Article 172 FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 157037. May 20, 2004.] ROSALINA P. ECETA, petitioner, vs. MA.

THERESA VELL LAGURA ECETA, respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J p: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50449 which affirmed with modification the trial court's ruling that respondent Maria Theresa Vell Lagura Eceta is entitled to one-eight (1/8) portion of the disputed property. The antecedent facts are as follows: Petitioner Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta sometime in 1926. During the subsistence of their marriage, they begot a son, Vicente. The couple acquired several properties, among which is the disputed property located at Stanford, Cubao, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61036. Isaac died in 1967 leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory heirs. In 1977, Vicente died. During his lifetime, however, he sired Maria Theresa, an illegitimate daughter. Thus at the time of his death, his compulsory heirs were his mother, Rosalina, and illegitimate child, Maria Theresa. In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 218, for "Partition and Accounting with Damages" 2 against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her father's death, she became Rosalina's co-heir and co-owner of the Cubao property. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-8922. In her answer, Rosalina alleged that the property is paraphernal in nature and thus belonged to her exclusively. During the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts wherein they both admitted their relationship to one another, i.e., that Rosalina is Maria Theresa's grandmother. 3 After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

a)Theresa Eceta and Rosalina Eceta are the only surviving co-heirs and co-owners over the parcel of land and improvements thereon subject of this case; b)Maria Theresa Eceta is entitled to one fourth share of said property; c)Rosalina Eceta is ordered to account for the value corresponding to the one-fourth undivided share of Theresa Eceta in the monthly rentals of the property with interest and must commence from the filing of this case; d)Parties are ordered within fifteen days from receipt of this decision to amicably agree upon a written partition and to submit the same for approval, parties shall appoint a commissioner to effect said partition of the property between the parties; e)The counterclaim by defendant Rosalina is hereby dismissed. 4 Rosalina appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court's ruling, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that the onefourth (1/4) share erroneously decreed to Appellee is hereby REDUCED to one-eight (1/8) undivided share of the entire disputed property, covered by TCT No. 61036, in accordance with law. Her motion for reconsideration having been denied, Rosalina is now before us by way of petition for review wherein she submits the following issues: a.Whether the certified xerox copy from a xerox copy of the certificate of live birth (Exhibit A) is competent evidence to prove the alleged filiation of the respondent as an "illegitimate daughter" of her alleged father Vicente Eceta. b.Whether the admission made by petitioner that respondent is her granddaughter is enough to prove respondent's filiation with Vicente Eceta, the only son of petitioner.

c.Whether the action for recognition has already prescribed. The petition has no merit. We note Rosalina's attempt to mislead the Court by representing that this case is one for compulsory recognition, partition and accounting with damages. 5 Notably, what was filed and tried before the trial court and the Court of Appeals is one for partition and accounting with damages only. The filiation, or compulsory recognition by Vicente Eceta of Maria Theresa, was never put in issue. In fact, both parties have already agreed and admitted, as duly noted in the trial court's pre-trial order, 6that Maria Theresa is Rosalina's granddaughter. Notwithstanding, Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. 7 Vicente himself signed Maria Theresa's birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter. By this act alone, Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his paternity over Maria Theresa, thus: The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (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 thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. 8 In view of the foregoing, we find no necessity to discuss the other issues submitted. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50449, which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 218 in Civil Case No. Q91-8922, is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ ., concur. Davide, Jr., C .J ., is on official leave.

[G.R. No. 57227. May 14, 1992.] AMELITA CONSTANTINO and MICHAEL CONSTANTINO, the latter represented herein by the former, his mother and natural guardian, petitioners, vs. IVAN MENDEZ and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Roberto M. Sarenas for petitioners. Bienvenido D. Carriaga for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1.REMEDIAL LAW; COURT OF APPEALS; DUTY THEREOF IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. It must be stressed at the outset that factual findings of the trial court have only a persuasive and not a conclusive effect on the Court of Appeals. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the Court of Appeals to review the factual findings of the trial court and rectify the errors it committed as may have been properly assigned and as could be established by a reexamination of the evidence on record. It is the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, not those of the trial court, that as a rule are considered final and conclusive even on this Court (Hermon v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 155 SCRA 24 [1987]). 2.ID.; ID.; AS A GENERAL RULE, ONLY ERRORS OF LAWS COMMITTED THEREOF ARE REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT. This being a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this Court will review only errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals. It is not the function of this Court to re-examine all over again the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals is not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts (Remalante v. Tibe, et al., 158 SCRA 138 [1988]; Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, et al., 149 SCRA 97 [1987]). 3.CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; AS A GENERAL RULE, MERE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS NOT BY ITSELF A BASIS FOR RECOVERY; EXCEPTION; CASE AT BAR. As regards Amelita's claim for damages which is based on Article 19 & 21 of the Civil Code on the theory that through Ivan's promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the Court of Appeals that mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire. At the time she met Ivan at Tony's Restaurant, Amelita was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was attracted to Ivan (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 83). Her attraction to Ivan is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact sometime in August, 1974, that he was a married man. Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan.

DECISION BIDIN, J p: This is a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision 1 dated April 30, 1981 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 61552-R which dismissed petitioner's complaint and set aside the resolution 2 dated October 21, 1976 of the then Court of First Instance of Davao, 16th Judicial District, amending the dispositive portion of its decision dated June 21, 1976 and ordering private respondent Ivan Mendez: (1) to acknowledge the minor Michael Constantino as his illegitimate child; (2) to give a monthly support of P300.00 to the minor child, (3) to pay complainant Amelita Constantino the sum of P8,200.00 as actual and moral damages; and (4) to pay attorney's fees in the sum of P5,000 plus costs. It appears on record that on June 5, 1975, petitioner Amelita Constantino filed an action for acknowledgment, support and damages against private respondent Ivan Mendez. The case was filed with the then CFI of Davao, 10th Judicial District and docketed as Civil Case No. 8881. In her complaint, Amelita Constantino alleges, among others, that sometime in the month of August, 1974, she met Ivan Mendez at Tony's Restaurant located at Sta. Cruz, Manila, where she worked as a waitress; that the day following their first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to dine with him at Hotel Enrico where he was billeted; that while dining, Ivan professed his love and courted Amelita; that Amelita asked for time to think about Ivan's proposal; that at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Amelita asked Ivan to bring her home to which the latter agreed, that on the pretext of getting something, Ivan brought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the latter; that after the sexual contact, Ivan confessed to Amelita that he is a married man; that they repeated their sexual contact in the months of September and November, 1974, whenever Ivan is in Manila, as a result of which Amelita got pregnant; that her pleas for help and support fell on deaf ears; that Amelita had no sexual relations with any other man except Ivan who is the father of the child yet to be born at the time of the filing of the complaint; that because of her pregnancy, Amelita was forced to leave her work as a waitress; that Ivan is a prosperous businessman of Davao City with a monthly income of P5,000 to P8,000.00. As relief, Amelita prayed for the recognition of the unborn child, the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus costs. LLjur In his answer dated August 5, 1975, Ivan admitted that he met Amelita at Tony's Cocktail Lounge but denied having sexual knowledge or illicit relations with her. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. By way of counterclaim, he further prayed for the payment of exemplary damages and litigation expense including attorney's fees for the filing of the malicious complaint. On September 1, 1975, Amelita Constantino filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint impleading as co-plaintiff her son Michael Constantino who was born on

August 3, 1975. In its order dated September 4, 1975, the trial court admitted the amended complaint. On September 11, 1975, Ivan Mendez filed his answer to the amended complaint reiterating his previous answer denying that Michael Constantino is his illegitimate son. After hearing, the trial court rendered a decision dated June 21, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads, viz: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Amelita Constantino and against defendant Ivan Mendez, ordering the latter to pay Amelita Constantino the sum of P8,000.00 by way of actual and moral damages; and, the sum of P3,000.00, as and by way of attorney's fees. The defendant shall pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED." From the above decision, both parties filed their separate motion for reconsideration. Ivan Mendez anchored his motion on the ground that the award of damages was not supported by evidence. Amelita Constantino, on the other hand, sought the recognition and support of her son Michael Constantino as the illegitimate son of Ivan Mendez. In its resolution dated October 21, 1976, the trial court granted Amelita Constantino's motion for reconsideration, and amended the dispositive portion of its decision dated June 21, 1976 to read as follows, viz: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Amelita Constantino and plaintiffminor Michael Constantino, and against defendant Ivan Mendez ordering the latter to pay Amelita Constantino the sum of P8,000.00 by way of actual and moral damages and the sum of P200.00 as and by way of payment of the hospital and medical bills incurred during the delivery of plaintiff-minor Michael Constantino; to recognize as his own illegitimate child the plaintiff-minor Michael Constantino who shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits appertaining to a child of such status; to give a permanent monthly support in favor of plaintiff Michael Constantino the amount of P300.00; and the sum of P5,000.00, as and by way of attorney's fees. The defendant shall pay the costs of this suit. LibLex Let this Order form part of the decision dated June 21, 1976.

SO ORDERED." On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the above amended decision was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. Hence, this petition for review. Basically, the issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in setting aside the decision of the trial court and in dismissing the complaint. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the factual findings of the trial court and in not affirming the decision of the trial court. They also pointed out that the appellate court committed a misapprehension of facts when it concluded that Ivan did not have sexual access with Amelita during the first or second week of November, 1976 (should be 1974), the time of the conception of the child. It must be stressed at the outset that factual findings of the trial court have only a persuasive and not a conclusive effect on the Court of Appeals. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the Court of Appeals to review the factual findings of the trial court and rectify the errors it committed as may have been properly assigned and as could be established by a re-examination of the evidence on record. It is the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, not those of the trial court, that as a rule are considered final and conclusive even on this Court (Hermo v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 155 SCRA 24 [1987]). This being a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this Court will review only errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals. It is not the function of this Court to re-examine all over again the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals is not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts (Remalante v. Tibe, et al., 158 SCRA 138 [1988]; Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, et al., 149 SCRA 97 [1987]).

It is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, based on the evidence on record, that Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino. Such conclusion based on the evaluation of the evidence on record is controlling on this Court as the same is supported by the evidence on record. Even the trial court initially entertained such posture. It ordered the recognition of Michael as the illegitimate son of Ivan only when acting on the motions for reconsideration, it reconsidered, on October 21, 1976, its earlier decision dated June 21, 1976. Amelita's testimony on cross-examination that she had sexual contact with Ivan in Manila in the first or second week of November, 1974 (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 108) is inconsistent with her response that she could not remember the date of their last sexual intercourse in November, 1974 (Ibid, p. 106). Sexual contact of Ivan and Amelita in the first or second week of November, 1974 is the crucial point that was not even established on direct examination as she merely

testified that she had sexual intercourse with Ivan in the months of September, October and November, 1974. llcd Michael Constantino is a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975 (Exhibit 6) so that as correctly pointed out by private respondent's counsel, citing medical science (Williams Obstetrics, Tenth Ed., p. 198) to the effect that "the mean duration of actual pregnancy, counting from the day of conception must be close to 267 days", the conception of the child (Michael) must have taken place about 267 days before August 3, 1375 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974. While Amelita testified that she had sexual contact with Ivan in November, 1974, nevertheless said testimony is contradicted by her own evidence (Exh. F), the letter dated February 11, 1975, addressed to Ivan Mendez requesting for a conference, prepared by her own counsel Atty. Roberto Sarenas to whom she must have confided the attendant circumstances of her pregnancy while still fresh in her memory, informing Ivan that Amelita is four (4) months pregnant so that applying the period of the duration of actual pregnancy, the child was conceived on or about October 11, 1974. Petitioner's assertion that Ivan is her first and only boyfriend (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 65) is belied by Exhibit 2, her own letter addressed to Mrs. Mendez where she revealed the reason for her attachment to Ivan who possessed certain traits not possessed by her boyfriend. She also confided that she had a quarrel with her boyfriend because of gossips so she left her work. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on Amelita to establish her affirmative allegations that Ivan is the father of her son. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed. As regards Amelita's claim for damages which is based on Articles 19 3 & 21 4 of the Civil Code on the theory that through Ivan's promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the Court of Appeals that mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire. At the time she met Ivan at Tony's Restaurant, Amelita was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was attracted to Ivan (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 83). Her attraction to Ivan is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact sometime in August, 1974, that he was a married man. Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is Dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 140500. January 21, 2002.] ERNESTINA BERNABE, petitioner, vs. CAROLINA ALEJO as guardian ad litem for the minor ADRIAN BERNABE, respondent. Trinidad Reverente Makalintal and Bernabe Law Offices for petitioner. Felix D. Carao, Jr. and R.A.V. Saguisag for private respondent. SYNOPSIS The late Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with Carolina Alejo, his secretary for 23 years. The son was born on September 18, 1981 and was named Adrian Bernabe. Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, while his wife Rosalina died on December 3 of the same year, leaving Ernestina as the sole surviving heir. Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed a complaint praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and as such he (Adrian) be given his share in Fiscal Bernabe's estate, which was being held by Ernestina as the sole surviving heir. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that under the provisions of the Family Code, the complaint was already barred. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter ruled that the subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away the right of Adrian to file a petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Adrian's right to an action for recognition, which was granted by Article 285 of the Civil Code, had already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code. This vested right was not impaired or taken away by the passage of the Family Code. He has up to four years from attaining majority age within which to file an action for recognition. The Court's over-riding consideration is to protect the vested rights of minors who could not have filed suit, on their own, during the lifetime of their putative parents. Adrian was only seven years old when the Family Code took effect and only twelve when his alleged father died in 1993. The minor must be given his day in court.

The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child's filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead." 2.ID.; ID.; SHOULD NOT IMPAIR VESTED OR ACQUIRED RIGHTS; CASE AT BAR. [T]he Family Code provides the caveat that rights that have already vested prior to its enactment should not be prejudiced or impaired as follows: "ART. 255. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." . . . Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, as it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. Therefore, the Family Code cannot impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment. 3.ID.; CIVIL CODE; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF NATURAL CHILDREN; NATURAL CHILD, DEFINED. A "natural child" is one whose parents, at the time of conception, were not disqualified by any legal impediment from marrying each other. Thus, in De Santos v. Angeles, the Court explained: "A child's parents should not have been disqualified to marry each other at the time of conception for him to qualify as a 'natural child.'" 4.ID.; ID.; ID:, ID.; ID.; RULES THEREON MAY BE APPLIED TO SPURIOUS CHILDREN. A strict and literal interpretation of Article 285 has already been frowned upon by this Court in the aforesaid case of Aruego, which allowed minors to file a case for recognition even if their parents were disqualified from marrying each other. There, the Complaint averred that the late Jose Aruego Sr., a married man, had an extramarital liaison with Luz Fabian. Out of this relationship were born two illegitimate children who in 1983 filed an action for recognition. The two children were born in 1962 and 1963, while the alleged putative father died in 1982. In short, at the time of their conception, the two children's parents were legally disqualified from marrying each other. The Court allowed the Complaint to prosper, even though it had been filed almost a year after the death of the presumed father. At the time of his death, both children were still minors. Moreover, in the earlier case Divinagracia v. Rovira, the Court said that the rules on voluntary an compulsory acknowledgment of natural children, as well as the prescriptive period for filing such action, may likewise be applied to spurious children. 5.REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; APPEALS; APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT; FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO IMPLEAD THE COURT OF APPEALS AS PARTY, NOT A REVERSIBLE ERROR. Under Section 4(a) of Rule 45 of the current Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead "the lower courts or judges . . . either as petitioners or respondents." Under Section 3, however, the lower tribunal should still be furnished a copy of the petition. Hence, the failure of petitioner to implead the Court of Appeals as a party is not a reversible error; it is in fact the correct procedure.

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD; MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE ALLEGED PARENTS. Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute the claim, considering that "illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. . . .

DECISION PANGANIBAN, J p: The right to seek recognition granted by the Civil Code to illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect cannot be impaired or taken away. The minors have up to four years from attaining majority age within which to file an action for recognition. Statement of the Case Before us is a Petition 1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying for (1) the nullification of the July 7, 1999 Court of Appeals 2 (CA) Decision 3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 51919 and the October 14, 1999 CA Resolution 4 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, as well as (2) the reinstatement of the two Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City (Branch 109) concerning the same case. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the order of the lower court dismissing Civil Case No. 94-0562 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the records of this case be remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits." 5 The Facts

Orders of the Trial Court In an Order dated July 26, 1995, the trial court granted Ernestina Bernabe's Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's Decision and ordered the dismissal of the Complaint for recognition. Citing Article 175 of the Family Code, the RTC held that the death of the putative father had barred the action. In its Order dated October 6, 1995, the trial court added that since the putative father had not acknowledged or recognized Adrian Bernabe in writing, the action for recognition should have been filed during the lifetime of the alleged father to give him the opportunity to either affirm or deny the child's filiation. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On the other hand, the Court of Appeals ruled that in the interest of justice, Adrian should be allowed to prove that he was the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe. Because the boy was born in 1981, his rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child has attained the age of majority. The subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away that right. Hence, this appeal. 7 Issues

The undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals in this wise: In her Memorandum, 8 petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration: "The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary of twenty-three (23) years, herein plaintiff-appellant Carolina Alejo. The son was born on September 18, 1981 and was named Adrian Bernabe. Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, while his wife Rosalina died on December 3 of the same year, leaving Ernestina as the sole surviving heir. "On May 16, 1994, Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed the aforesaid complaint praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and as such he (Adrian) be given his share in Fiscal Bernabe's estate, which is now being held by Ernestina as the sole surviving heir. "On July 16, 1995, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that under the provisions of the Family Code as well as the case of Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, the complaint is now barred . . .." 6 I "Whether or not respondent has a cause of action to file a case against petitioner, the legitimate daughter of the putative father, for recognition and partition with accounting after the putative father's death in the absence of any written acknowledgment of paternity by the latter. II "Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from the attainment of minority to file an action for recognition as provided in Art. 285 of the Civil Code, in complete disregard of its repeal by the [express] provisions of the Family Code and the applicable jurisprudence as held by the Honorable Court of Appeals.

III "Whether or not the petition for certiorari filed by the petition[er] is fatally defective for failure to implead the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents." 9 The Court's Ruling The Petition has no merit. First and Second Issues: Period to File Action for Recognition Because the first and the second issues are interrelated, we shall discuss them jointly. Petitioner contends that respondent is barred from filing an action for recognition, because Article 285 of the Civil Code has been supplanted by the provisions of the Family Code. She argues that the latter Code should be given retroactive effect, since no vested right would be impaired. We do not agree. CaDATc Article 285 of the Civil Code provides the period for filing an action for recognition as follows: "ART. 285.The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases: (1)If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority; (2)If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the child. "In this case, the action must be commenced within four years from the finding of the document." The two exceptions provided under the foregoing provision, have however been omitted by Articles 172, 173 and 175 of the Family Code, which we quote: "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 (2)Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws." "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. "The action already commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties." "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." Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute the claim, considering that "illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. . . . The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child's filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead." 10

Nonetheless, the Family Code provides the caveat that rights that have already vested prior to its enactment should not be prejudiced or impaired as follows: "ART. 255.This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." The crucial issue to be resolved therefore is whether Adrian's right to an action for recognition, which was granted by Article 285 of the Civil Code, had already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code. Our answer is affirmative. A vested right is defined as "one which is absolute, complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency . . .." 11 Respondent however contends that the filing of an action for recognition is procedural in nature and that "as a general rule, no vested right may attach to [or] arise from procedural laws." 12 Bustos v. Lucero 13 distinguished substantive from procedural law in these words: ". . .. Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous. Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion." 14 (Citations omitted) Recently, in Fabian v. Desierto, 15 the Court laid down the test for determining whether a rule is procedural or substantive: "[I]n determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure." 16

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, we hold that Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, as it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. Therefore, the Family Code cannot impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment. Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals 17 is not applicable to the case at bar, because the plaintiff therein sought recognition as an illegitimate child when he was no longer a minor. On the other hand, in Aruego Jr. v. Court of Appeals 18 the Court ruled that an action for recognition filed while the Civil Code was in effect should not be affected by the subsequent enactment of the Family Code, because the right had already vested. Not Limited to Natural Children To be sure, Article 285 of the Civil Code refers to the action for recognition of "natural" children. Thus, petitioner contends that the provision cannot be availed of by respondent, because at the time of his conception, his parents were impeded from marrying each other. In other words, he is not a natural child. A "natural child" is one whose parents, at the time of conception, were not disqualified by any legal impediment from marrying each other. Thus, in De Santos v.Angeles, 19 the Court explained: "A child's parents should not have been disqualified to marry each other at the time of conception for him to qualify as a 'natural child.'" 20 A strict and literal interpretation of Article 285 has already been frowned upon by this Court in the aforesaid case of Aruego, which allowed minors to file a case for recognition even if their parents were disqualified from marrying each other. There, the Complaint averred that the late Jose Aruego Sr., a married man, had an extramarital liaison with Luz Fabian. Out of this relationship were born two illegitimate children who in 1983 filed an action for recognition. The two children were born in 1962 and 1963, while the alleged putative father died in 1982. In short, at the time of their conception, the two children's parents were legally disqualified from marrying each other. The Court allowed the Complaint to prosper, even though it had been filed almost a year after the death of the presumed father. At the time of his death, both children were still minors. Moreover, in the earlier case of Divinagracia v. Rovira, 21 the Court said that the rules on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment of natural children, as well as the prescriptive period for filing such action, may likewise be applied to spurious children. Pertinent portions of the case are quoted hereunder:

"The so-called spurious children, or illegitimate children other than natural children, commonly known as bastards, include those adulterous children or those born out of wedlock to a married woman cohabiting with a man other than her husband or to a married man cohabiting with a woman other than his wife. They are entitled to support and successional rights. But their filiation must be duly proven. "How should their filiation be proven? Article 289 of the Civil Code allows the investigation of the paternity or maternity or spurious children under the circumstances specified in Articles 283 and 284 of the Civil Code. The implication is that the rules on compulsory recognition of natural children are applicable to spurious children. "Spurious children should not be in a better position than natural children. The rules on proof of filiation of natural children or the rules on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment for natural children may be applied to spurious children. "That does not mean that spurious children should be acknowledged, as that term is used with respect to natural children. What is simply meant is that the grounds or instances for the acknowledgment of natural children are utilized to establish the filiation of spurious children. "A spurious child may prove his filiation by means of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. These are the modes of voluntary recognition of natural children. "In case there is no evidence on the voluntary recognition of the spurious child, then his filiation may be established by means of the circumstances or grounds for compulsory recognition prescribed in the aforementioned Articles 283 and 284. "The prescriptive period for filing the action for compulsory recognition in the case of natural children, as provided for in Article 285 of the Civil Code, applies to spurious children." 22 (Citations omitted, italics supplied) Thus, under the Civil Code, natural children have superior successional rights over spurious ones. 23 However, Rovira treats them as equals with respect to other rights, including the right to recognition granted by Article 285.

To emphasize, illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect and whose putative parent died during their minority are thus given the right to seek recognition (under Article 285 of the Civil Code) for a period of up to four years from attaining majority age. This vested right was not impaired or taken away by the passage of the Family Code. Indeed, our overriding consideration is to protect the vested rights of minors who could not have filed suit, on their own, during the lifetime of their putative parents. As respondent aptly points out in his Memorandum, 24 the State as parens patriae should protect a minor's right. Born in 1981, Adrian was only seven years old when the Family Code took effect and only twelve when his alleged father died in 1993. The minor must be given his day in court. Third Issue: Failure to Implead the CA Under Section 4(a) of Rule 45 of the current Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead "the lower courts or judges . . . either as petitioners or respondents." Under Section 3, however, the lower tribunal should still be furnished a copy of the petition. Hence, the failure of petitioner to implead the Court of Appeals as a party is not a reversible error; it is in fact the correct procedure. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Melo, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., took no part; Relationship with family.

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 124853. February 24, 1998.] FRANCISCO L. JISON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MONINA JISON, respondents.

to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred. The last element is the origin of the doctrine that stale demands apply only where by reason of the lapse of time it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PETITIONER MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT LACHES SETS IN INSPITE THE SUCCESSFUL SHOWING OF RESPONDENTS, DELAY IN ASSERTING HER CLAIM; CASE AT BAR. As FRANCISCO set up laches as an affirmative defense, it was incumbent upon him to prove the existence of its elements. However, he only succeeded in showing MONINA's delay in asserting her claim, but miserably failed to prove the last element. In any event, it must be stressed that laches is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims, and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud and injustice. Since the instant case involves paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, MONINA filed her action well within the period granted her by a positive provision of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would clearly be inequitable and unjust. 5.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY; SCHOOL RECORDS, BIRTH AND BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE ISSUE OF PATERNITY, WHEN THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF SAID DOCUMENTS; CASE AT BAR. MONINA's reliance on the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar concerning her birth is clearly misplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person. Simply put, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latter's part. In like manner, FRANCISCO's lack of participation in the preparation of the baptismal certificates and school records renders these documents incompetent to prove paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified. 6.ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ADMITTED INDIRECTLY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. We likewise disagree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the certificates issued by the Local Civil Registrar and the baptismal certificates may be taken as

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; PROVISIONS THEREOF CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT SINCE NO VESTED RIGHTS WERE IMPAIRED; CASE AT BAR. The Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209) governs the present controversy. As correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, Uyguangco served as a judicial confirmation of Article 256 of the Family Code regarding its retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights, which does not hold true here, it appearing that neither the putative parent nor the child has passed away and the former having actually resisted the latter's claim below. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; AN ACTION TO ESTABLISH ILLEGITIMATE FILIATION UNDER ARTICLE 172 REQUIRES HIGH STANDARD OF PROOF; RATIONALE THEREOF. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation, such as MONINA's, may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children. . . . For the success of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph, which MONINA relies upon given that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first paragraph, a "high standard of proof" is required. Specifically, to prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously. By "continuous" is meant uninterrupted and consistent, but does not require any particular length of time. The foregoing standard of proof required to establish one's filiation is founded on the principle that an order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. 3.ID.; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; LACHES; ELEMENTS THEREOF. The essential elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct as having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complaint would assert the right in which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice

circumstantial evidence to prove MONINA's filiation. Since they are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of such filiation, they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same. 7.ID.; ID.; EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE; FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE; VARIOUS NOTES AND LETTERS WRITTEN BY PUTATIVE FATHER'S RELATIVES ATTESTING FILIATION, INADMISSIBLE FOR BEING PRIVATE DOCUMENTS NOT CONSTITUTING "FAMILY POSSESSIONS"; CASE AT BAR. We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as "family possessions," or those articles which represent, in effect, a family's joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects "openly exhibited and well known to the family," or those "which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition." Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a family's reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates. Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common reputation, it having been observed that: [T]he weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence going to establish pedigree. . . . [Thus] matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the community. 8.ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN ADJUDGING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS; PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY WHICH WAS COMPRISED OF MERE DENIALS, RIFE WITH BARE, UNSUBSTANTIATED RESPONSES, LACKS CREDENCE; CASE AT BAR. Two (2) glaring points in FRANCISCO's defense beg to be addressed: First, that his testimony was comprised of mere denials, rife with bare, unsubstantiated responses such as "That is not true," "I do not believe that," or "None that I know." In declining then to lend credence to FRANCISCO's testimony, we resort to a guiding principle in adjudging the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his statements, laid down as early as 1921: The experience of courts and the general observation of humanity teach us that the natural limitations of our inventive faculties are such that if a witness undertakes to fabricate and deliver in court a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements which can be readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor the falsity of his message. For this reason it will be found that perjurers usually confine themselves to the incidents immediately related to the principal fact about which they testify, and when asked about collateral facts by which their truthfulness could be tested, their answers not infrequently take the stereotyped form of such expressions as "I don't know" or "I don't remember." . . . DAVIDE, JR., J p:

DECISION

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the 27 April 1995 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 32860 1 which reversed the decision of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City in Civil Case No. 16373. 2 The latter dismissed the complaint of private respondent Monina Jison (hereafter MONINA) for recognition as an illegitimate child of petitioner Francisco Jison (hereafter FRANCISCO). cda

In issue is whether or not public respondent Court of Appeals committed reversible error, which, in this instance, necessitates an inquiry into the facts. While as a general rule, factual issues are not within the province of this Court, nevertheless, in light of the conflicting findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, this case falls under an exception to this rule. 3 In her complaint 4 filed with the RTC on 13 March 1985, MONINA alleged that FRANCISCO had been married to a certain Lilia Lopez Jison since 1940. At the end of 1945 or the start of 1946, however, FRANCISCO impregnated Esperanza F. Amolar (who was then employed as the nanny of FRANCISCO's daughter, Lourdes). As a result, MONINA was born on 6 August 1946, in Dingle, Iloilo, and since childhood, had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of FRANCISCO by his acts and that of his family. MONINA further alleged that FRANCISCO gave her support and spent for her education, such that she obtained a Master's degree, became a certified public accountant (CPA) and eventually, a Central Bank examiner. In view of FRANCISCO's refusal to expressly recognize her, MONINA prayed for a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and that FRANCISCO support and treat her as such. In his answer, 5 FRANCISCO alleged that he could not have had sexual relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period specified in the complaint as she had ceased to be in his employ as early as 1944, and did not know of her whereabouts since then; further, he never recognized MONINA, expressly or impliedly, as his illegitimate child. As affirmative and special defenses, FRANCISCO contended that MONINA had no right or cause of action against him and that her action was barred by estoppel, laches and/or prescription. He thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint and an award of damages due to the malicious filing of the complaint. After MONINA filed her reply, 6 pre-trial was conducted where the parties stipulated on the following issues:

1.Did Francisco Jison have any sexual relation[s] with Esperanza Am[o]lar about the end of 1945 or the start of 1946? 2.Is Monina Jison the recognized illegitimate daughter of Francisco Jison by the latter's own acts and those of his family? 3.Is Monina Jison barred from instituting or prosecuting the present action by estoppel, laches and/or prescription? 4.Damages. 7 At trial on the merits, MONINA presented a total of eleven (11) witnesses, namely: herself, Ruben Castellanes, Sr., Adela Casabuena, Arsenio Duatin, Zafiro Ledesma, Danthea Lopez, Romeo Bilbao, Rudy Tingson, Alfredo Baylosis, Dominador Zavariz and Lope Amolar. Ruben Castellanes, Sr., a 63-year old resident of Iloilo City, testified that he had worked for FRANCISCO for a total of six (6) years at Nelly Garden, FRANCISCO's Iloilo residence. Towards the end of the Japanese occupation, FRANCISCO's wife suffered a miscarriage or abortion, thereby depriving FRANCISCO of consortium; thereafter, FRANCISCO's wife managed a nightclub on the ground floor of Nelly Garden which operated daily from 6:00 p.m. till 3:00 a.m. of the following day, thereby allowing FRANCISCO free access to MONINA's mother, Esperanza Amolar, who was nicknamed Pansay. Adela Casabuena, a 61-year old farmer, testified that she served as the yaya (nanny) of Lourdes from July 1946 up to February 1947. Although Pansay had left Nelly Garden two (2) weeks before Adela started working for the Jisons, Pansay returned sometime in September 1946, or about one month after she gave birth to MONINA, to ask FRANCISCO for support. As a result, Pansay and Lilia Jison, FRANCISCO's wife, quarreled in the living room, and in the course thereof, Pansayclaimed that FRANCISCO was the father of her baby. To which, Lilia replied: "I did not tell you to make that baby so it is your fault." During the quarrel which lasted from 10:30 till 11:00 a.m., FRANCISCO was supposedly inside the house listening. Arsenio Duatin, a 77-year old retired laborer, testified that from 1947 until 1977, he worked as FRANCISCO's houseboy at the latter's house on 12th Street, Capitol Subdivision, Bacolod City. Arsenio met MONINA in 1967, when Felipe Lagarto, the bookkeeper at Nelly Garden, informed Arsenio that MONINA, FRANCISCO's daughter, would arrive at Bacolod City with a letter of introduction from Lagarto. Initially, Arsenio identified seven (7) black-and-white photographs (Exhs. X-5 to X11) of MONINA, 8 and as he paid for the telephone bills, he likewise identified six (6) telephone cards (Exhs. G to L). Arsenio then declared that when MONINA arrived in

Bacolod City, she introduced herself to him as FRANCISCO's daughter. She stayed at FRANCISCO's house, but when the latter and his wife would come over, Arsenio would "conceal the presence of MONINA because Mrs. Jison did not like to see her face." Once, Arsenio hid MONINA in the house of FRANCISCO's sister, Mrs. Luisa Jison Alano, in Silay City; another time, at the residence of FRANCISCO's cousin, Mrs. Concha Lopez Cuaycong. Finally, Arsenio declared that the last time he saw MONINA was when she left for Manila, after having finished her schooling at La Salle College in Bacolod City. On re-direct and upon questions by the court, Arsenio disclosed that it was FRANCISCO who instructed that MONINA be hidden whenever FRANCISCO and his wife were around; that although FRANCISCO and MONINA saw each other at the Bacolod house only once, they called each other "through long distance;" and that MONINA addressed FRANCISCO as "Daddy" during their lone meeting at the Bacolod house and were "affectionate" to each other. Arsenio likewise declared that MONINA stayed at FRANCISCO's Bacolod house twice: first for a month, then for about a week the second time. On both occasions, however, FRANCISCO and his wife were abroad. Finally, Arsenio recalled that FRANCISCO likewise bade Arsenio to treat MONINA like his (FRANCISCO's) other daughters. The testimony of Zafiro Ledesma, a 74-year old banker and former mayor of Iloilo City, initially touched on how he and his wife were related to FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO's wife and MONINA. Zafiro first identified Exhibit R, a diagram of the family trees of the Jison and Lopez families, which showed that former Vice-President Fernando Lopez was the first cousin of FRANCISCO's wife, then told the court that the family of Vice-President Lopez treated MONINA "very well because she is considered a relative . . . by reputation, by actual perception." Zafiro likewise identified Exhibits X-13 to X-18, photographs taken at the 14 April 1985 birthday celebration of Mrs. Fernando Lopez, which showed MONINA with the former Vice-President and other members of the Lopez family. Zafiro further testified that while MONINA lived with Mrs. Cuaycong, the latter paid for some of MONINA's school needs and even asked MONINA to work in a hospital owned by Mrs. Cuaycong; and that another first cousin of FRANCISCO's wife, a certain Remedios Lopez Franco, likewise helped MONINA with her studies and problems, and even attended MONINA's graduation in 1978 when she obtained a masteral degree in Business Administration, as evidenced by another photograph (Exh. X-12). Moreover, upon Remedios' recommendation, MONINA was employed as a secretary at Merchant Financing Company, which was managed by a certain Danthea Lopez, the wife of another first cousin of FRANCISCO's wife and among whose directors were Zafiro himself, his wife and Danthea's husband. In closing, Zafiro identified MONINA's Social Security Record (Exh. W), which was signed by Danthea as employer and where MONINA designated Remedios as the beneficiary. Danthea Lopez, a 58-year old housekeeper, declared that FRANCISCO was the first cousin of her husband, Eusebio D. Lopez; and that she came to know MONINA in the

latter part of 1965 when Remedios Franco recommended MONINA for employment at Merchant Financing Co., which Danthea managed at that time. Remedios introduced MONINA to Danthea "as being reputedly the daughter of Mr. Frank Jison;" and on several occasions thereafter, Remedios made Danthea and the latter's husband understand that MONINA was "reputedly the daughter of [FRANCISCO]." While MONINA worked at Merchant Financing, Danthea knew that MONINA lived with Remedios; however, in the latter part of 1966, as Remedios left for Manila and MONINA was still studying at San Agustin University, Danthea and her husband invited MONINA to live with them. During MONINA's 6-month stay with them, she was not charged for board and lodging and was treated as a relative, not a mere employee, all owing to what Remedios had said regarding MONINA's filiation. As Danthea understood, MONINA resigned from Merchant Financing as she was called by Mrs. Cuaycong, a first cousin of Danthea's husband who lived in Bacolod City. Romeo Bilbao, a 43-year old seaman, testified that he had worked for FRANCISCO from 1969 up to 1980 at Nelly Garden in various capacities: as a procurement officer, hacienda overseer and, later, as hacienda administrator. Sometime in May, 1971, Romeo saw and heard MONINA ask "her daddy" (meaning FRANCISCO) for the money he promised to give her, but FRANCISCO answered that he did not have the money to give, then told MONINA to go see Mr. Jose Cruz in Bacolod City. Then in the middle of September that year, FRANCISCO told Romeo to pick up Mr. Cruz at the Iloilo pier and bring him to the office of Atty. Benjamin Tirol. At said office, Atty. Tirol, Mr. Cruz and MONINA entered a room while Romeo waited outside. When they came out, Atty. Tirol had papers for MONINA to sign, but she refused. Atty. Tirol said that a check would be released to MONINA if she signed the papers, so MONINA acceded, although Atty. Tirol intended not to give MONINA a copy of the document she signed. Thereafter, Mr. Cruz gave MONINA a check (Exh. Q), then MONINA grabbed a copy of the document she signed and ran outside. Romeo then brought Mr. Cruz to Nelly Garden. As to his motive for testifying, Romeo stated that he wanted to help MONINA be recognized as FRANCISCO's daughter.

Funeraria Bernal for the funeral expenses of MONINA's mother. Finally, as to Rudy's motives for testifying, he told the court that he simply wanted to help bring out the truth "and nothing but the truth," and that MONINA's filiation was common knowledge among the people in the office at Nelly Garden. On re-direct, Rudy declared that the moneys given by FRANCISCO's office to MONINA were not reflected in the books of the office, but were kept in a separate book, as Mr. Lagarto explained that FRANCISCO's wife and children "should not know [of] this." Rudy further revealed that as to the garden "meetings" between FRANCISCO and MONINA, Rudy saw MONINA kiss FRANCISCO on the cheek both upon arriving and before leaving, and FRANCISCO's reaction upon seeing her was to smile and say in the Visayan dialect: " Kamusta ka iha?" ("How are you, daughter?"); and that MONINA was free to go inside the house as the household staff knew of her filiation, and that, sometimes, MONINA would join them for lunch. Alfredo Baylosis, a 62-year old retired accountant, testified that he worked for FRANCISCO at Central Santos-Lopez in Iloilo from 1951 up to 1961, then at Nelly Garden from 1961 until 1972. Alfredo first served FRANCISCO as a bookkeeper, then when Mr. Lagarto died in 1967 or 1969, Alfredo replaced Mr. Lagarto as office manager. Alfredo knew MONINA since 1961 as she used to go to Nelly Garden to claim her P15.00 monthly allowance given upon FRANCISCO's standing order. Alfredo further declared that MONINA's filiation was pretty well-known in the office; that he had seen MONINA and FRANCISCO go from the main building to the office, with FRANCISCO's arm on MONINA's shoulder; and that the office paid for the burial expenses of Pansay, but this was not recorded in the books in order to hide it from FRANCISCO's wife. Alfredo also disclosed that the disbursements for MONINA's allowance started in 1961 and were recorded in a separate cash book. In 1967, the allowances ceased when MONINA stopped schooling and was employed in Bacolod City with Miller, Cruz & Co., which served as FRANCISCO's accountant-auditor. Once when Alfredo went to the offices of Miller, Cruz & Co. to see the manager, Mr. Atienza, and arrange for the preparation of FRANCISCO's income tax return, Alfredo chanced upon MONINA. When Alfredo asked her how she came to work there, she answered that "her Daddy," FRANCISCO, recommended her, a fact confirmed by Mr. Atienza. Alfredo then claimed that Mr. Jose Cruz, a partner at Miller, Cruz & Co., was the most trusted man of FRANCISCO. Dominador Savariz, a 55-year old caretaker, testified that he worked as FRANCISCO's houseboy at Nelly Garden from November 1953 up to 1965. One morning in April 1954, MONINA and her mother Pansay went to Nelly Garden and spoke with FRANCISCO for about an hour, during which time, Dominador was vacuuming the carpet about six (6) to seven (7) meters away. Due to the noise of the vacuum cleaner, FRANCISCO and MONINA spoke in loud voices, thus Dominador overheard their conversation. As FRANCISCO asked Pansay why they came, Pansay answered that they came to ask for the "sustenance" of his child MONINA. FRANCISCO then

Rudy Tingson, a 45-year old antique dealer, testified that in 1963-1964, he was employed by FRANCISCO's wife at the Baguio Military Institute in Baguio City; then in 1965, Rudy worked at FRANCISCO's office at Nelly Garden recording hacienda expenses, typing vouchers and office papers, and, at times, acting as paymaster for the haciendas. From the nature of his work, Rudy knew the persons receiving money from FRANCISCO's office, and clearly remembered that in 1965, as part of his job, Rudy gave MONINA her allowance from FRANCISCO four (4) times, upon instructions of a certain Mr. Lagarto to give MONINA P15.00 a month. Rudy likewise recalled that he first met MONINA in 1965, and that she would go to Nelly Garden whenever FRANCISCO's wife was not around. On some of these occasions, MONINA would speak with and address FRANCISCO as "Daddy," without objection from FRANCISCO. In fact, in 1965, Rudy saw FRANCISCO give MONINA money thrice. Rudy further declared that in April 1965, FRANCISCO's office paid P250.00 to

touched MONINA's head and asked: "How are you Hija?," to which MONINA answered: "Good morning, Daddy." After FRANCISCO told Pansay and MONINA to wait, he pulled something from his wallet and said to Pansay. "I am giving this for the child." In May 1954, Dominador saw MONINA at Mr. Lagarto's office where Dominador was to get "the day's expenses," while MONINA was claiming her allowance from Mr. Diasnes. The next month, Dominador saw MONINA at Nelly Garden and heard in the office that MONINA was there to get her allowance "from her Daddy." In December 1960, Dominador saw MONINA at Nelly Garden, in the room of Don Vicente (father of FRANCISCO's wife), where she asked for a Christmas gift "and she was calling Don Vicente, Lolo (grandfather)." At that time, FRANCISCO and his wife were not around. Then sometime in 1961, when Dominador went to Mr. Lagarto's office to get the marketing expenses, Dominador saw MONINA once more claiming her allowance. Dominador further testified that in February 1966, after he had stopped working for FRANCISCO, Dominador was at Mrs. Franco's residence as she recommended him for employment with her sister, Mrs. Concha Cuaycong. There, he saw MONINA, who was then about 15 years old, together with Mrs. Franco's daughter and son. Mrs. Franco pointed at MONINA and asked Dominador if he knew who MONINA was. Dominador answered that MONINA was FRANCISCO's daughter with Pansay, and then Mrs. Franco remarked that MONINA was staying with her (Mrs. Franco) and that she was sending MONINA to school at the University of San Agustin. Lope Amolar, a 50-year old resident of Dingle, Iloilo, and the younger brother of Esperanza Amolar (Pansay), testified that he worked for FRANCISCO as a houseboy from March to November 1945 at Nelly Garden. Thereafter, FRANCISCO sent Lope to work at Elena Apartments in Manila. By November 1945, Pansay was also working at Elena Apartments, where she revealed to Lope that FRANCISCO impregnated her. Lope then confronted FRANCISCO, who told Lope "don't get hurt and don't cause any trouble, because I am willing to support your Inday Pansay and my child." Three (3) days after this confrontation, Lope asked for and received permission from FRANCISCO to resign because he (Lope) was hurt. On 21 October 1986, MONINA herself took the witness stand. At that time, she was 40 years old and a Central Bank Examiner. She affirmed that as evidenced by certifications from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (Exhs. E and F) and baptismal certificates (Exhs. C and D), she was born on 6 August 1946 in Barangay Tabugon, Dingle, Iloilo, to Esperanza Amolar (who passed away on 20 April 1965) and FRANCISCO. 9 MONINA first studied at Sagrado where she stayed as a boarder. While at Sagrado from 1952 until 1955 (up to Grade 4), her father, FRANCISCO, paid for her tuition fees and other school expenses. She either received the money from FRANCISCO or from Mr. Lagarto, or saw FRANCISCO give money to her mother, or Mr. Lagarto would pay Sagrado directly. After Sagrado, MONINA studied in different schools, 10 but FRANCISCO continuously answered for her schooling. prLL

For her college education, MONINA enrolled at the University of Iloilo, but she later dropped due to an accident which required a week's hospitalization. Although FRANCISCO paid for part of the hospitalization expenses, her mother shouldered most of them. In 1963, she enrolled at the University of San Agustin, where she stayed with Mrs. Franco who paid for MONINA's tuition fees. However, expenses for books, school supplies, uniforms and the like were shouldered by FRANCISCO. At the start of each semester, MONINA would show FRANCISCO that she was enrolled, then he would ask her to canvass prices, then give her the money she needed. After finishing two (2) semesters at University of San Agustin, as evidenced by her transcript of records (Exh. Z showing that FRANCISCO was listed as Parent/Guardian [Exh. Z-1]), she transferred to "De Paul College," just in front of Mrs. Franco's house, and studied there for a year. Thereafter, MONINA enrolled at Western Institute of Technology (WIT), where she obtained a bachelor's degree in Commerce in April 1967. During her senior year, she stayed with Eusebio and Danthea Lopez at Hotel Kahirup, owned by said couple. She passed the CPA board exams in 1974, and took up an M.B.A. at De La Salle University as evidenced by her transcript (Exh. AA), wherein FRANCISCO was likewise listed as "Guardian" (Exhs. AA-1 and AA-2). MONINA enumerated the different members of the household staff at Nelly Garden, to wit: Luz, the household cook; the houseboys Silvestre and Doming; the housemaid Natang; the yaya of the adopted triplets, Deling; the yaya of Lolo Vicente, Adelina; and others. MONINA likewise enumerated the members of the office staff (Messrs. Baylosis, Lagarto, Tingson, Diasnes, Jalandoni, Supertisioso, Doroy, and others), and identified them from a photograph marked as Exhibit X-2. She then corroborated the prior testimony regarding her employment at Merchant Financing Co., and her having lived at Hotel Kahirup and at Mrs. Cuaycong's residence in Bacolod City, while working at the hospital owned by Mrs. Cuaycong. MONINA further testified that in March 1968, she went to Manila and met FRANCISCO at Elena Apartments at the corner of Romero and Salas Streets, Ermita. She told FRANCISCO that she was going for a vacation in Baguio City with Mrs. Franco's mother, with whom she stayed up to June 1968. Upon her return from Baguio City, MONINA told FRANCISCO that she wanted to work, so the latter arranged for her employment at Miller & Cruz in Bacolod City. MONINA went to Bacolod City, was interviewed by Mr. Jose Cruz, a partner at Miller & Cruz, who told her she would start working first week of September, sans examination. She resigned from Miller & Cruz in 1971 and lived with Mrs. Cuaycong at her Forbes Park residence in Makati. MONINA went to see FRANCISCO, told him that she resigned and asked him for money to go to Spain, but FRANCISCO refused as she could not speak Spanish and would not be able find a job. The two quarreled and FRANCISCO ordered a helper to send MONINA out of the house. In the process, MONINA broke many glasses at the pantry and cut her hand, after which, FRANCISCO hugged her, gave her medicine, calmed her down, asked her to return to Bacolod City and promised that he would give her the money.

MONINA returned to Bacolod City by plane, using a Filipinas Orient Airways plane ticket (Exh. M) which FRANCISCO gave. She called Mr. Cruz, then Atty. Tirol, as instructed by Mr. Cruz. These calls were evidenced by PLDT long distance toll cards (Exhs. G to L), with annotations at the back reading: "charged and paid under the name of Frank L. Jison" and were signed by Arsenio Duatin (Exhs. G-1 to L-1). PLDT issued a certification as to the veracity of the contents of the toll cards (Exh. BB). Likewise introduced in evidence was a letter of introduction prepared by Mr. Cruz addressed to Atty. Tirol, on MONINA's behalf (Exh. N). MONINA also declared that Atty. Tirol then told her that she would have to go to Iloilo and sign a certain affidavit, before Mr. Cruz would turn over the money promised by FRANCISCO. She went to Atty. Tirol's office in Iloilo, but after going over the draft of the affidavit, refused to sign it as it stated that she was not FRANCISCO's daughter. She explained that all she had agreed with FRANCISCO was that he would pay for her fare to go abroad, and that since she was a little girl, she knew about her illegitimacy. She started crying, begged Atty. Tirol to change the affidavit, to which Atty. Tirol responded that he was also a father and did not want this to happen to his children as they could not be blamed for being brought into the world. She then wrote a letter (Exh. O) to FRANCISCO and sent it to the latter's Forbes Park residence (Bauhinia Place) by JRS courier service (Exhs. O-5 to O-7). MONINA subsequently met FRANCISCO in Bacolod City where they discussed the affidavit which she refused to sign. FRANCISCO told her that the affidavit was for his wife, that in case she heard about MONINA going abroad, the affidavit would "keep her peace." MONINA then narrated that the first time she went to Atty. Tirol's office, she was accompanied by one Atty. Fernando Divinagracia, who advised her that the affidavit (Exh. P) 11 would "boomerang" against FRANCISCO "as it is contrary to law." MONINA returned to Bacolod City, then met with Atty. Tirol once more to reiterate her plea, but Atty. Tirol did not relent. Thus, on the morning of 20 or 21 September 1971, she signed the affidavit as she was jobless and needed the money to support herself and finish her studies. In exchange for signing the document, MONINA received a Bank of Asia check for P15,000.00 (Exh. Q), which was less than the P25,000.00 which FRANCISCO allegedly promised to give. As Atty. Tirol seemed hesitant to give her a copy of the affidavit after notarizing it, MONINA merely grabbed a copy and immediately left. MONINA then prepared to travel abroad, for which purpose, she procured letters of introduction (Exhs. S and T) from a cousin, Mike Alano (son of FRANCISCO's elder sister Luisa); and an uncle, Emilio Jison (FRANCISCO's elder brother), addressed to another cousin, Beth Jison (Emilio's daughter), for Beth to assist MONINA. Exhibit S contained a statement (Exh. S-1) expressly recognizing that MONINA was FRANCISCO's daughter. Ultimately though, MONINA decided not to go abroad, opting instead to spend the proceeds of the P15,000.00 check for her CPA review, board exam and graduate studies. After finishing her graduate studies, she again planned to travel abroad, for which reason, she obtained a letter of introduction from

former Vice President Fernando Lopez addressed to then United States Consul Vernon McAnnich (Exh. V). As to other acts tending to show her filiation, MONINA related that on one occasion, as FRANCISCO's wife was going to arrive at the latter's Bacolod City residence, FRANCISCO called Arsenio Duatin and instructed Arsenio to hide MONINA. Thus, MONINA stayed with Mrs. Luisa Jison for the duration of the stay of FRANCISCO's wife. MONINA also claimed that she knew Vice President Fernando Lopez and his wife, Mariquit, even before starting to go to school. Thus, MONINA asked for a recommendation letter (Exh. U) from Mrs. Mariquit Lopez for possible employment with Mrs. Rosario Lopez Cooper, another second cousin of FRANCISCO. In Exhibit U, Mrs. Lopez expressly recognized MONINA as FRANCISCO's daughter. As additional proof of her close relationship with the family of Vice President Lopez, MONINA identified photographs taken at a birthday celebration on 14 April 1985. MONINA finally claimed that she knew the three (3) children of FRANCISCO by wife, namely, Lourdes, Francisco, Jr. (Junior) and Elena, but MONINA had met only Lourdes and Junior. MONINA's testimony dealt lengthily on her dealings with Junior and the two (2) occasions when she met with Lourdes. The last time MONINA saw FRANCISCO was in March 1979, when she sought his blessings to get married. In his defense, FRANCISCO offered his deposition taken before then Judge Romeo Callejo of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 48. As additional witnesses, FRANCISCO presented Nonito Jalandoni, Teodoro Zulla, Iigo Supertisioso, Lourdes Ledesma, Jose Cruz and Dolores Argenal. FRANCISCO declared that Pansay's employment ceased as of October, 1944, and that while employed by him, Pansay would sleep with the other female helpers on the first floor of his residence, while he, his wife and daughter slept in a room on the second floor. At that time, his household staff was composed of three (3) female workers and two (2) male workers. After Pansay left in October 1944, she never communicated with him again, neither did he know of her whereabouts. FRANCISCO staunchly denied having had sexual relations with Pansay and disavowed any knowledge about MONINA's birth. In the same vein, he denied having paid for MONINA's tuition fees, in person or otherwise, and asserted that he never knew that Mr. Lagarto paid for these fees. Moreover, FRANCISCO could not believe that Lagarto would pay for these fees despite absence of instructions or approval from FRANCISCO. He likewise categorically denied that he told anyone, be it Danthea Lopez, Zafiro Ledesma, Concha Cuaycong or Remedios Franco, that MONINA was his daughter. FRANCISCO also disclosed that upon his return from the United States in 1971, he fired Alfredo Baylosis upon discovering that Alfredo had taken advantage of his position during the former's absence. FRANCISCO likewise fired Rudy Tingson and Romeo Bilbao, but did not give the reasons therefor.

Finally, FRANCISCO denied knowledge of MONINA's long distance calls from his Bacolod residence; nevertheless, when he subsequently discovered this, he fired certain people in his office for their failure to report this anomaly. As regards the caretaker of his Bacolod residence, FRANCISCO explained that since MONINA lived at Mrs. Cuaycong's residence, the caretaker thought that he could allow people who lived at the Cuaycong residence to use the facilities at his (FRANCISCO's) house. Nonito Jalandoni, bookkeeper and paymaster at Nelly's Garden from 1963 up to 1974, then from 1980 up to 1986, the assistant overseer of Hacienda Lopez, testified that he did not know MONINA; that he learned of her only in June 1988, when he was informed by FRANCISCO that MONINA had sued him; and that he never saw MONINA at Nelly's Garden, neither did he know of any instructions for anyone at Nelly's Garden to give money to MONINA. Teodoro Zulla, FRANCISCO's bookkeeper and paymaster from 1951 up to 1986, testified that FRANCISCO dismissed Alfredo Baylosis due to certain unspecified discrepancies; and that he never saw MONINA receive funds from either Mr. Lagarto or Mr. Baylosis; Upon questions from the trial court, however, Teodoro admitted that he prepared vouchers for only one of FRANCISCO's haciendas, and not vouchers pertaining to the latter's personal expenses. Iigo Supertisioso testified that he worked for FRANCISCO at Nelly's Garden from 1964 up to 1984 as a field inspector, paymaster, cashier and, eventually, officer-incharge (OIC). He confirmed Alfredo Baylosis' dismissal due to these unspecified irregularities, then denied that FRANCISCO ever ordered that MONINA be given her allowance. Likewise, Iigo never heard FRANCISCO mention that MONINA was his (FRANCISCO's) daughter. Lourdes Ledesma, FRANCISCO's daughter, testified that she saw (but did not know) MONINA at the Our Lady of Mercy Hospital, on the occasion of the birth of Lourdes' first son, Mark. Over lunch one day, Lourdes' aunt casually introduced Lourdes and MONINA to each other, but they were referred to only by their first names. Then sometime in 1983 or 1984, MONINA allegedly went to Lourdes' house in Sta. Clara Subdivision requesting for a letter of introduction or referral as MONINA was then job-hunting. However, Lourdes did not comply with the request. Jose Cruz, a partner at Miller, Cruz & Co., testified that MONINA worked at Miller & Cruz from 1968 up to 1971, however, he did not personally interview her before she was accepted for employment. Moreover, MONINA underwent the usual screening procedure before being hired. Jose recalled that one of the accountants, a certain Mr. Atienza, reported that MONINA claimed to be FRANCISCO's daughter. Jose then told Mr. Atienza to speak with MONINA and see if he (Mr. Atienza) could stop her from spreading this rumor. Mr. Atienza reported that he spoke with MONINA, who told him that she planned to leave for the United States and needed P20,000.00 for that purpose, and in exchange, she would sign a document disclaiming filiation with FRANCISCO.

Thus, Jose instructed Mr. Atienza to request that MONINA meet with Jose, and at that meeting, MONINA confirmed Mr. Atienza's report. Jose then informed Atty. Tirol, FRANCISCO's personal lawyer, about the matter. Atty. Tirol told Jose to send MONINA and her lawyer to his (Atty. Tirol's) office in Iloilo. Jose then wrote out a letter of introduction for MONINA addressed to Atty. Tirol. Jose relayed Atty. Tirol's message to MONINA through Mr. Atienza, then later, Atty. Tirol told Jose to go to Iloilo with a check for P15,000.00. Jose complied, and at Atty. Tirol's office, Jose saw MONINA, Atty. Tirol and his secretary reading some documents. MONINA then expressed her willingness to sign the document,sans revisions. Jose alleged that he drew the P15,000.00 from his personal funds, subject to reimbursement from and due to an understanding with FRANCISCO.

Dolores Argenal, a househelper at Nelly Garden from May 1944 up to May 1946, testified that she knew that Pansay was Lourdes' nanny; that Lourdes slept in her parents' room; that she had not seen FRANCISCO give special treatment to Pansay, that there was no "unusual relationship" between FRANCISCO and Pansay, and if there was any, Dolores would have easily detected it since she slept in the same room as Pansay. Dolores further declared that whenever FRANCISCO's wife was out of town, Pansay would bring Lourdes downstairs at nighttime, and that Pansay would not sleep in the room where FRANCISCO slept. Finally, Dolores declared thatPansay stopped working for FRANCISCO and his wife in October, 1944. The reception of evidence having been concluded, the parties filed their respective memoranda. It need be recalled that Judge Catalino Castaeda, Jr. presided over trial up to 21 October 1986, thereby hearing only the testimonies of MONINA's witnesses and about half of MONINA's testimony on direct examination. Judge Norberto E. Devera, Jr. heard the rest of MONINA's testimony and those of FRANCISCO's witnesses. In its decision of 12 November 1990 12 the trial court, through Judge Devera, dismissed the complaint with costs against MONINA. In the opening paragraph thereof, it observed: This is a complaint for recognition of an illegitimate child instituted by plaintiff Monina Jison against defendant Francisco Jison. This complaint was filed on March 13, 1985 at the time when plaintiff, reckoned from her date of birth, was already thirtynine years old. Noteworthy also is the fact that it was instituted twenty years after the death of plaintiff's mother, Esperanza Amolar. For the years between plaintiffs birth and Esperanza's death, no action of any kind was instituted against defendant either

by plaintiff, her mother Esperanza or the latter's parents. Neither had plaintiff brought such an action against defendant immediately upon her mother's death on April 20, 1965, considering that she was then already nineteen years old or, within a reasonable time thereafter. Twenty years more had to supervene before this complaint was eventually instituted. The trial court then proceeded to discuss the four issues stipulated at pre-trial, without, however, summarizing the testimonies of the witnesses nor referring to the testimonies of the witnesses other than those mentioned in the discussion of the issues. The trial court resolved the first issue in the negative, holding that it was improbable for witness Lope Amolar to have noticed that Pansay was pregnant upon seeing her at the Elena Apartments in November 1945, since Pansay was then only in her first month of pregnancy; that there was no positive assertion that "copulation did indeed take place between Francisco and Esperanza;" and that MONINA's attempt to show opportunity on the part of FRANCISCO failed to consider "that there was also the opportunity for copulation between Esperanza and one of the several domestic helpers admittedly also residing at Nelly's Garden at that time." The RTC also ruled that the probative value of the birth and baptismal certificates of MONINA paled in light of jurisprudence, especially when the misspellings therein were considered. The trial court likewise resolved the second issue in the negative, finding that MONINA's evidence thereon "may either be one of three categories, namely: hearsay evidence, incredulous evidence, or self-serving evidence." To the first category belonged the testimonies of Adela Casabuena and Alfredo Baylosis, whose knowledge of MONINA's filiation was based, as to the former, on "utterances of defendant's wife Lilia and Esperanza allegedly during the heat of their quarrel," while as to the latter, Alfredo's conclusion was based "from the rumors going [around] that plaintiff is defendant's daughter, from his personal observation of plaintiff's facial appearance which he compared with that of defendant's and from the way the two (plaintiff and defendant) acted and treated each other on one occasion that he had then opportunity to closely observe them together." To the second category belonged that of Dominador Savariz, as: At each precise time that Esperanza allegedly visited Nelly's Garden and allegedly on those occasions when defendant's wife, Lilia was in Manila, this witness was there and allegedly heard pieces of conversation between defendant and Esperanza related to the paternity of the latter's child. . . The RTC then placed MONINA's testimony regarding the acts of recognition accorded her by FRANCISCO's relatives under the third category, since the latter were never

presented as witnesses, for which reason the trial court excluded the letters from FRANCISCO's relatives (Exhs. S to V). As to the third issue, the trial court held that MONINA was not barred by prescription for it was of "the perception . . . that the benefits of Article 268 accorded to legitimate children may be availed of or extended to illegitimate children in the same manner as the Family Code has so provided;" or by laches, "which is [a] creation of equity applied only to bring equitable results, and . . . addressed to the sound discretion of the court [and] the circumstances [here] would show that whether plaintiff filed this case immediately upon the death of her mother Esperanza in 1965 or twenty years thereafter in 1985, . . . there seems to be no inequitable result to defendant as related to the situation of plaintiff." The RTC ruled however, that MONINA was barred by estoppel by deed because of the affidavit (Exh. P/Exh. 2) which she signed "when she was already twenty-five years, a professional and . . . under the able guidance of counsel." Finally. the RTC denied FRANCISCO's claim for damages, finding that MONINA did not file the complaint with malice, she having been "propelled by an honest belief, founded on probable cause." MONINA seasonably appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 32860) and sought reversal of the trial court's decision on the grounds that: I THE TRIAL COURT WAS ERRONEOUSLY PREDISPOSED TO ADJUDGE THIS CASE AGAINST APPELLANT DUE TO ITS MISPERCEPTION THAT APPELLANT'S DELAY IN FILING HER COMPLAINT WAS FATAL TO HER CASE. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS REJECTION OF THE TESTIMONIES OF APPELLANT'S WITNESSES AS TAILORMADE, INADEQUATE AND INCREDIBLE. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS REJECTION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY APPELLANT AS PART OF HER EVIDENCE.

IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS REQUIREMENT THAT A WITNESS TO THE ACTUAL ACT OF COPULATION BETWEEN THE APPELLEE AND APPELLANT'S MOTHER SHOULD HAVE POSITIVELY TESTIFIED TO SAID EFFECT. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DULY IDENTIFIED NOTES AND LETTER OF THE RELATIVES OF THE APPELLEE AS HEARSAY. VI THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT (EXH. P) SERVED AS A BAR AGAINST HER CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION INSTEAD OF REINFORCING SAID CLAIM. 13 Expectedly, FRANCISCO refuted these alleged errors in his Appellee's Brief. 14 In its decision of 27 April 1995, 15 the Court of Appeals initially declared that as no vested or acquired rights were affected, the instant case was governed by Article 175, in relation to Articles 172 and 173, of the Family Code. 16 While the Court of Appeals rejected the certifications issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Dingle, Iloilo (Exhs. E and F) as FRANCISCO did not sign them, said court focused its discussion on the other means by which illegitimate filiation could be proved, i.e., the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or, by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, such as "the baptismal certificate of the child, a judicial admission, a family bible wherein the name of the child is entered, common reputation respecting pedigree, admission by silence, testimonies of witnesses . . ." 17 To the Court of Appeals, the "bottom line issue" was whether or not MONINA established her filiation as FRANCISCO's illegitimate daughter by preponderance of evidence, as to which issue said court found: [N]ot just preponderant but overwhelming evidence on record to prove that [MONINA] is the illegitimate daughter of [FRANCISCO] and that she had continuously enjoyed such status by direct acts of [FRANCISCO] and/or his relatives. In so ruling, the Court of Appeals observed that the testimonies of Lope Amolar, Adela Casabuena and Dominador Savariz were already sufficient to establish MONINA's filiation:

As adverted to earlier, the trial court discredited Lope Amolar's testimony by saying that Lope could not have detected Esperanza's pregnant state in November, 1945 since at that point in time [ sic] she was still in the initial stage of pregnancy. Apparently, the trial court paid more emphasis on the date mentioned by Lope Amolar than on the tenor and import of his testimony. As . . . Lope . . . was asked about an incident that transpired more than 41 years back; [u]nder the circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect that Lope could still be dead right on the specific month in 1945 that [he] met and confronted his sister. At any rate, what is important is not the month that they met but the essence of his testimony that his sister pointed to their employer [FRANCISCO] as the one responsible for her pregnancy, and that upon being confronted, [FRANCISCO] assured him of support for Esperanza and their child. It would appear then that in an attempt to find fault with Lope's testimony, the trial court has fallen oblivious to the fact that even [FRANCISCO], in his deposition, did not deny that he was confronted by Lope about what he had done to Esperanza, during which he unequivocally acknowledged paternity by assuring Lope of support for both Esperanza and their child. The Court of Appeals further noted that Casabuena and Savariz "testified on something that they personally observed or witnessed," which matters FRANCISCO "did not deny or refute." Finally, said court aptly held:

Taking into account all the foregoing uncontroverted testimonies . . . let alone such circumstantial evidence as [MONINA's] Birth Certificates . . . and Baptismal Certificates which invariably bear the name of [FRANCISCO] as her father, We cannot go along with the trial court's theory that [MONINA's] illegitimate filiation has not been satisfactorily established. xxx xxx xxx Significantly, [MONINA's] testimony finds ample corroboration from [FRANCISCO's] former employees, Arsenio Duatin, Rudy Tingson and Alfredo Baylosis. . . xxx xxx xxx Carefully evaluating appellant's evidence on her enjoyment of the status of an illegitimate daughter of [FRANCISCO] vis-avis [FRANCISCO's] controversion thereof, We find more weight

in the former. The positive testimonies of [MONINA] and [her] witnesses . . . all bearing on [FRANCISCO's] acts and/or conduct indubitably showing that he had continuously acknowledged [MONINA] as his illegitimate daughter have not been succeessfully [sic] refuted. In fact [FRANCISCO] himself, in his deposition, only casually dismissed [MONINA's] exhaustive and detailed testimony as untrue, and with respect to those given by [MONINA's] witnesses, he merely explained that he had fired [them] from their employment. Needless to state [FRANCISCO's] vague denial is grossly inadequate to overcome the probative weight of [MONINA's] testimonial evidence. Even the affidavit (Exh 2) which [FRANCISCO] had foisted on the trial court . . . does not hold sway in the face of [MONINA's] logical explanation that she at first did agree to sign the affidavit which contained untruthful statements. In fact, she promptly complained to [FRANCISCO] who, however explained to her that the affidavit was only for the consumption of his spouse . . . Further the testimony of Jose Cruz concerning the events that led to the execution of the affidavit . . . could not have been true, for as pointed out by [MONINA], she signed the affidavit . . . almost five months after she had resigned from the Miller, Cruz & Co. . . At any rate if [MONINA] were not his illegitimate daughter, it would have been uncalled for, if not absurd, for [FRANCISCO] or his lawyer to have secured [MONINA's] sworn statement . . . On the contrary, in asking [MONINA] to sign the said affidavit at the cost of P15,000, [FRANCISCO] clearly betrayed his intention to conceal or suppress his paternity of [MONINA] . . . In fine, We hold that [MONINA's] filiation as [FRANCISCO's] illegitimate daughter has been conclusively established by the uncontroverted testimonies of Lope Amolar, Adela Casabuena and Dominador Savariz to the effect that appellee himself had admitted his paternity of the appellee, and also by the testimonies of appellant; Arsenio Duatin, Romeo Bilbao, Rudy Tingson and Alfredo Baylosis unerringly demonstrating that by his own conduct or overt acts like sending appellant to school, paying for her tuition fees, school uniforms, books, board and lodging at the Colegio del Sagrado Corazon de Jesus, defraying appellant's hospitalization expenses providing her with [a] monthly allowance, paying for the funeral expenses of appellant's mother, acknowledging appellant's paternal greetings and calling appellant his "Hija" or child, instructing his office personnel to give appellant's monthly allowance recommending appellant for employment at the Miller Cruz & Co., allowing appellant to use his house in Bacolod and

paying for her long distance telephone calls, having appellant spend her vacation in his apartment in Manila and also at his Forbes residence, allowing appellant to use his surname in her scholastic and other records (Exhs Z, AA, AA-1 to AA-5, W & W5), appellee had continuously recognized appellant as his illegitimate daughter. Added to these are the acts of [FRANCISCO's] relatives acknowledging or treating [MONINA] as [FRANCISCO's] daughter (Exh U) or as their relative (Exhs T & V). On this point, witness Zafiro Ledesma, former Mayor of Iloilo city, whose spouse belongs to the Lopez clan just like [FRANCISCO], testified that [MONINA] has been considered by the Lopezes as a relative. He identified pictures of the appellee in the company of the Lopezes (Exhs X-16 & X-17). Another witness, Danthea H. Lopez, whose husband Eusebio Lopez is appellee's first cousin, testified that appellant was introduced to her by appellee's cousin, Remedios Lopez Franco, as the daughter of appellee Francisco Jison, for which reason, she took her in as [a] secretary in the Merchant's Financing Corporation of which she was the manager, and further allowed her to stay with her family free of board and lodging. Still on this aspect, Dominador Savariz declared that sometime in February, 1966 appellee's relative, Ms. Remedios Lopez Franco pointed to appellant as the daughter of appellee Francisco Jison. Finally, the Certifications of the Local Civil Registrar of Dingle (Exhs E and F) as well as [MONINA's] Baptismal Certificates (Exhs C & D) which the trial court admitted in evidence as part of [MONINA's] testimony, may serve as circumstantial evidence to further reinforce [MONINA's] claim that she is [FRANCISCO's] illegitimate daughter by Esperanza Amolar. True it is that a trial judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect on appeal. But the rule admits of certain exceptions. One such exception is where the judge who rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses testify. [citations omitted]. The other is where the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case. [citations omitted] In the presence case, both exceptions obtain. All of [MONINA's] witnesses . . . whose testimonies were not given credence did not testify before the judge who rendered the disputed judgment . . . The Court of Appeals then decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and another one is hereby entered for appellant Monina Jison, declaring her as the illegitimate daughter of appellee Francisco Jison, and entitled to all rights and privileges granted by law. Costs against appellee. SO ORDERED. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 29 March 1996, 18 FRANCISCO filed the instant petition. He urges us to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, alleging that said court committed errors of law: I. . . . IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF PETITIONER, CONSIDERING [THE] IMPOSSIBILITY OF SEXUAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS MOTHER AT THE TIME CONCEPTION WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. II. . . . IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF PATERNITY AND FILIATION IS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING. III. . . . IN GIVING CREDENCE TO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS EVIDENCE OF FILIATION CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME ARE HEARSAY, SELF-SERVING AND CANNOT BIND THE PETITIONER UNDER THE BASIC RULES OF EVIDENCE. IV. . . . IN INTERPRETING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S SWORN STATEMENT (EXH. "P"/EXH. "2") IN A MANNER

NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULINGS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT. V. . . . IN NOT CONSIDERING THE LONG AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT PATERNITY SUIT AS EQUIVALENT TO LACHES. As regards the first error, FRANCISCO insists that taking into account the second paragraph of MONINA's complaint wherein she claimed that he and Pansay had sexual relations "by about the end of 1945 or the start of 1946," it was physically impossible for him and Pansay to have had sexual contact which resulted in MONINA's birth, considering that: The normal period of human pregnancy is nine (9) months. If as claimed by private respondent in her complaint that her mother was impregnated by FRANCISCO "at the end of 1945 or the start of 1946", she would have been born sometime in late September or early October and not August 6, 1946 . . . The instant case finds factual and legal parallels in Constantino vs. Mendez, 19 thus: . . . FRANCISCO further claims that his testimony that Pansay was no longer employed by him at the time in question was unrebutted, moreover, other men had access to Pansay during the time of or even after her employment by him. As to the second error, FRANCISCO submits that MONINA's testimonial evidence is "shaky, contradictory and unreliable," and proceeds to attack the credibility of her witnesses by claiming, in the main, that: (a) Lope Amolar could not have detected Pansay's pregnancy in November 1945 when they met since she would have been only one (1) month pregnant then; (b) Dominador Savariz did not in fact witness the meeting between FRANCISCO, Pansay and MONINA; (c) Zafiro Ledesma had an ulterior motive in testifying for MONINA as he owned a bank in Iloilo which was then under Central Bank supervision and MONINA was the Bank Examiner assigned to Iloilo; and (d) Danthea Lopez was not related to him by blood and whatever favorable treatment MONINA received from Danthea was due to the former's employment at Merchants' Financing Company and additional services rendered at Kahirup Hotel; besides, Danthea admitted that she had no personal knowledge as to the issue of paternity and filiation of the contending parties, hence Sections 39 and 40 20 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court did not come into play. FRANCISCO likewise re-echoes the view of the trial court as regards the testimonies of Adela Casabuena and Alfredo Baylosis. FRANCISCO further asserts that MONINA's testimony that he answered for her schooling was self-serving and uncorroborated by any receipt or other documentary

evidence; and assuming he did, such should be interpreted as a manifestation of kindness shown towards the family of a former household helper. Anent the treatment given by his relatives to MONINA as his daughter, FRANCISCO points to the fact that Pansay was the former laundrywoman of Mrs. Franco; MONINA resided with the families of Eusebio Lopez and Concha Cuaycong because she was in their employ at Kahirup Hotel and Our Lady of Mercy Hospital, respectively; MONINA failed to present Mrs. Franco, Eusebio Lopez and Mrs. Cuaycong; and MONINA's employment at the accounting firm of Miller, Cruz & Co. was attributable to her educational attainment, there being absolutely no evidence to prove that FRANCISCO ever facilitated her employment thereat. Hence, in light ofBaluyot v. Baluyot, 21 the quantum of evidence to prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance thereof, was not met. With respect to the third assigned error, FRANCISCO argues that the Court of Appeals' reliance on the certifications of the Local Civil Registrar (Exhs. E and F) and Baptismal Certificates (Exhs. C and D) as circumstantial evidence is misplaced. First, their genuineness could not be ascertained as the persons who issued them did not testify. Second, in light of Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 22 the contents of the baptismal certificates were hearsay, as the data was based only on what was told to the priest who solemnized the baptism, who likewise was not presented as a witness. Additionally, the name of the father appearing therein was "Franque Jison," which was not FRANCISCO's name. Third, in both Exhibits E and F, the names of the child's parents were listed as "Frank Heson" and "Esperanza Amador" (not Amolar). FRANCISCO further points out that in Exhibit F, the status of the child is listed as "legitimate," while the father's occupation as "laborer." Most importantly, there was no showing that FRANCISCO signed Exhibits E and F or that he was the one who reported the child's birth to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar. As to MONINA's educational records, FRANCISCO invokes Baas v. Baas 23 which recognized that school records are prepared by school authorities, not by putative parents, thus incompetent to prove paternity. And, as to the photographs presented by MONINA, FRANCISCO cites Colorado v. Court of Appeals, 24 and further asserts that MONINA did not present any of the persons with whom she is seen in the pictures to testify thereon; besides these persons were, at best, mere second cousins of FRANCISCO. He likewise assails the various notes and letters written by his relatives (Exhs. S to V) as they were not identified by the authors. Finally, he stresses that MONINA did not testify as to the telephone cards (Exhs. G to L) nor did these reveal the circumstances surrounding the calls she made from his residence. Anent the fourth assigned error, FRANCISCO contends that the Court of Appeals' interpretation of MONINA's affidavit of 21 September 1971 ran counter to Dequito v.Llamas, 25 and overlooked that at the time of execution, MONINA was more than 25 years old and assisted by counsel. As to the last assigned error, FRANCISCO bewails the Court of Appeals' failure to consider the long and unexplained delay in the filing of the case.

In her comment, MONINA forcefully refuted FRANCISCO's arguments, leading FRANCISCO to file his reply thereto. On 20 November 1996, we gave due course to this petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they subsequently did. A painstaking review of the evidence and arguments fails to support petitioner. Before addressing the merits of the controversy, we first dispose of preliminary matters relating to the applicable law and the guiding principles in paternity suits. As to the former, plainly, the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209) governs the present controversy. As correctly cited by the Court of Appeals,Uyguangco 26 served as a judicial confirmation of Article 256 of the Family Code 27 regarding its retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights, which does not hold true here, it appearing that neither the putative parent nor the child has passed away and the former having actually resisted the latter's claim below. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation, such as MONINA's, may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children. Article 172 thereof provides the various forms of evidence by which legitimate filiation is established, thus: 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 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 (2)Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. This Article reproduces, with amendments, Articles 265, 266 and 267 of the Civil Code.

