Alavado v.
City of Tacloban As liability for a vehicular accident on March 16, 1976
139 SCRA 230
Facts:
-Ricardo was employed as a carpenter-foreman by the City
Engineer‘s Office of Tacloban City
-Last day of service was August 19, 1974. (On leave from
April 23 to May 23, 1974). On August 6, he went to work
only to supervise laborers but he suffered sever headache.
Died on August 7, the day after of Cerebral Hemorrage.
-W filed claim for death benefits, in her own behalf and of
minor children.
-The hearing officer in Tacloban City issued an award
granting W 5200php as death benefits and 200php as
burial reimbursement.
-Tacloban City appealed. On Nov 29, 1975, WCC
dismissed W‘s claim for death benefits on the ground of
―lack of filiation between claimant and deceased.‖
-According to WCC, Matilde only presented a marriage
certificate. MC is not an authentic proof of marital status.
She should show original Marriage Contract or
MCertificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar. For
filiation, her presentation of birth certificate is not enough.
BC is not authentic proof of kinship of the person
baptized.
--WCC said W failed to prove that she was leggaly
married to deceased because of a lack of marriage contract.
She only submitted was a copy of marriage cert issued by
church, which shows that they were married on August 9,
1939. They lived together for 35 years until death of H.
ISSUE: W the claimant and her children had the right to
claim death benefits of the deceased.
HELD: Yes.
-Courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great
favor. If such relationship was not denied or contradicted,
the presumption of marriage must be admitted as fact.
-public and open cohabitation as husband and wife, birth
certificate and baptismal certificate were held as
competent evidence.
-There is no evidence on record that will overthrow the
presumption of marriage.
-The marriage certificate is enough proof of marriage. It is
certified to be a true copy of the original issued by the
Local Civil registrar of City of Tacloban.
-The provisions of the WCC must be interpreted in favor
of laborers, WCC being a social legislation aimed at
protecting the rights of the workingmen.
WCC decision is set aside. Award is reinstated.
Modequillo vs Breva
185 SCRA 756
Facts:
which killed Audie Salinas and which injured Renato
Culan, Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay were ordered
to pay indemnity for damages to spouses Salinas and to
Juanito. Consequently on July 7, 1988, a writ of execution
and levy were issued against a parcel of residential lot and
an agricultural land, the titles of which were under the
name of Modequillo. Modequillo then motioned to quash,
alleging that the residential lot was their family home that
had been constituted since 1969, prior to the case and
hence exempt from liability by virtue of FC 155.
Held:
The family home is not exempt from liability.
Modequillo‘s house and lot were constituted as a family
home NOT under the NCC (by judicial or extrajudicial
means) but under the FC by operation of law when the FC
took effect on August 3, 1988. FC 162 provides that all
existing family residences at the time of the FC‘s
effectivity are considered family homes and are
prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to the
family home under the FC. FC 162 has a prospective
application. Hence, his family home was constituted only
on August 3, 1988 and not on 1969 when it was first
occupied as a family home. The accident took place on
March 16, 1976 and the judgment became final on Jan. 29,
1988, prior to the constitution of the family home in
August. Liability can thus be held against the family home.
Tan v. Trocio
191 SCRA 764
Facts:
- April 1971 – when as Felicidad said, Galileo Trocio
raped her which begot a son, Jewel
o Didn‘t immediately tell the police since Trocio was
thereatening to have her alien husband and to tell
authrorities that she was violating the Anti-Dummy Law in
operation of her vocational school
- Nov 1979 – Felicidad filed case of disbarment against
Atty. Trocio
o Trocio denied allegation of rape, only testifying that he
dealt her and her family‘s cases and said she was only
doing this because he declined on her request to increase
his fee so that she may get the extra.
- Feb 13 1986 – since Trocio failed to attend the hearings
etc, Provincial fiscal of Lanao Del Norte, on prima facie
evidence presented, held Trocio administratively liable.
ISSUE: WON Trocio should be disbarred for gross
immoral conduct
HELD: NO, there is lack of evidence
1
- After incident, she still asked him to be the lawyer for her
cases such as a robbery case
and her claim for indeminity when a fire burned down the
school
- The fear that her alien husband would be deported has
actually been an absent fear since she said she lost contact
of her husband on the night the tryst happened.
- Keeping her peace for 8 years could be construed as a
condonation of his alleged immoral conduct. Testimony of
household help that they heard her cries for help is negated
by fact that she said it happened in school premises. How
could the help have been there then?
- INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT WAS
HIS SON: (1) unusual closeness as testified by her
household help (2) pictures of Jewel and Trocio
together = not enough ground to establish paternity
Presumption is Jewel is the child of the alien husband
since he was born on 1972 when husband and Felicidad
were living together.
Angeles vs Maglaya
469 SCRA 363
Facts:
- Nov 20, 1939 – when Aleli Maglaya was born
- 1948 – when deceased Francisco married Belen Angeles
- 1988 – when her mother Genoveva died
- March 1998 – when Aleli Maglaya filed in Rtv –
Caloocan petition to be made administratix of late
Francisco Angeles‘ estate since she is sole legitimate
daughter of Francisco. This was contested by his wife
Belen Angeles.
- RTC: Aleli failed to prove filiation
- CA: reversed decision and said that Aleli was indeed a
legitimate child of Francisco and Genoveva
ISSUE: WON CA erred in declaring Aleli as a legitimate
child
HELD: YES
- Law applied: FC 164 – ―children conceived or born
during the marriage of parents are legitimate‖
- Aleli never showed any evidence of a marriage existing
between Francisco and Genoveva. In fact, if they did
marry, it would have rendered Francisco‘s marriage to
Belen as bigamouse. However, Aleli herself recognized
Belen as the surviving spouse in her petition for letters of
administration
o Without evidence of marriage, one can’t presume
Aleli to be legitimate child
- CA erred in declaring that birth certificate indubitably
establishes legitimacy
o In order for legitimacy to be established, birth certificate
must bear the signatures of BOTH mother and father. Only
attending physician‘s signature was in the certificate. Thus
it only showed the fact of birth of a child and not
legitimacy
- Papers and photogrpahs that show Francisco Angeles as
her father is not sufficient enough to prove filiation.
RESULT: at best, could only be declared a natural child
and NOT a legitimate child.
- SSS vs. Aguas
ISSUE: WON Janet and Jeylynn are legitimate daughters
of Pablo?
HELD: Only Jeylynn is
- Jeylynn – proven by birth certificate where signature of
Pablo is present and the fact that she was born on 1991
when marriage between Pablo and Rosana who were
married on 1977 was still susbsisting
o Pablo never once questioned legitimacy of Jeylynn
o Presumption of legitimacy, conditions that husband may
contest (398)
- Janet – birth certificate shown was only photocopy with
no confirmation by civil register regarding her date of
birth. Thus if one can‘t show that one is born during the
marriage then can‘t be presumed legitimate
Said that she was adopted but no papers to prove it and
only legally adopted children are considered dependent
children. Thus she can‘t be a beneficiary.
SSS vs. Aguas, G.R. 165546
Feb. 27, 2006
FACTS:
Pablo Aguas, SSS member and pensioner, died 12/8/96.
Pablo‘s surviving spouse, respondent Rosanna filed a
claim with SSS for death benefits. She indicated in her
claim that Pablo was likewise survived by his minor child,
Jeylynn, born 10/29/91
4/97, SSS received a sworn letter from Pablo‘s sister
Letecia contesting Rosanna‘s claim for death benefits,
alleged that Rosanna abandoned the family abode more
than 6 years before the and lived w/ another man, de la
Pena; Pablo had no legal children w/ Rosanna. Letecia
enclosed birth cert of Jefren – born 11/15/96 to Rosanna
and de la Pena and that the 2 were married 11/1/90
Rosanna contends that Jeylynn was a legitimate child of
Pablo as evidenced by her birth cert bearing Pablo‘s
signature as father
Janet, who also claimed to be the child of deceased and
Rosanna, joined as claimant. It appears in her birth cert
that her father was Pablo and her mother was Rosanna.
SSS summoned several persons; some stated that spouses‘
real child was Jeylynn, Janet was only an adopted child but
there were no legal papers.
2
SSS ruled that Rosanna was no longer qualified as
claimant. As for Jeylynn and Janet, they were not Pablo‘s
legitimate children.
ISSUE: WON Jeylynn ad Janet are legitimate children of
deceased (thus entitled to death benefits)
HELD:
YES (Jeylynn); NO (Janet)
Jeylynn‘s claim is justified by her birth cert w/c bears
Pablo‘s signature (showing she was born 10/29/91;
Rosanna and Pablo were married 12/4/77 and marriage
subsisted until latter‘s death on 12/8/96). Under A164, FC,
children conceived or born during the marriage of parents
are legitimate.
Presumption of legitimacy can‘t extend to Janet because
her date of birth wasn‘t substantially proven. Under
RA1161, only ―legally adopted‖ children are considered
dependent children.
Rivera vs Heirs of Villanueva
GR No. 141501, July 21, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners are allegedly half-brothers, half-sis-in-law and
children of a half-brother of deceased PACITA.
Respondents are allegedly siblings, full and half-blood of
ROMUALDO; respondents are denominated as heirs of
Romualdo. Respondent Angelina is allegedly the daughter
of Pacita and Romualdo.
From 1927 until her death in 1980, Pacita cohabited w/
Romualdo w/out the benefit of marriage because the latter
was married to Musngi who died on 4/20/63. In the course
of their cohabitation, they acquired several properties.
Pacita died 7/3/80 without leaving a will.
8/8/80, Romualdo and respondent Angelina executed a
deed of extrajudicial partition w/sale (an extrajudicial
settlement of Pacita‘s estate). Petitioners filed a case for
partition of Pacita‘s estate and annulment of
titles. RTC made 2 findings 1) Pacita was never married to
Romualdo 2) respondent Angelina was her illegitimate
child by Romualdo
ISSUE: WON respondent Angelina was illegitimate
daughter of Pacita
HELD:
NO, a closer examination of the birth cert reveals that
respondent Angelina was listed as ―adopted‖ by both
Pacita and Romualdo. And mere registration of a child in
his birth cert as the child of the supposed parents is not a
valid adoption, it does not confer upon the child the status
of an adopted child and the legal rights of such child.
Thus, she can‘t inherit from Pacita.
Pacita was 44 y.o., on the verge of menopause at the time
of the alleged birth; Pacita had been living childless
w/Romualdo for 20 years
Moore v. Republic
8 SCRA
Facts: Petitioner Elaine Moore (American citizen) is
married with Joseph Velarde (also American) had a son
out of wedlock William Michael Velarde (now 14 yrs old)
born also at US.
Said marriage however was dissolved through a decree of
divorce from SC of California on 5/31/49. Elaine had 2nd
marriage with Don Moore on 9/29/56 at LA, CA. William
(minor) lived with them.
Elaine filed @ CFI Rizal a motion to have her child‘s
surname be changed into Moore instead of Velarde. TC
denied such petition therefore this appeal.
Issue: Government of the Phil. Opposed such petition with
the following issues a) WON law permits minor to adopt
surname of the 2nd husband of his mother b) WON
justifiable reason exists to allow change of name c) WON
mother has the authority to ask such
Held: Regarding the 1st issue, RP said that through NCC
364 legitimate child should use the surname of his father.
