may be harmful to the welfare of
the minors.
Both under the civil law and the common law, the best
interests of the child is the paramount consideration.
Chua v. Cabangbang
FACTS
Mother abandons child, after 5 years files to get her back

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CHILDREN:

CIVIL CODE ARTICLES:
Article 356-375

Article 376. No person can change his name or surname

without judicial authority.
FC Art 211 (2) - Children shall always observe respect and
reverence towards their parent and are obliged to obey them
as long as the children are under parental authority.

(1) Emancipation of the child

FC Art 213: In case of separation of the parents, parental
authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the
Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant
considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven
years of age, unless the parent is unfit.

(2) Death of child

(3) Loss of parental authority through judicial decree
(4) Consent of the parent to the child living independently
(5) Disinheritance or incapacity to succeed by reason of
unworthiness

Tender years presumption child below 7 years old

goes to the mother (Presidential Decree 603)
In cases of legal separation innocent spouse gets
custody unless otherwise directed by Courts for the
childs best interests
In case of separation in fact Child will be allowed to
choose parent if above 7 years of age UNLESS!
Court declared parent unfit (habitual drunk,
impoverished, moral depravity)
In case neither parent is fit for custody Court
appoints a third person/guardian/benevolent society
Foremost consideration is the welfare of the child!

FC Art 226: The property of the unemancipated child earned

or acquired with his work or industry or by onerous or
gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and
shall be devoted exclusively to the latters support or
education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise.

The right of the parents over the fruits and income of the
childs property shall be limited primarily to the childs
support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the
family.

The usufruct can be extinguished in the ff. ways

P.D. 603 The Child and Youth Welfare Code

Article 3. Rights of the Child. - All children shall be entitled
to the rights herein set forth without distinction as to
legitimacy or illegitimacy, sex, social status, religion, political
antecedents, and other factors.

Article 4. Responsibilities of the Child. - Every child,

regardless of the circumstances of his birth, sex, religion,
social status, political antecedents and other factors shall:

F. Parents and Children When rights clash

RA 10354, Sec 14. Age- and Development-Appropriate

Reproductive Health Education. The State shall provide
age- and development-appropriate reproductive health
education to adolescents which shall be taught by
adequately trained teachers informal and non-formal
educational. . . The Department of Education (DepED)

shall formulate a curriculum which shall be used by

public schools and may be adopted by private schools.

Roe v. Doe
FACTS

Tommy and Jerry (Downs syndrome). Kidney transplant.

Does a parent have the duty of continuing support when his

or her minor child of employable age and in full possession of
her faculties, voluntarily and without cause abandons the
parent's home, against the will of the parent, and for the
purpose of avoiding parental control? - NO

HELD

HELD:

The operation was approved because it was held to be for the

best interest of the incompetent. The testimony of the
psychiatrist held that Tommy (only living sibling; vital to his
improvement) was indispensable for the welfare of Jerry

Where a minor child of employable age and in full possession

of her faculties voluntarily and without cause abandons the
parent's home against the will of the parent and for the
purpose of avoiding parental control, she forfeits her right to
demand support.

Strunk v. Strunk (1969)

FACTS

Curtis v. School Committee (1995)

FACTS
Condom availability program (nurse and vendo machine)
HELD
People possess a fundamental liberty interest to be free from
unnecessary government intrusion but the type of
interference necessary to support claim should be that which
causes a coercive or compulsory effect on the claimants'
rights. Mere exposure to program offered at school does not
amount to unconstitutional interference with parental
liberties without the existence of some compulsory aspect to
the program.

COERCION exists when the governmental action is

mandatory and provides no outlet for the parents such as
refusal to participate in a program results in sanction or in
expulsion.

Rule for withholding support

1) Reasonable demands - disobeyed
2) Must not endanger life of child

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
FC Art 247 The judgment of the court shall be immediately
final and executory. (n)

FC Art 248 The petition for judicial authority to administer or

encumber specific separate property of the abandoning
spouse and to use the fruits or proceeds thereof for the
support of the family shall also be governed by these rules.
(n)

seeks judicial authorization for a transaction where the

consent of the other spouse is required by law but
such consent is withHELD or cannot be obtained, a
verified petition may be filed in court alleging the
foregoing FACTS.
Art. 240. Claims for damages by either spouse,
except costs of the proceedings, may be litigated only
in a separate action.
Art. 247. The judgment of the court shall be
immediately final and executory. (n)
Art. 248. The petition for judicial authority to
administer or encumber specific separate property of
the abandoning spouse and to use the fruits or
proceeds thereof for the support of the family shall
also be governed by these rules. (n)

Incidents Involving Parental Authority

FC Art 249 Petitions filed under Articles 223, 225 and 235 of
this Code involving parental authority shall be verified. (n)
Art. 223, FC:
- Regarding disciplinary measures over the child
Art. 225, FC:
- Regarding parents joint legal guardianship over
the property or income of their
unemancipated children
- Filing of petition for approval of bond shall be filed
in the appropriate court

Art. 250, FC: Such petitions shall be verified and filed in

the proper court of the place where the child resides. (n)

Art. 251, FC: Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall
notify the parents or, in their absence or incapacity, the
individuals, entities or institutions exercising parental
authority over the child. (n)

RA 8369: FAMILY COURTS ACT (APPROVED OCTOBER 28,

1997)
Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. - The Family Courts
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
the following cases:
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;

Art. 252, FC: The rules in Chapter 2 hereof shall also govern
summary proceedings under this Chapter insofar as they are
applicable.

Madrinan v. Madrinan
FACTS

Chapter 2: (Art. 239 248) [Separation in Fact]

Art. 239. When a husband and wife are separated in
fact, or one has abandoned the other and one of them

Habitually drunk spouses, CA took cognizance of the case

HELD

RA 8369 did not revoke the CAs jurisdiction over habeas

corpus cases in custody of minors rather, gave concurrent
jurisdiction to SC and CA

Republic v. Narceda (2013)

FACTS
Republic tried to appeal Declaration of Presumptive Death
HELD
The hearing of a petition for the declaration of presumptive
death is a summary proceeding under the Art 247

Art. 247. The judgment of the court shall be

immediately final and executory

The remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not

an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari