Abadilla vs.

Tabiliran
AM No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995

FACTS:

Ma. Blyth Abadilla, a Clerk of Court, filed a complaint against Judge Tabiliran on
the grounds of gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption unbecoming of
a judge. With respect to the charge on gross immorality, she contended that the
judge scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla Baybayan during
subsistence of his marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Tabiliran and Priscilla got
married in May 1986. On the other hand, with respect to the charge on deceitful
conduct, petitioner claims that the judge caused his 3 illegitimate children with
Priscilla be registered as “legitimate” by falsely executing separate affidavits
stating the delayed registration was due to inadvertence, excusable negligence
or oversight when in fact, he knew these children cannot be legally registered as
legitimate. The judge averred that 25 years had already elapsed since the
disappearance of her wife in 1966 when he married Priscilla hence the
cohabitation was neither bigamous nor immoral. However, as early as 1970,
based on the record, Priscilla had begotten her 3 children (1970, 1971 and
1975).

ISSUE: WON the 3 children can be considered legitimate.

HELD:

The 3 children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate

since the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between
Tabiliran and Teresita. Only natural children can be legitimated. Children born
outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former,
were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are natural.

Under Article 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived and born outside
of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.
Reasons for this limitation:
1) The rationale of legitimation would be destroyed;
2) It would be unfair to the legitimate children in terms of successional rights;
3) There will be the problem of public scandal, unless social mores change;
4) It is too violent to grant the privilege of legitimation to adulterous children as it
will destroy the sanctity of marriage;
5) It will be very scandalous, especially if the parents marry many years after the
birth of the child.
 De Asis vs. C.A. / GR No. 127578

Facts:
Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action for
maintenance and support against the alleged father, Manuel De Asis, who failed
to provide support and maintenance despite repeated demands.
Vircel later on withdrew the complaint for the reason that Manuel denied paternity
of the said minor. They mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the
complaint with the condition that Manuel will not pursue his counter claim.
However, Vircel filed a similar complaint against the alleged father, this time as
the minor’s legal guardian/mother. Manuel interposed maxim of res judicata for
the dismissal of the case. He maintained that since the obligation to give support
is based on existence of paternity between the child and putative parent, lack
thereof negates the right to claim support.

Issue:
Whether or not the action for support is barred.

Held:
No, the action is not barred.
The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third
person. Article 301 of the Civil Code provides that the right to receive support
cannot be renounced, nor can it be transmitted to a third person. Neither can it
be compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor. Furthermore, future
support cannot be the subject of a compromise. Article 2035 further provides that
no compromise upon future support shall be valid as the same is against public
policy.
The admission, in the case at hand, is at most evidentiary and does not
conclusively establish the lack of filiation. Neither are does res judicata apply on
the subsequent case for support as elucidated in the case of Advincula vs.
Advincula where the Court allowed for the filing of a petition for support despite
initial dismissal of the case due to compromise between he parties.
 David vs. CA / G.R. No. 111180

Facts:
Daisie David (“David”) worked for Ramon Villar (“Villar”) as the latter’s secretary.
Their relationship, however, turned intimate which resulted to the birth of three
children, among them was Christopher J. Villar’s legal family later came to know
about David and her children with Villar and seemed to accept Christopher J.
Subsequently, Villar asked David to allow Christopher J. to go with him and his
legal family to Boracay. David agreed but upon demanding that Christopher J. be
returned to her custody, Villar refused to give the child back.

Issue:
Whether or not David should have legal custody of Christopher J.

Held:
Yes, David, as the child’s mother, must have custody of Christopher J.
In the case at bar, Christopher J. is an illegitimate child since at the time of his
conception, his father was married to another woman other than the child's
mother. As such, pursuant to Art. 176 of the Family Code, Christopher J. is under
the parental authority of his mother, who, as a consequence of such authority, is
entitled to have custody of him.
Since petitioner has been deprived of her rightful custody of her child she is
entitled to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.