NCC 369 moreover cites that in case of annulment, child
conceived before such decree shall use the surname of his/
her father. Likewise, same concept rules over decree of
divorce; therefore law does NOT sanction such change of
name. SC upheld such position, saying that confusion may
arise wrt (with respect to) paternity and that said change
may even redound to the prejudice of the child. Moreover,
the child is still a minor and therefore aforesaid action is
premature. Said child may in his mature age decide for
himself to instigate such change of name.
Naldoza v. Republic
112 SCRA 658
Facts: Zosima Naldoza married Dionesio Divinagracia on
5/30/70. They had 2 children: Jr. and Bombi Roberto.
Dionesio abandoned conjugal home after Zosima
confronted him about his previous marriage. Also, he
allegedly swindled 50k from Rep. Maglana and 10k from a
certain Galagar, etc.
Classmates of Jr. and Bombi were teasing them because of
their swindler father. To obliterate any connection between
her children and Dionesio (thereby relieving the kids of the
remarks of classmates), Zosima filed @ CFI Bohol on
4/10/78 a petition to change surname of her 2 children
from Divinagracia into Naldoza (her maiden name).
TC dismissed pet. saying that aforementioned reasons
(swindling, abandoning, previous marriage of Dionesio
3
<but their marriage has not yet been annulled nor declared
bigamous> ) were not sufficient grounds to invoke such
change of surname. Furthermore, change of name would
give false impression of family relations.
Issue: WON two children‘s prayer to drop their father‘s
surname is justified
Held: NO. Following NCC 364, since Jr. and Bombi are
LC (legitimate children), therefore they should use their
father‘s surname. Said minors and their father should be
consulted about such, mother‘s desire should not only be
the sole consideration. Change of name is allowed only
upon proper and reasonable cause (Rule 103 Sec 5 ROC).
Change of name may even redound to the prejudice of the
children later on, may cause confusion as to the minor‘s
parentage and might also create the impression that said
minors are ICs, which is inconsistent with their legal
status.
In Oshita v. Republic and in Alfon v. Republic, their
petition to change names have been granted, but
petitioners in said cases have already attained mature age.
In this case, when these minors have attained the right age,
then they can already file said action for themselves.
Ong vs CA
272 SCRA 725
FACTS:
-Respondents Alferdo Ong Jr. and Robert Ong are children
of Saturnina Caballes allegedly by Manuel Ong.
-Manuel (representing himself as Alfredo Go) was
introduced to Saturnina by Vicente Sy and Constancia Lim
(in 1953 at a night club in cebu). They had a relationship
and lived together for 4 months. It was also established
that prior to meeting Manuel, Saturnina cohabited with a
paralytic.
-Alfredo Ong Jr. (registered as Alfredo Go Jr.) was born in
1955 and Robert Ong (registered as Roberto Caballes)
1956. Roberto is surnamed Caballes because the midwife
informed Saturnina that it should be the case since she
weren‘t married with Manuel. Manuel‘s support dwindled.
He stopped seeing her. She discovered his identity and
asked for support but he refused.
-In 1961 they asked for support but Manuel denied them.
In two occasions Dolores Dy, Manuel‘s commonlaw wife,
treated private respondents like close relatives of Manuel
Ong by giving them on November 2, 1979 and January 6,
1977 tokens of affection, such as family pictures of
Dolores Dy and Manuel Ong and by visiting them in their
house on A. Lopez Street in 1980.
-Manuel Ong also gave money to Alfredo, first, as the
latter‘s high school graduation gift and second, for the
latter‘s educational support. Manuel Ong even told Alfredo
to comeback with a list of what he needs for school but
when he came back with some friends in September 1982,
Manuel turned down his request and ordered him to leave
and threatened to call the police if he did not leave.
-September 30, 1982, Alfredo filed a complaint for
recognition and support against Manuel Ong. The
complaint was amended on November 25, 1982 to include
Robert as co-plaintiff. Manuel died in May 1990 while the
case is pending.
TC-declared Alfredo and Robert illegitimate children of
Manuel in accordance with Art. 283, pars. 2 and 4 of the
Civil Code.
CA-affirm TC, cited Art. 283, par. 3 as an additional
ground for ordering the recognition of private respondents
as illegitimate children.
Issue: WON Alfredo and Roberto are illegitimate children
of Manuel
Held/Ratio:
Yes. Alfredo and Roberto are sons of Manuel.
Using Article 283 Paragraph. 4 (The father is obliged to
recognize) When the child has in his favor any evidence or
proof that the defendant is his father .
Art. 283 operates as a blanket provision covering all cases
in the preceding ones, so that evidence, even though
insufficient to constitute proof under the other paragraphs,
may nonetheless be enough to qualify the case under par.
4.
In this case, the testimony of Saturnina Caballes that she
had illicit sexual relation with Manuel Ong over a long
period (1954-1957) which, had it been openly done, would
have constituted cohabitation under par. 3 is proof that
private respondents were conceived and born during such
relationship and constitutes evidence of Ong‘s paternity.
This relationship was further established through the
testimony of Constancia Lim. The evidence for private
respondents is not negated by the admission of Saturnina
Caballes that she had relation with another man before,
because the relationship terminated at least a year before
the birth of Alfredo Ong, Jr. and two years before the birth
of the second child Robert Caballes.
SC agree that this DOES NOT fall in Art 283 (2) When the
child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the
alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or his family--
- the times during which Manuel Ong met Alfredo and
gave the latter money cannot be considered proof of
continuous possession of the status of a child. The father‘s
conduct toward his son must be spontaneous and
uninterrupted for this ground to exist.
Does NOT fall in Art 283 (3) When the child was
conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with
the supposed father----------While Saturnina Caballes
testified that she and Manuel Ong lived together for four
months as husband and wife in order to justify a finding of
4
cohabitation, the relationship was not open and public so
as to constitute cohabitation.
Petitioner claims that Manuel is sterile (due to illness
during World War). For despite living with 2 other
women, Dolores and Victoria Veloria (later established as
Victoria Balili) but they didn‘t have a child. CA dismissed
this for there is no medical proof and Manuel
acknowledged a Lourdes Balili (born 1939) as his natural
child with a Victoria Balili.
An adult male is presumed to have normal powers of
virility and the burden of evidence to prove the contrary
rests upon him who claims otherwise. Petitioner has not
overcome this presumption
Osmeña de Valencia v. Rodriguez
84 Phil 222
Facts:
- Plaintiffs say that they are the legitimate children of the
defendant Pio Valencia in the latter‘s lawful wedlock with
plaintiff Catalina Osmena
- Defendants on the otherhand are the illegitimate children
of defendant Pio Valencia with Emilia Rodriguez his
common-law wife.
- Plaintiffs allege that they alone have the right to the
surname ―Valencia‖
Issues: WON the illegitimate children could use the
surname Valencia
Held: Yes
Ratio: This cannot happen since if plaintiffs were correct
then they could stop numerous inhabitants from using the
surname Valencia as well. Moreover, Pio Valencia has
acquiesced to this as well. Finally, there is no law granting
the exclusive ownership over a surname.
Uyguangco vs CA
178 SCRA 684
Facts: Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975,
leaving his wife, four legitimate children and properties
which they divided among themselves. Graciano
Uyguangco filed a complaint for partition against the
petitioners, claiming that as the illegitimate son of the
deceased and a Anastacia Bacjao, he must not be left out
of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate. He also claims
that he received support from his father while in high
school and was also assigned by his father as storekeeper
at the Uyguangco store.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
Graciano could not prove his alleged filiation having none
of the documents required in Art. 278 of the NCC (i.e.
record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record
or in any authentic writing. Neither may he resort to Art.
285 of the NCC because he was already an adult when his
alleged dad died.
Graciano insists however, that he is ―in continuous
possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by
the direct acts of the latter or of his family‖ as is under Art.
283 of the NCC.
Issue: WON Graciano may adequately prove filiation.
Held: NO
Ratio:
The Civil Code provisions they invoke have been
superseded or at least modified by the corresponding
articles n the FC.
Since illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children (Art 175), Graciano may establish his
filiation by the means given in Art. 172. Thus while he has
no record of birth appearing in the civil registrar or a final
judgment or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed
by the parent concerned, he insists that he has nevertheless
been ―in an open and continuous possession of the status
of an illegitimate child,‖ which is admissible as evidence of
filiation under Art. 172.
As proof to this open and continuous possession—he
claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973,
received support from him, used the name Uyguangco
without objection, a special power of attorney executed in
his favor by Apolinario‘s wife, and another one by Suplcio
Uyguangco, shared in the profits of the copra family
business of the Uyguangco‘s and was even given a share in
his deceased father‘s estate as found in the addendum to
the original extrajudicial settlement concluded by the
petitioners.
However, since his father has already died, his action is
now barred as Art. 172 specifically requires that when the
action is based on other proofs of filiation such as open
and continuous possession, the action must be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
Ruling: Petition Granted.
Mangulabnan v. IAC
185 SCRA 760
Facts: Edna Padilla Mangulabnan filed an action for
damages and support for her child Alfie Angelo. The TC
ordered Ambrocio Tan Chew Acero to pay monthly
support. He then moved for a reconsideration but was
denied on December 5, 1984. CA annulled the orders of
the TC on the ground that even as to illegitimate children
who are not natural children, there is a need for the latter
class of children (spurious children) to be recognized
either voluntarily or by judicial decree, otherwise they
cannot demand support as in the case of an acknowledged
child.
5
Issue: WON recognition of an illegitimate child like the
minor Alfie whose father is married and had no legal
capacity to contract marriage at the time of his
conception is required before support may be granted.
Held: NO
Ratio: The requirement for recognition by father or
mother jointly or by only one of them as provided by law
refers in particular to a natural child under Article 276 of
the NCC. Such child is presumed to be the natural child of
the parents recognizing it who had the legal capacity to
contract marriage at the time of conception. Thus, an
illegitimate child like Alfie is not a natural child but an
illegitimate child or spurious child in which case
recognition is not required before support may be granted.
However, under Article 887 of the NCC, in all cases of
illegitimate children, their filiation must be proved. The
status of the minor child had been provisionally
established as affidavits of petitioner and 2 witnesses, and
the birth certificate were presented to prove the paternity
of the child.
Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 675, September 24, 199
Facts:
1981: Private Respondent, Teopista Toring claims to be
the illegitimate child of the petitioner, Casimiro Mendoza.
She alleges that she was born on Aug. 20, 1930 to a
Brigida Toring who was then single while Casimiro was
married to Emiliana Barrientos
Her mother was the one who told her that she was his
child.
She added that growing up, she was recognized because
she was treated as such.
Called him ―Papa Miroy‖, she used to visit him at his
house, Casimiro helped her and her husband: he bought a
truck for him to drive and when he sold it, gave the
proceeds to the spouses, PR‘s son, Lolito, was allowed to
build a house on his lot, He opened a joint savings account
with her as co-depositor
She had two witnesses:
Gaudencio Mendoza (cousin of Casimiro) was informed
by petitioner himself that he and Brigida Toring were
sweethearts. Gaudencio was the one whom Casimiro
would send to give money to Toring when Teopista was
born.
Isaac Mendoza (nephew of Casimiro) was informed by
his father (Hipolito, Casimiro’s brother) and his
grandmother, Brigida Mendoza. He also delivered
money to Teopista.
Petitioner denied her claims up to his dying day. (May,
1986)
Vicente Toring, who is the recognized illegitimate child of
Petitioner and Brigida Toring, says that petitioner is only
his half-sister because she has a different father.
He substitutes for Mendoza in this case after petitioner
died.
RTC: rules for petitioner because private respondent failed
to show enough evidence to prove of her filiation.
CA: reversed decision. The two witnesses showed
truthfulness, there is no reason for them to testify falsely.
Vicente Toring would obviously have more to lose if
petitioner wins this case so he has a motive.
Issue: W/N Teopista is Casimiro Mendoza‘s illegitimate
child?
Held: YES.
Ratio:
Although Teopista failed to show that she was in an open
and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate
child of Casimiro, she has nevertheless established that
status by another method.
FC 175 grants the right of illegitimate children to establish
their filiation in the same way as legitimate children. FC
172(2) allows them to prove filiation by ―any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws‖.
In the case at bar, the RTC failed to consider the
testimony of Isaac Mendoza as another method of
establishing status.
Rule 130, Sec. 39, of the Rules of Court discusses the act
or declarations about pedigree being allowed as evidence.
It has to conform to 4 requisites so it won‘t be considered
hearsay:
1.The declarant is dead or unable to testify Brigida and
Hipolito Mendoza passed away at the time Isaac testified
in court.
2.The pedigree must be in issue
Main issue of case!
3.The declaration must be made before the controversy
arose
Isaac knew about this before PR filed in court
4.The relationship between the declarant
(Brigida/Hipolito) and person whose pedigree is in
question
Casimiro) must be shown in evidence other than
declaration.
Presentation of extrajudicial partition of the estate of
Florencio Mendoza where Casimiro is an heir.
This, including the other evidence presented by PR and
witnesses shows that she is the illegitimate daughter of
Casimiro
Lim vs. Court of Appeals
270 SCRA 1, March 18, 1997
FACTS:
Maribel‘s Story
6
o Maribel met Raymond during her first night as a
receptionist at Tonight‘s Club and Resthouse along Roxas
Blvd.
o Petitioner wooed her and they soon lived together, with
petitioner paying the rentals in a succession of apartments
o Maribel left for Japan in July 1981, already pregnant
o Returned to Manila in October 1981
o Couple never married because petitioner claimed that he
wasn‘t financially stable
o Maribel gave birth on January 17, 1982
o Bill for confinement were paid by Raymond
o Raymond caused the registration of the name Joanna
Rose C. Pe Lim on the child‘s birth certificate
o Raymond‘s feelings towards Maribel waned
o Maribel filed a complaint against Raymond for support
Raymond‘s Story
o He met Maribel in 1978 at Tonight‘s Club and Resthouse
o Maribel started to kiss him on the cheeks and neck,
whispering to him that they could go anywhere and rest
o He declined saying that he only wanted someone to talk
to
o They became friends, there was no intimacy
o Alleged that he wasn‘t Maribel‘s only customer at the
club
o In 1980, she left for Japan to work as an entertainer
o In 1981, she returned to Manila pregnant and appealed to
Raymond for help because she claimed that she couldn‘t
face her relatives in her condition
o Raymond got her an apartment and paid its rentals until
she gave birth on Jan. 17, 1982
o Raymond admits paying the bills but claims that Maribel
was supposed to pay him back for it
o When she failed to do so, he stopped seeing her
o Raymond denies being the father of Maribel‘s child
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Maribel (granted
support)
CA affirmed
ISSUES:
WON Raymond is the father of Joanna Rose
HELD:
Yes
o Letter 1
―In return, I promise to be a loving & caring husband
& father to both of you.‖
Raymond considered himself to be the father of Joanna
Contrary to his vehement assertion that he Maribel were
just friends
o Letter 2 (Aug. 11, 1981)
Petitioner lovingly told Maribel to take care of herself
because of her ―situation,‖ obviously referring to the state
of pregnancy
o It was only after Raymond separated from Maribel that
he started to deny paternity of Joanna Rose
o He didn‘t object to being identified as Joanna Rose‘s
father as disclosed in the Certificate of Live Birth
o Art. 175: Illegitimate filiation may be established in the
same way and on the same evidence as legit children
o Art. 172(1): The filiation of legitimate children is
established by (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil
register
Other evidences: Pictures of Raymond cuddling Joanna
Rose
Eceta vs. Eceta
428 SCRA 782, May 20, 2004
Facts:
1) Certiorari of CA affirmation of RTC ruling awarding
1/8 portion of disputed property to я illegitimate daughter
Ma. Theresa Eceta.
2) ℗ Rosalina Eceta marries Isaac Eceta in 1926, they
acquire several properties including disputed property in
Cubao. They also have a legitimate son Vicente.
3) Isaac dies in 67‘ leaving properties to Rosalina and
Vicente
4) Vicenta dies in 77‘ leaving an illegitimate child я Ma.
Theresa (Ma. Theresa illegitimate for being born to
unmarried parents).
5) Vicente‘s heirs are his mother Rosalina and his
illegitimate daughter Ma. Theresa.
6) 91‘ Ma. Theresa files for Partition and Accounting w/
damages for the Cubao property citing her co-ownership
thereof by being an heir to Vicente.
7) Rosalina avers that the property is her exclusive
property.
8) During the pre-trial parties admitted their relationship as
grandmother and grand daughter.
9) RTC rules for Ma. Theresa awarding her ¼ of the
property
10) ℗Rosalina appeals to CA they affirm the decision but
modify it by awarding the я 1/8 only.
Issues:
WON the certified Xerox of a Xerox of the birth
certificate is competent evidence of filiation.
WON the admission made by the ℗ that я is her grand
daughter is enough to prove filiation.
Held:
Yes and Yes, duly authenticated birth certificate signed by
Vicente is competent evidence of filiation. So are the
following:
-The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
final judgment
7
-An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document
or a private hand written instrument signed by the parent
concerned.
