PATERNITY & FILIATION

1. PATERNITY & FILIATION

2. A. Concept of Paternity, Filiation & Legitimacy • Art. 163 - The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.

3. Arbolario v. CA (2003) • Once a valid marriage is established, it is deemed to continue until proof that it has been legally ended is presented. Thus, the mere cohabitation of the husband with another woman will not give rise to a presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children born of the second union, until and unless there be convincing proof that the first marriage had been lawfully terminated; and the second, lawfully entered into.

4. B. Legitimate Children Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child.

5. Tan v. Trocio (1990) A child born during the wedlock is presumed to be legitimate unless physical access between the couple was impossible.

6. Angeles v. Maglaya (2005) The presumption of legitimacy under Art. 164 of the Family Code 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.

7. Sayson v. CA (1992) The birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation, and may be refuted by contrary evidence. However, such evidence is lacking in the case at bar.

8. SSS v. Aguas (2006) There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse.

9. Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva (2006) • It is well-settled that a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. It is not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested parties.

10. 1. Who are considered legitimate children? • Conceived during marriage • Born during marriage • Conceived by artificial insemination • Adopted children • Legitimated children

11. 2. Rights of legitimate children Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.

12. Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right: (1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames; (2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and (3) To be entitled to the legitimate and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code. 

13. Moore v. Republic (1963) Our laws do not authorize a legitimate child to use the surname of a person who is not his father.

14. Naldoza v. Republic (1982) To allow them, at their mother’s behest, to bear only their mother’s surname (which they are entitled to use together with their father’s surname) and to discard altogether their father’s surname, thus removing the prima facie evidence of their paternal provenance or ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the minors and their father should be consulted.

15. Republic v. CA But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private respondent (a legitimate child of her parents) to bear her step-father’s surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him

16. Continental Steel v. Montano (2009) • Legitimacy of a child attaches upon his/her conception. In this case, it was not disputed that Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived during their marriage, hence, making said child legitimate upon her conception.

17. C. Ilegitimate children • 1. Who are considered illegitimate? Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.

18. Joanie SurposaUy v. Jose Ngo Chua (2009) The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. Paternity and filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially established, and it is for the Court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. Compromise Agreement that petitioner also waived away her rights to future support and future legitime as an illegitimate child of respondent. Evidently, the Compromise Agreement between petitioner and respondent is covered by the prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code.

19. 2. Rights of illegitimate children Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.

20. Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. 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.

21. Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force.

22. Osmena de Valencia v. Rodriguez (1949) • A legitimate child wants her illegitimate siblings to drop their father’s surname. Court said yes it is a right of legitimate children but it is not a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father. • From all appearances, their father acquiesces in the use of his surname. Even if he objects, they can still use the surname “Valencia”, no law grants exclusive ownership over a surname

23. Uyguangco v. CA (1989) • An illeg. child sought participation in the settlement of his father’s estate. He had no documents to prove his claim. He claims to have been in open and continuous possession of the status of an illeg. child. But court did not allow him to prove this because his father is already dead, can no longer affirm or deny child’s filiation.

24. Mangulabnan v. IAC (1990) • In an action for support, illeg. child asked for support pendentelitebut father opposed the same. SC ruled that affidavit of mother, 2 witnesses and the birth certificate of child established his status as illeg child and is therefore entitled to support pendentelite.

25. Briones v. Miguel • Loreta, being the mother of and having sole parental authority over the 10-year-old minor who is an illeg child, is entitled to his custody. She has the right to keep him in her company. She cannot be deprived of that right and she may not even renounce it or transfer it “except in cases authorized by law”.

26. Montefalcon v. Vasquez (2008) • Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child. The amount is variable. There is no final judgment thereof as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.

27. Heirs of Maramag v. De Guzman (2009) • The revocation of Eva as a beneficiary in one policy and her disqualification as such in another are of no moment considering that the designation of the illegitimate children as beneficiaries in Loreto’s insurance policies remains valid. Because no legal proscription exists in naming as beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships by the insured, the shares of Eva in the insurance proceeds, whether forfeited by the court in view of the prohibition on donations under Article 739 of the Civil Code or by the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts, must be awarded to the said illegitimate children, the designated beneficiaries, to the exclusion of petitioners. It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the insurance policy proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured.

28. Dela Cruz v. Gracia (2009) Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her father if the latter had expressly recognized him/her as his offspring through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission made in a public or private handwritten instrument. The recognition made in any of these documents is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child’s paternity; hence, no separate action for judicial approval is necessary. xxx

29. In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made: 1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and 2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.

30. Manungas v. Loreto (2011) • the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of EngraciaManungas. It must be remembered that the estate of FlorentinoManungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings that have long been terminated. Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of FlorentinoManungas, is still not an heir of EngraciaManungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of Manungas. There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator.

31. Gotardo v. Buling (2012) • In this case, the mother of the child established a prima facie case that the petitioner is the putative father of Gliffze through testimony that she had been sexually involved only with one man, the petitioner, at the time of her conception.The manager of the boarding house of petittionercorroborated her testimony that the petitioner and the mother of the child had intimate relationship. • On the other hand, the petitioner did not deny that he had sexual encounters with the respondent, only that it occurred on a much later date than the respondent asserted.

32. D. Action to Impugn Legitimacy • Reyes v. Mauricio (2010) - In a case involving tenancy filed by the wife of the deceased tenant, who subsequently died and was substituted by her daughter, the Supreme Court stated that the filiation of the daughter cannot be collaterally attacked in the tenancy case.

33. Grounds 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

34. (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. (255a)

35. (a) Physical impossibility of access Andal v. Macaraig (1951) - Although the husband was already suffering from tuberculosis and his condition then was so serious that he could hardly move and get up from his bed, his feet were swollen and his voice hoarse, yet that is no evidence of impotency, nor does it prevent carnal intercourse.

36. Macadangdang v. CA (1980) - Whether or not respondent were separated would be immaterial to the resolution of the status of the child Rolando. What should really matter is the fact that during the initial one hundred twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the aforementioned child, no concrete or even substantial proof was presented to establish physical impossibility of access between respondent and her spouse.

37. Concepcion v. CA (2005) - The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during the period of conception. To overthrow this presumption on the basis of 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. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

38. (b) Biological or other scientific grounds Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded. If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)

39. Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases: (1) If the husband should died before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; (2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom; or (3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)

40. Arnel Agustin v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005] For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity.

41. Herrera v. Alba (2005) The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.

42. Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz (2007) From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term “biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones. Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.

43. Lucas v. Lucas (2011) as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.

44. (c) Art. 166, par. 3 Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds: (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.

45. 2. Effect of Mother’s Declaration Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. 

46. Chua KengGiap v. IAC Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua KengGiap was really her son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say – as indeed she said these many years – that Chua KengGiapwas not begotten of her womb.

47. 3. In subsequent marriages Art. 168. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage; (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. (259a)

48. Art. 169. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the termination of the marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy. (261a)

49. 4. Presumptions Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded. If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)

50. Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases: (1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; (2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom; or (3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)