[G.R. No. 76873. October 26, 1989.

]
DOROTEA, VIRGILIO, APOLINARIO, JR., SULPICIO & DOMINADOR, all surnamed
UYGUANGCO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, Judge SENEN PEARANDA and
GRACIANO BACJAO UYGUANGCO, Respondents
FACTS: Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his wife, Dorotea, four
legitimate children, and considerable properties which they divided among themselves.
having been left out in the extrajudicial settlement of his estate, Graciano Bacjao
Uyguangco, Claiming to be an illegitimate son of the deceased filed a complaint for
partition against all the petitioners. Graciano alleged that he was born in 1952 to
Apolinario Uyguangco and Anastacia Bacjao and that at the age of 15 he moved to his
fathers hometown at Medina, Misamis Oriental. He received support from his father
while he was studying at the Medina High School. He was also assigned by his father,
without objection from the rest of the family, as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store in
Mananom from 1967 to 1973. In the course of his presentation of evidence at the trial,
the petitioners elicited an admission from Graciano that he had none of the documents
mentioned in Article 278 to show that he was the illegitimate son of Apolinario
Uyguangco. These are "the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record,
or (in) any authentic writing." The petitioners thereupon moved for the dismissal of the
case on the ground that the private respondent could no longer prove his alleged
filiation under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code. Specifically, the petitioners
argued that the only evidence allowed under Article 278 to prove the private
respondents claim was not available to him as he himself had admitted. Neither could
he now resort to the provisions of Article 285 because he was already an adult when his
alleged father died in 1975, and his claim did not come under the exceptions.
ISSUE: whether or not he should be allowed to prove that he is an illegitimate child of
his claimed father, who is already dead, in the absence of the documentary evidence
required by the Civil Code.
HELD:
The illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation
by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his baptismal
certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered,
common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of
witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Since respondent seeks to prove his filiation under the second paragraph of
Article 172 of the Family Code, his action is now barred because of his alleged fathers
death in 1975. second paragraph of Article 175 reads as follows: The action must be
brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based
on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during
the lifetime of the alleged parent. It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be
allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the means
allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario

Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged
sons illegitimate filiation