In the absence thereof;
-the open and continuous possession of the status of
legitimate child
-Any other means allowed by the rules of court and special
laws (record of birth, will, court statement, any authentic
writing). All of w/c do not require a separate action for
judicial approval.
Briones vs. Miguel
440 SCRA 455, October 18, 2004
Facts:
1) Review of CA decision awarding custody of minor
child to mother (custody til child reaches age 10 then he is
to choose w/c parent he wants to stay with) w/ visitation
rights to the ℗ Father, Joey D. Briones.
2) Mar 5, 02‘ ℗ files for Habeas Corpus claiming the child
was visited by яs Maricel and Francisca Miguel relatives
of the mother of the child, я Loreta Miguel, under the
pretext of taking the child to SM, then they did not return.
3) ℗ claims that he extensively looked for the child but
failed so he was compelled to file for habeas corpus.
4) Я mother Loreta alleges that the child was not taken as
he was fetched by her w/ the ℗ consent.
5) Я and ℗ met in Japan and had a relationship together
w/c bore the child Michael Kevin Pineda (relationship
eventually soured accd‘g to я Loreta because of ℗ illicit
relationship w/ another woman, я now married to Japanese
national).
6) ℗ petitions for joint custody when the mom я Loreta is
away.
Issues:
WON the natural father of an illegitimate child may be
denied custody of his own child.
Held:
Yes, the child being born outside of a legitimate marriage
is considered illegitimate since his illegitimacy is not cured
by his parent‘s later marriage. As such he is covered by
Art 176 of the family code that mentions among other
things that a mother shall have ―parental authority‖ over
the illegitimate child, regardless of whether the father
acknowledges paternity over the child. Acknowledgment
of paternity is only a means of compelling support for the
child not entitling custody. Moreover the Family Code
does not distinguish b/w the natural and spurious nature of
the illegitimate child as they are treated in the same
category. Furthermore absent any compelling reason for
depriving я Loreta custody over the child (such as neglect
or abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual
drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child,
insanity, and affliction w/ a communicable disease)
custody shall remain w/ the mother, with the father granted
visitation rights.
(action moot since child off to Japan during the
pendency of the action)
Alba vs. Herrera
GR No. 148220, July 29, 2005
Facts:
14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba,
represented by his mother Armi Alba before the trial court
a petition for compulsory recognition, support and
damages against petitioner (Rosendo Herrera)
Rosendo Herrera denied that he is the biological father
of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with
respondent‘s mother
Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA
paternity. respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina
C. Halos, Ph.D who testified that the test is 99.99%
accurate
Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended
that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further
argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against
self-incrimination
trial court and CA granted the motion to conduct DNA
paternity testing
Issue:
Petitioner raises the issue of whether a DNA test is a valid
probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation.
Petitioner asks for the conditions under which DNA
technology may be integrated into our judicial system and
the prerequisites for the admissibility of DNA test results
in a paternity suit
Relevant Provisions
The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as
follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children.
xxx
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed
by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
8
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree.
The relevant sections of Rule 130 provide:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.—The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in
respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by
birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship
between the two persons is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The word ―pedigree‖ includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and
the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family
history intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding
pedigree.—The reputation or tradition existing in a family
previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles
or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family
portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree.
Held:
By 2002, there was no longer any question on the
validity of the use of DNA analysis as
evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according
―official recognition‖ to DNA analysis as evidence to the
issue of observance of procedures in conducting DNA
analysis - People v. Vallejo
Facts:
The reason for this case is that Aleli Maglaya filed a
petition for appointment as administratrix of the intestate
estate of Francisco M. Angeles because she (respondent) is
the sole legitimate child of the deceased and Genoveva
Mercado, and, together with petitioner, Belen S. Angeles,
decedent‘s wife by his second marriage, are the surviving
heirs of the decedent
Belen, the second wife averred that Aleli is not the
daughter of Francisco because the birth certificate was not
signed by him. Furthermore, she alleges that Aleli has not
presented the marriage contract between her supposed
parents or produced any acceptable document to prove
such union
Respondent testified having been born on November 20,
1939 as the legitimate child of Francisco M. Angeles and
Genoveva Mercado, who died in January 1988
She also testified having been in open and continuous
possession of the status of a legitimate child.
Four (4) other witnesses testified on her behalf, namely:
Tomas Angeles,[6] Francisco Yaya,[7] Jose O. Carreon[8]
and Paulita Angeles de la Cruz.[9] Respondent also
offered in evidence her birth certificate which contained an
It all boils down to evidence and it’s admissibility
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in
issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules
of Court.[48] Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence.[49] Section 49 of Rule 130,
which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides as follows
o The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown
to possess may be received in evidence
o This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the
admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even
evidence on collateral matters is allowed ―when it tends
in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue
The court goes on to discuss the Vallejo case on the
caution with the method employed in the actual testing
DNA.
o In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
therefore, courts should consider, among other things, the
following data: how the samples were collected, how they
were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
whether the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests
Nevertheless, the petition is dismissed
Angeles vs. Maglaya
469 SCRA 363, September 2, 2005
entry stating that she was born at the Mary Johnston
Hospital, Tondo, Manila, to Francisco Angeles and
Genoveva Mercado and whereon the handwritten word
―Yes‖ appears on the space below the question
―Legitimate? (Legitimo?)‖; pictures taken during
respondent‘s wedding as bride to Atty. Guillermo T.
Maglaya; and a copy of her marriage contract. Likewise
offered were her scholastic and government service
records
Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground that filiation
was not fully proved
Trial court ruled that respondent failed to prove filiation
CA reversed and set aside the decision of RTC
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is the legitimate child of
decedent Francisco M. Angeles and Genoveva Mercado
Held:
The Tison case, established that: (a) a child is presumed
legitimate only if conceived or born in wedlock; and (b)
the presumptive legitimacy of such child cannot be
attacked collaterally
9
 the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the
Family Code[20] may be availed only upon convincing
proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the child‘s
parents were legally married and that his/her conception or
birth occurred during the subsistence of that marriage.
