11. CONDE V.

ABAYA

DOCTRINE: As a general rule, the right of action of a child to enforce recognition of its legitimacy lasts
during the lifetime of such child, but the right of a natural child to compel acknowledgment of its status
continues only during the life of the alleged parents. The right of action for a declaration of legitimacy is
transmitted to the heirs of the child only when the latter dies during minority or while insane, or in case
the action has already been instituted. Action by a natural child can only be brought against the heirs of
the parents in the event of the death of the parents during the minority of the child, or upon the
discovery of a document, after the death of the parents, expressly acknowledging such child. This right of
action which the law concedes to this natural child is not transmitted to his ascendants or descendants.

FACTS: Casiano Abaya, unmarried, the son of Romualdo Abaya and Sabina Labadia died on the 1899.
Paula Conde, as the mother of the natural children Jose and Teopista Conde, whom she states she had by
Casiano Abaya moved the settlement of the intestate succession.

An administrator has been appointed for the said estate. However, Roman Abaya brother of Casiano,
came forward and opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as being the nearest relative of
the deceased. The court declares Roman Abaya to be the sole heir of Casiano Abaya and to be therefore
entitled to take possession of all the property of said estate.

Paula Conde filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged by
Roman Abaya but that she considered her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing on the
matter. She prayed that she be declared to have preferential rights to the property left by Casiano Abaya.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner may enforce an action in the acknowledgment of the natural child
from Casiano Abaya.

HELD: NO. The court held that the power to transmit the right of such action by the natural child to his
descendants can not be sustained under the law, and still less to his mother.

The court concluded that the right is not transmissible to the heirs of the natural child by the following
argument: It cannot place a natural child on a better position by assuming that the right is transmitted to
the heirs as a general rule when it only grants exceptions to a legitimate child

Torres Dissenting Opinion:

While for those of the natural child, there is no provision in the code authorizing the same, although on
the other hand there is none that prohibits it. As a solution, the right of action to claim acknowledgment
of a natural child is transmitted by analogy to his heirs on the same conditions and terms that it is
transmitted to the descendants of the legitimate child under article 118, but no more. Since the children
died while they were minors, they should be allowed to file an action.