Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4


Atty. Lydia Galas


Chapter 1: Legitimate Children ART. 166 - Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on ff. grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife
163- 171- Presumption of Legitimacy if born within a valid marriage within 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of child coz of:
- Status of children conceived thru artificial insemination, requisites a. The physical incapacity of husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
- Status of Children outside of a valid marriage, exceptions b. The fact that the H & W were living separately in such way that sex was
- Grounds, periods to impugn legitimacy of the child, and who may impugn impossible;
- Absence of proof- presumption of filiation if marriage is terminated and wife c. Serious illness of H, w/c prevented sexual intercourse
contracts a subsequent marriage within 300 days from termination (2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have
- When may heirs impugn legitimacy of child in lieu father? been that of the H, except in the instance provided in ART. 164 (2);
(3) That in case of children conceived thru artificial insemination, the written authorization
or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence,
Art. 163. The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation may
intimidation or undue influence
be legitimate or illegitimate
1. Distinction
ART. 167 – The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have
2. Classification of Children under FC
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
a. Legitimate (Art. 164)
b. Legitimated (Art. 177 and 178)
ART. 168 – If marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within
c. Illegitimate (Art.165)
300 days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in
ABSENCE OF PROOF to the contrary:
Art. 164. (1) Children conceived or born during marriage of the parents are legitimate.
(1) A child born before 180 days after solemnization of subsequent marriage, is
(2) Status of conceived through artificial insemination shall be considered legitimate. considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born
*Artificial insemination of wife + sperm of husband or from donor or both = legitimate. w/in 300 days after termination of former marriage;
1. Legitimate children are those conceived / born:
(2) A child born after 180 days ff. the celebration of subsequent marriage is considered
a. During valid marriage
b. To marriage believed in Good Faith (Art. 35 par.2)
to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born wi/in 300 days
c. Prior to decree of nullity (Art. 36) after termination of former marriage
d. To marriage, where one spouse failed to liquidate & to deliver presumptive legitimes of a prior
dissolved marriage (Art. 53) ART. 169- The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days ff. termination of
e. To a “provisional” marriage, where absentee spouse reappears (Art. 43) marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy.
f. To a voidable marriage. (Art. 45)
g. By means of artificial insemination
ART. 170 – The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within 1 yr.
Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside of a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless from the knowledge of birth or its recording in the civil register. (2) If husband, doesn’t
otherwise provided in this code. reside at the place of birth, the period shall be 2 Years if in the Philippines and 3 years if
Illegitimate children are those conceived/ born-
a. To incestuous marriages ART. 171 – The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the
b. To bigamous marriages period prescribed in the preceding article only in the ff. cases:
c. To void marriages by reason of public policy (Art. 38) (1) If the husband should die before expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action;
d. To void marriages under Art. 35, except para 2
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint w/o having desisted therefrom;
e. By couples who are not legally married
f. By minor couples (whether married or not)
(3) If the child was born after the death of husband.
g. By couples maintaining adulterous relations
By: H. Matavia & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 1 of 4 10/01/2018
Atty. Lydia Galas
CASES: 4. LIYAO, JR. v TANHOTI- LIYAO 378 S 563 [G.R. 138961. 03/07/2002]
1. BADUA v. CA 229 S 468 [G.R. 105625 01/24/1994] 5. CONCEPCION v. CA 08/31/2005 [G.R. 123450]
2. BABIERA v. CATOTAL 333 S 499 [ G.R. 138493. 06/15/2000] 6. ONG v. DIAZ 540 S 480 [G.R. 171713. 12/17/2007]
3. DE JESUS v. HEIRS OF DIZON 366 S 499 [G.R. 142877. 10/02/2001]



1. BADUA v. CA 229 S Articles 164, 166, 170 and Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian were owners of various Whether or not Marissa Benitez- No. The SC find no merit to the petition.
468 [G.R. 105625 171 of the Family Code properties located in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while his husband died in Badua is the legitimate child and Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be
01/24/1994] cannot be applied in the 1989. Vicente’s sister and nephew filed a complaint for the issuance of letters the sole heir of the late spouses. applied in the case at bar. The above provisions do not
case at bar. of administration of Vicente’s estate in favor of the nephew, herein private contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the
respondent. The petitioner, Marissa Benitez-Badua, was raised and cared by biological child of a certain couple.
the deceased spouses since childhood, though not related to them by blood, --or— Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses.
nor legally adopted. The latter to prove that she is the only legitimate child of Marissa's Certificate of Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed of
the spouses submitted documents such as her certificate of live birth where WON petitioner’s certificate of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Isabel by
the spouses name were reflected as her parents. She even testified that said live birth will suffice to establish Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole heirs of
spouses continuously treated her as their legitimate daughter. On the other her legitimacy the estate.
hand, the relatives of Vicente declared that said spouses were unable to
physically procreate hence the petitioner cannot be the biological child. Trial
court decided in favor of the petitioner as the legitimate daughter and sole
heir of the spouses.

2. BABIERA v. CATOTAL 170, 171 Presentacion questioned the authenticity of the entry of birth of Teofista. She 1. Whether or not Presentacion Petition is not meritorious. 1. Article 171 is not applicable in this
333 S 499 [ G.R. asserted that the birth certificate is void ab initio, as it was totally a simulated has legal capacity to file the case. Article 171 of the Family Code shows that it applies to
138493. 06/15/2000] birth, the signature of informant forged, and contained false entries, to wit: • special proceedings pursuant to instances which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife's
That Teofista is the legitimate child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera and Art. 171; 2. Whether or not the child. The provision, however, presupposes that the child was the
Hermogena Cariñosa; • Signature of the mother, Hermogena, is falsified; • special proceedings is improper undisputed child of the mother. Present case alleges and shows
Teofista's correct family name is GUINTO, not Babiera; • Her real mother was and barred by the statute of that Hermogena did not give birth to Teofista. The present action
Flora Guinto, and her status is an illegitimate child; • It was clinically and limitation; 3. Whether or not the does not impugn Teofista's filiation to Eugenio and Hermogeno,
medically impossible for Hermogena to bore a child at 54 years of age; her last public record of Teofista's birth is be there is no blood relation to impugn in the first place. The
child birth was when Presentacion was born. Presentacion ask the court to superior to the oral testimony of reason why Presentacion took interest on Teofista's status is to
declare Teofista's certificate of birth void and ineffective, and to order the City Presentacion protect the former's successional rights. 2. Article 170 of the FC
Civil Registrar to cancel the same as it affect the hereditary rights of does not apply. The provision provides a prescriptive period for
Presentacion who inherited the estate. Teofista countered that she and action to impugn the legitimacy of the child. The present action
Presentacion are full-blooded sisters, as showed therein her certificate of involves the cancellation of Teofista's Birth Certificate, it does not
birth, Certificate of Baptism, and her School Report Card. She also filed a impugn her legitimacy. The action to nullify the birth certificate
motion on the grounds that: the petition states no cause of action, being an does not prescribe because it was allegedly declared void ab
attack on her legitimacy as the child of Hermogena and Eugenio; that initio. 3. The specific attendant in the case at bar and the totality
Presentacion has no legal capacity to file the petition pursuant to Art. 171 of of the evidence presented during trial, sufficiently negates the
the Family Code; and that the petition was barred from prescription in presumption of regularity in the issuance of birth certificate. First,
accordance with Art. 170 of the Family Code. the birth certificate was not signed by the local civil registrar, and
the mother's signature was different from other signatures.
Second, no medical records or doctor's prescription that provide
as evidence of Hermogena's pregnancy. It was impossible for her
to have given birth at 54 years of age. Third, the disposition of
Hermogena which states that she did not give brith to Teofista
and that the latter was not hers of Eugenio.

By: H. Matavia & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 2 of 4 10/01/2018

Atty. Lydia Galas
3. DE JESUS v. HEIRS OF 171 Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus got married in August 1964. It Whether or not petitioners are No. A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were
DIZON 366 S 499 was during this marriage that Jacqueline A. de Jesus and Jinkie Christie A. de illegitimate children of decedent born during the valid marriage of their parents Danilo and
[G.R. 142877. Jesus, herein petitioners, were born. In a notarized document, dated June 7, Juan Dizon entitled to inherit Carolina. The certificates of birth also identified Danilo de Jesus as
10/02/2001] 1991, Juan G. Dizonacknowledged Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as being his from him their father. There is a presumption in law that children born in
own illegitimate children by Carolina Aves de Jesus. Juan died intestate in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes
March 1992, leaving behind considerableassets consisting of shares of stock in conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical
various corporations and some real property. It was on the strength of his impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120
notarized acknowledgement that petitioners filed a complaint for “Partition days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the
with Inventory and Accounting” of the Dizon estate with the RTC. Respondent, child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have
the surviving spouse and legitimate children of the decedent, including the sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact the husband and wife
corporations of which the deceased was a stockholder, sought the dismissal of are living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse is not
the case, arguing that the complaint, even while denominated as being one for possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely
partition, would nevertheless call for altering the status of petitioners from prevents sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the
being the legitimate children of the spouses Danilo and Carolina de Jesus to expiration of the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper
instead be the illegitimate children of Carolina de Jesus and deceased Juan cases Article 171,of the Family Code (which took effect on August
Dizon. 3, 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no
longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the
presumption becomes fixedand unassailable. In an attempt to
establish their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan, petitioners, in
effect, would impugn their legitimate status as being children of
Danilo and Carolinade Jesus. This step cannot be aptly done
because the law itself establishes the legitimacy of children
conceived or born during the marriage of the parents. The
presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil status for the child born in
wedlock, and only the father, or in exceptional instances the
latter’s heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy
of a child born to his wife. Thus, it is only when the legitimacy of a
child has been successfully impugned that the paternity of the
husband can be rejected.

4. LIYAO, JR. v TANHOTI- 166 William Liyao Jr., the illegitimate son of the deceased, as represented by her WON the petitioner can impugn Under the New Civil Code, a child born and conceived during a
LIYAO 378 S 563 [G.R. mother (Corazon), filed a petition ordering Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, Pearl L. Tan, his own legitimacy to be able to valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. The presumption of
138961. 03/07/2002] Tita L. Tan and Linda Liyao to recognize and acknowledge the former as a claim from the estate of the legitimacy of children does not only flow out from a declaration
compulsory heir of the deceased and to be entitled to all successional rights. deceased. contained in the statute but is based on the broad principles of
Liyao Jr. was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status as the child natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The
of the deceased having been recognized and acknowledged as such child by presumption is grounded in a policy to protect innocent offspring
the decedent during his lifetime. There were two sides of the story. Corazon from the odium of illegitimacy.The presumption of legitimacy of
G. Garcia is legally married to but living separately from Ramon M. Yulo for the child, however, is not conclusive and consequently, may be
more than ten (10) years at the time of the institution of the said civil case. overthrown by evidence to the contrary. Hence, Article 255 of the
Corazon cohabited with the late William Liyao from 1965 up to the time of New Civil Code provides: Article 255. Children born after one
William’s untimely demise on December 2, 1975. They lived together in the hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the
company of Corazon’s two (2) children from her subsisting marriage. On the marriage, and before three hundred days following its dissolution
other hand, one of the children of the deceased stated that her mom and the or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be
deceased were legally married and that her parents were not separated legally legitimate. Against this presumption no evidence shall be
or in fact. admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the
husband having access to his wife within the first one hundred
and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth
of the child. This physical impossibility may be caused: 1)By the
impotence of the husband; 2) By the fact that husband and wife
were living separately in such a way that access was not possible;
3) By the serious illness of the husband. The fact that Corazon
Garcia had been living separately from her husband, Ramon Yulo,
at the time petitioner was conceived and born is of no moment.

By: H. Matavia & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 3 of 4 10/01/2018

Atty. Lydia Galas
While physical impossibility for the husband to have sexual
intercourse with his wife is one of the grounds for impugning the
legitimacy of the child, it bears emphasis that the grounds for
impugning the legitimacy of the child mentioned in Article 255 of
the Civil Code may only be invoked by the husband, or in proper
cases, his heirs under the conditions set forth under Article 262 of
the Civil Code. Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly
personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs for
the simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the
scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces and
he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that infidelity
or expose it in view of the moral and economic interest involved.
It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs are allowed to contest
such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none – even his heirs –
can impugn legitimacy; that would amount of an insult to his
memory. Furthermore, the court held that there was no clear,
competent and positive ev

5. CONCEPCION v. CA 164 Petitioner Gerardo Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa Whether or not the Court of Yes. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, a child who is
08/31/2005 [G.R. Almontewere married in 1989. Almost a year later, Ma. Theresa gave birth to Appeals correctly ruled that Jose conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is legitimate.
123450] Jose Gerardo. In 1991, however, Gerardo filed a petition to have his marriage Gerardo is a legitimate child of In the present case, since the marriage between Gerardo and Ma.
to Ma. Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that 9 years Mario and not petitioner Theresa was void ab initio, the marriage between Mario and Ma.
before he married private respondent, the latter had married one Mario Gerardo. Theresa was still subsisting at the time Jose Gerardo was
Gopiao, which marriage was never annulled. The trial court ruled that Ma. conceived, and thus the law presumes that Jose Gerardo was a
Theresa’s marriage to Mario was valid and subsisting when she married legitimate child of private respondent and Mario. Also,
Gerardo and annulled her marriage to the latter for being bigamous. It Gerardocannot impugn the legitimacy of the child because such
declared Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child as a result. The custody of the right is strictly personal to the husband or, in exceptional cases,
child was awarded to Ma. Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. his heirs. Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was void
The Court of Appeals reversedthe decision and held that Jose Gerardo was not from the very beginning; he never became her husband and thus
the son of Ma. Theresa by Gerardo but by Mario during his first marriage. never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child.
The petition was denied.

6. ONG v. DIAZ 540 S 169, 170, 171 The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and Whether or not DNA analysis can Yes. The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the
480 [G.R. 171713. Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the still be done despite the death of application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate
12/17/2007] minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a decision and declared the minor Rogelio. biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA Evidence allows
to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to the conduct of DNA testing by using biological samples--organic
support the child until she reaches the age of majority. Rogelio died during the material originating from the person's body, ie., blood, saliva,
pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for other body fluids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic
reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead person cannot be materialsthat is susceptible to DNA testing. In case proof of
subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as current filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or
jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic
settling the present paternity dispute." codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any
physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to.
(People vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs Comelec 424 SCRA 277)

By: H. Matavia & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 4 of 4 10/01/2018