Else, the presumption of law that a child is legitimate does
not arise
Only basis for establishing filiation by the CA was
respondent‘s gratuitous assertion and an entry in her
certificate of birth.
There is absolutely no proof of the decedent‘s marriage
to respondent‘s mother, Genoveva Mercado. To stress, no
marriage certificate or marriage contract – doubtless the
best evidence of Francisco‘s and Genoveva‘s marriage, if
one had been solemnized[21] – was offered in evidence.
No priest, judge, mayor, or other solemnizing authority
was called to the witness box to declare that he solemnized
the marriage between the two. None of the four (4)
witnesses respondent presented could say anything about,
let alone affirm, that supposed marriage. At best, their
testimonies proved that respondent was Francisco‘s
daughter
respondent has not even presented a witness to testify
that her putative parents really held themselves out to the
public as man-and-wife
she did not even allege that the marriage to Belen was
bigamous hence negating her own
assertion that her ―mother and father‖ were in a valid
marriage
Respondent had declared that her mother Genoveva died
in 1988, implying, quite clearly, that when Francisco
contracted marriage with petitioner Belen S. Angeles in
1948, Genoveva and Francisco were already ―spouses‖.
Now, then, if, as respondent maintained despite utter
lack of evidence, that Genoveva Mercado and Francisco
were married in 1938, it follows that the marriage of
Francisco to petitioner Belen Angeles in 1948, or prior to
Genoveva‘s death, would necessarily have to be bigamous
Hence the resolution of the CA is reversed and set aside
Verceles vs. Posada
G.R. No. 161338, April 27, 2007
Facts
Maria Clarissa Posada was employed in the office of
Mayor Teofisto Verceles, a close family friend.
November 11, 1986: Teofisto tried to flirt with Clarissa
while in a hotel restaurant when they were supposedly
attending a conference, but Clarissa managed to escape
and leave the hotel immediately.
December 22, 1986: Teofisto requested Clarissa to brief
him on the progress of barangay projects in his hotel. Once
again, Teofisto made his advances, offered her a position.
This time, Clarissa succumbed.
September 23, 1987: Verna Aiza Posada was born to
Clarissa.
October 23, 1987: Clarissa and her parents sued
Teofisto for damages.
Pertinent Issue
1. W/N filiation of Verna was sufficiently established
2. W/N filiation can be resolved in an action for damages
with support pendente lite
Held
1. YES
2. YES
Ratio
1. Any authentic writing is a ground for compulsory
recognition and is in itself a voluntary recognition of
filiation that does
not require a separate action for judicial approval. The
handwritten letters of Teofisto in response to Clarissa‘s
confession of her pregnancy, two of which were in his
letterhead as Mayor, are conclusive that he had sired
Verna. His handwriting was also proven by comparison
with the pictures of his youth and as a public servant he
had given Clarissa that bear his handwritten notes at the
back. Moreover, in his Memorandum he admitted his affair
with Clarissa, his exchange of love letters, and his giving
money during her pregnancy. Hence, under FC172(2), his
private handwritten letters suffice to establish his paternity.
He did not present evidence of his own to rebut Clarissa‘s
evidence.
2. Although the caption states ―Damages coupled with
Support pendente lite,‖ the caption is not determinative of
its nature of a pleading where Clarissa‘s averments
(meeting with Teofisto, his offer of a job, his amorous
advances, her seduction, their trysts, her pregnancy, birth
of her child, his letters, her demand for support of the
child) were essentially a case for recognition of paternity.
Petition denied.
People vs Umanito
GR No. 172607, Oct. 26, 2007
Facts:
On July 15, 1989, Rufino Umanito allegedly raped AAA
(name withheld), for which he was on October 15, 1997.
Although AAA was an unmarried woman, 12-18 years of
age and of good reputation, Rufino contended that she was
actually impregnated by her married lover; that her mother
only prodded her to accuse him; that he was at home the
10
whole day of July 15, 1989, working in their picture frame
family business; that he courted AAA but they were not
sweethearts. On the other hand, AAA claimed that she met
Rufino only on the day of the rape but later claimed that
they were actually friends, and later, that they were
actually close friends.
Issue: WON Rufino is guilty of rape
Held:
Relevant to the determination of Rufino‘s guilt is the
filiation of AAA‘s child who was born out of the alleged
rape. Hence, Rufino‘s paternity over the child is key to his
acquittal. SC thus ordered Rufino, AAA and child to
subject themselves to DNA testing and remanded the case
to the RTC for reception of DNA evidence under the New
Rule on DNA Evidence, Sections 4, 5, 7, and 8. (The New
Rule on DNA Evidence took effect on October 15, 2007.)
By doing so, SC acknowledges the strong weight of DNA
testing as exculpatory evidence in determining filiation,
reiterating its rulings in People v. Yalar, Tijing v. CA,
Herrera v. Alba, and Tecson v. COMELEC. This is
because DNA is composed of two copies: one copy from
each parent, and each DNA configuration is unique to a
person.
Montefalcon v Vasquez
GR No. 165016, June 17, 2008
Facts:
1999 – Dolores Montefalcon filed with RTC-Naga for
acknowledgment and support by Ronnie Vasquez of their
son Laurence as his illegitimate child
3 summons were delivered to Vasquez all of which
remained unanswered
2001 – court, taking Vasquez‘ silence as truth to the
allegations, declared Laurence as his illegitimate child and
ordered him to support the child. Vasquez resurfaced after
this decision and appealed it. Thus the case.
ISSUE: WON Laurence is the illegitimate child of
Vasquez
HELD: YES, and is thus entitled to support.
FC Article 172, the filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following: (1) through record of
birth appearing in the civil register or a final order
This is evidenced by Laurence‘ record of live birth which
Vasquez signed and supplied the data.
FC Article 195 - parent is obliged to support his
illegitimate child.
Support comprises everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance,
education and transportation, in keeping with the financial
capacity of the family
RESULT: decision of RTC on legitimacy and support is
reinstated.
Art. 166. 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;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living
separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not
possible; or
(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
(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.
Andal v. Macaraig
89 Phil 165 Facts:
- Jan 1941 – Emiliano Andal ,who was married to Maria
Duenas, became sick with tuberculosis. His brother Felix
went to live with them to help them with the farm.
- Sept 10 1942, Maria eloped with Felix and lived together
from 1942-1943
- Jan 1, 1943 Emiliano died. Maria didn‘t attend the
funeral
- June 17, 1943 – Maria gave birth to Mariano Andal
- Maria then filed for recovery of land that was originally
given to Emiliano by his mother upon his marriage to
Maria. Maria said that the land is her son‘s since he is the
legitimate heir of Emiliano.
ISSUE: WON Mariano is the legitimate son and can thus
inherit the land
HELD: YES
- Art 108 of NCC - Children born after the one hundred
and eighty days next following that of the celebration of
marriage or within the three hundred days next following
its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be
presumed to be legitimate.
o Emiliano is presumed to be legitimate sine he was born
within 300 days following the dissolution of marriage.
- Evidence did not show that Emiliano, even when he was
sick of tuberculosis, could not sexually perform so even if
Maria was having an affair even before eloping with Felix,
it is still presumed that Mariano is Emilianos‘ son.
RESULT: son is the legit heir and thus inherits the land of
his father
11
Macadangdang v. CA
- FACTS:
o Mejias is married to Anahaw
o Majias allegedly had intercourse with Macadangdang
sometime in March 1967
o Due to the affair, she and her husband separated in 1967
o October 30, 1967: Mejias gave birthday to a boy
(Rolando Macadangdang)
o April 25, 1972: Mejias filed a complaint for recognition
and support against Macadangdang
o Macadangdang opposed claim and prayed for its
dismissal
o Court dismissed the complaint
o CA reversed the judgment and declared Rolando to be an
illegitimate son of Antonio Macadangdang.
- G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005
- ISSUES:
o Whether or not the child Rolando is conclusively
presumed the legitimate issue of the spouses Elizabeth
Mejias and Crispin Anahaw; and
o Whether or not the wife may institute an action that
would bastardize her child without giving her husband, the
legally presumed father, an opportunity to be heard.
- married on Dec 10, 1980 and which was never annulled.
- HELD:
o YES
The birth of Rolando came more than one hundred
eighty 180 days following the celebration of the said
marriage and before 300 days following the alleged
separation between aforenamed spouses. Art. 255:
Rolando is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son
of Mejias and Anahaw
Rolando was born on October 30, 1967. Between
March, 1967 and October 30, 1967,
the time difference is clearly 7 months. The baby Rolando
could have been born prematurely. But such is not the
case. Respondent underwent a normal nine-month
pregnancy.
Presumption of legitimacy becomes conclusive in the
absence of proof that there was physical impossibility of
access between the spouses in the first 120 days of the 300
which preceded the birth of the child
the fact remains that there was always the possibility of
access to each other same province
Physical impossibility:
(1) impotence of husband;
inability of the male organ to copulation, to perform its
proper function
(2) living separately in such a way that access was
impossible; and
(3) serious illness of the husband.
o NO.
100 SCRA 73
Art. 256 provides that the child is presumed legitimate
although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy
Art. 257: adultery on the part of the wife, in itself,
cannot destroy the presumption of legitimacy of her child,
because it is still possible that the child is that of the
husband
Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child
born to his wife
Art. 220
PETITION GRANTED. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE.
Concepcion vs. CA
Facts:
Dec 29, 1989 – Gerardo married Ma. Theresa. One year
later
Dec 1990 - their son Jose Gerardo was born.
December 19, 1991 - Gerardo filed a petition to have his
marriage to Ma. Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy
since she was still married to Mario Gopiao who she
This was granted
Ma. Theresa then filed for action to change Jose‘ surname
from Gerardo to hers and to disallow Gerardo visitation
rights since Jose is now just his illegitimate son. Both TC
and CA dismissed her petition.
Ma. Theresa then filed for a motion for reconsideration
where she said that Jose was not actually the illegitimate
son of Gerardo but the legitimate son of Mario. CA thus
reversed its ruling and declared Mario to be the father of
Jose. Thus the case filed by Gerardo.
ISSUE: WON Jose is the legitimate child of Mario
HELD: YES
Article 164 of the Family Code is clear. A child who is
conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is
legitimate.
It is clear that Ma. Theresa and Mario were married when
she gave birth to Jose. , Article 167 of the Family Code
provides:
Article 167. The child shall be considered legitimate
althouh the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
Thus even if it is clear that she also married Gerardo, this
does not negate the legitimacy of Jose as son of Mario.
Article 166 (1)(b) of the Family Code, it must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access that
could have enabled the husband to father the child
No evidence to show that there was no way that they could
have had contact within the first 120 days of the 300 days
which immediately preceded the birth of the child since
12
they only lived four kilometres apart, she in Fairview QC
and he in Loyola Heights QC
Assertion of Ma. Theresa that Jose is the son of Gerardo
can‘t be used since law is clear that an assertion by the
mother against the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the
legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a valid
marriage.
Birth certificate carries no weight since proof of filiation is
necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being
questioned, or when the status of a child born after 300
days following the termination of marriage is sought to be
established. In this case, legitimacy is certain.
RESULT: declared son of Mario Gopiao after 15 years.

13