For the success of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph, which MONINA relies upon given that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first paragraph, a "high standard of proof" 28 is required. Specifically, to prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously. 29 By "continuous" is meant uninterrupted and consistent, but does not require any particular length of time. 30 The foregoing standard of proof required to establish one's filiation is founded on the principle that an order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. 31 The foregoing discussion, however, must be situated within the general rules on evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases. Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth. 32 With these in mind, we now proceed to resolve the merits of the instant controversy. FRANCISCO's arguments in support of his first assigned error deserve scant consideration. While it has been observed that unlawful intercourse will not be presumed merely from proof of an opportunity for such indulgence, 33 this does not favor FRANCISCO. Akin to the crime of rape where, in most instances, the only witnesses to the felony are the participants in the sexual act themselves, in deciding paternity suits, the issue of whether sexual intercourse actually occurred inevitably redounds to the victim's or mother's word, as against the accused's or putative father's protestations. In the instant case, MONINA's mother could no longer testify as to the fact of intercourse, as she had, unfortunately, passed away long before the institution of the complaint for recognition. But this did not mean that MONINA could no longer

prove her filiation. The fact of her birth and her parentage may be established by evidence other than the testimony of her mother. The paramount question then is whether MONINA's evidence is coherent, logical and natural. 34 The complaint stated that FRANCISCO had carnal knowledge of Pansay "by about the end of 1945." We agree with MONINA that this was broad enough to cover the fourth quarter of said year, hence her birth on 6 August 1946 could still be attributed to sexual relations between FRANCISCO and MONINA's mother. In any event, since it was established that her mother was still in the employ of FRANCISCO at the time MONINA was conceived as determined by the date of her birth, sexual contact between FRANCISCO and MONINA's mother was not at all impossible, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence, as hereafter shown, that FRANCISCO fathered MONINA, has recognized her as his daughter and that MONINA has been enjoying the open and continuous possession of the status as FRANCISCO's illegitimate daughter. We readily conclude that the testimonial evidence offered by MONINA, woven by her narration of circumstances and events that occurred through the years, concerning her relationship with FRANCISCO, coupled with the testimonies of her witnesses, overwhelmingly established the following facts: 1)FRANCISCO is MONINA's father and she was conceived at the time when her mother was in the employ of the former; 2)FRANCISCO recognized MONINA as his child through his overt acts and conduct which the Court of Appeals took pains to enumerate, thus:

[L]ike sending appellant to school, paying for her tuition fees, school uniforms, books, board and lodging at the Colegio del Sagrado de Jesus, defraying appellant's hospitalization expenses, providing her with [a] monthly allowance, paying for the funeral expenses of appellant's mother, acknowledging appellant's paternal greetings and calling appellant his "Hija" or Child, instructing his office personnel to give appellant's monthly allowance, recommending appellant for employment at the Miller, Cruz & Co., allowing appellant to use his house in Bacolod and paying for her long distance telephone calls, having appellant spend her vacation in his apartment in Manila and also at his Forbes residence, allowing appellant to use his surname in her scholastic and other records (Exhs Z, AA, AA-1 to AA-5, W & W-5) . . .

3)Such recognition has been consistently shown and manifested throughout the years publicly, 35 spontaneously, continuously and in an uninterrupted manner. 36 Accordingly, in light of the totality of the evidence on record, the second assigned error must fail. There is some merit, however, in the third assigned error against the probative value of some of MONINA's documentary evidence. MONINA's reliance on the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar concerning her birth (Exhs. E and F) is clearly misplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person. 37 Simply put, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e. g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latter's part. 38 In like manner, FRANCISCO's lack of participation in the preparation of the baptismal certificates (Exhs. C and D) and school records (Exhs. Z and AA) renders these documents incompetent to prove paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified. 39 However, despite the inadmissibility of the school records per se to prove paternity, they may be admitted as part of MONINA's testimony to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her education. We likewise disagree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the certificates issued by the Local Civil Registrar and the baptismal certificates may be taken as circumstantial evidence to prove MONINA's filiation. Since they are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of such filiation, they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same. As to Exhibits "S," "T," "U" and "V," the various notes and letters written by FRANCISCO's relatives, namely Mike Alano, Emilio Jison, Mariquit Lopez and Fernando Lopez, respectively, allegedly attesting to MONINA's filiation, while their due execution and authenticity are not in issue, 40 as MONINA witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless, under Rule 130, Section 39, the contents of these documents may not be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the declarants and MONINA shown by evidence other than the documents in question. 41 As to the admissibility of these documents under Rule 130, Section 40, however, this requires further elaboration.

Rule 130, Section 40, provides: Section 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, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (emphasis supplied) It is evident that this provision may be divided into two (2) parts: the portion containing the first underscored clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and the section containing the second underscored phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether Exhibits S to V, as private documents, fall within the scope of the clause "and the like" as qualified by the preceding phrase "[e]ntries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rights [and] family portraits." We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as "family possessions," or those articles which represent, in effect, a family's joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. 42 These have been described as objects "openly exhibited and well known to the family," 43 or those "which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition." 44 Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a family's reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones,45 monuments or coffin plates. 46 Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common reputation, 47 it having been observed that: [T]he weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence going to establish pedigree. . . [Thus] matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved by common reputation in the community. 48

Their inadmissibility not withstanding, Exhibits "S" to "V," inclusive, may, in like manner as MONINA's school records, properly be admitted as part of her testimony to strengthen her claim that, indeed, relatives of FRANCISCO recognized her as his daughter. We now direct our attention to MONINA's 21 September 1971 affidavit (Exh. P/Exh. 2), subject of the fourth assigned error, where she attests that FRANCISCO is not her father. MONINA contends that she signed it under duress, i.e., she was jobless, had no savings and needed the money to support herself and finish her studies. Moreover, she signed Exhibit P upon the advice of Atty. Divinagracia that filiation could not be waived and that FRANCISCO's ploy would "boomerang" upon him. On the other hand, FRANCISCO asserts that full credence should be afforded Exhibit P. as MONINA was already 25 years old at the time of its execution and was advised by counsel; further, being a notarized document, its genuineness and due execution could not be questioned. He relies on the testimony of Jose Cruz, a partner at the accounting firm of Miller & Cruz, who declared that he intervened in the matter as MONINA was spreading rumors about her filiation within the firm, which might have had deleterious effects upon the relationship between the firm and FRANCISCO. cdphil On this issue, we find for MONINA and agree with the following observations of the Court of Appeals: Even the affidavit (Exh 2) which [FRANCISCO] had foisted on the trial court . . . does not hold sway in the face of [MONINA's] logical explanation that she at first did agree to sign the affidavit which contained untruthful statements. In fact, she promptly complained to [FRANCISCO] who, however explained to her that the affidavit was only for the consumption of his spouse . . . At any rate, if [MONINA] were not his illegitimate daughter, it would have been uncalled for, if not absurd, for [FRANCISCO] or his lawyer to have secured [MONINA's] sworn statement . . . On the contrary, in asking [MONINA] to sign the said affidavit at the cost of P15,000, [FRANCISCO] clearly betrayed his intention to conceal or suppress his paternity of [MONINA]. . . Indeed, if MONINA were truly not FRANCISCO's illegitimate daughter, it would have been unnecessary for him to have gone to such great lengths in order that MONINA denounce her filiation. For as clearly established before the trial court and properly appreciated by the Court of Appeals, MONINA had resigned from Miller & Cruz five (5) months prior to the execution of the sworn statement in question, hence negating FRANCISCO's theory of the need to quash rumors circulating within Miller & Cruz regarding the identity of MONINA's father. Hence, coupled with the assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the parties discussed above, it is evident that

the standard to contradict a notarial document, i.e., clear and convincing evidence and more than merely preponderant, 49 has been met by MONINA. Plainly then, the burden of evidence fully shifted to FRANCISCO. Two (2) glaring points in FRANCISCO's defense beg to be addressed: First, that his testimony was comprised of mere denials, rife with bare, unsubstantiated responses such as "That is not true," "I do not believe that," or "None that I know." In declining then to lend credence to FRANCISCO's testimony, we resort to a guiding principle in adjudging the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his statements, laid down as early as 1921: The experience of courts and the general observation of humanity teach us that the natural limitations of our inventive faculties are such that if a witness undertakes to fabricate and deliver in court a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies, to make statements which can be readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor the falsity of his message.

For this reason it will be found that perjurers usually confine themselves to the incidents immediately related to the principal fact about which they testify, and when asked about collateral facts by which their truthfulness could be tested, their answers not infrequently take the stereotyped form of such expressions as "I don't know" or "I don't remember." . . . 50 Second, the reasons for the dismissals of Tingson, Baylosis and Savariz were unspecified or likewise unsubstantiated, hence FRANCISCO's attempt to prove illmotive on their part to falsely testify in MONINA's favor may not succeed. As may be gleaned, the only detail which FRANCISCO could furnish as to the circumstances surrounding the dismissals of his former employees was that Baylosis allegedly "took advantage of his position" while FRANCISCO was in the United States. But aside from this bare claim, FRANCISCO's account is barren, hence unable to provide the basis for a finding of bias against FRANCISCO on the part of his former employees. As to FRANCISCO's other witnesses, nothing substantial could be obtained either. Nonito Jalandoni avowed that he only came to know of MONINA in June 1988; 51that during his employment at Nelly Garden from 1963 up to 1974, he did not recall ever having seen MONINA there, neither did he know of any instructions from FRANCISCO nor Mr. Lagarto FRANCISCO's office manager before passing away) regarding the disbursement of MONINA's allowance. 52 Teodoro Xulla corroborated Jalandoni's testimony regarding not having seen MONINA at Nelly Garden and

MONINA's allowance; declared that Alfredo Baylosis was dismissed due to discrepancies discovered after an audit, without any further elaboration, however; but admitted that he never prepared the vouchers pertaining to FRANCISCO's personal expenses, merely those intended for one of FRANCISCO's haciendas. 53 Then, Iigo Superticioso confirmed that according to the report of a certain Mr. Atienza, Baylosis "was dismissed by Mr. Jison for irregularities," while Superticioso was informed by FRANCISCO that Tingson was dismissed for loss of confidence. Superticioso likewise denied that MONINA received money from FRANCISCO's office, neither was there a standing order from FRANCISCO to release funds to her. 54 It is at once obvious that the testimonies of these witnesses for FRANCISCO are likewise insufficient to overcome MONINA's evidence. The former merely consist of denials as regards the latter's having gone to Nelly Garden or having received her allowance from FRANCISCO's office, which, being in the form of negative testimony, necessarily stand infirm as against positive testimony; 55 bare assertions as regards the dismissal of Baylosis; ignorance of FRANCISCO's personal expenses incapable of evincing that FRANCISCO did not provide MONINA with an allowance; or hearsay evidence as regards the cause for the dismissals of Baylosis and Tingson. But what then serves as the coup de grace is that despite Superticioso's claim that he did not know MONINA, 56 when confronted with Exhibit H, a telephone toll ticket indicating that on 18 May 1971, MONINA called a certain "Eing" at FRANCISCO's office, Superticioso admitted that his nickname was "Iing" and that there was no other person named "Iing" in FRANCISCO's office. 57 All told, MONINA's evidence hurdled "the high standard of proof" required for the success of an action to establish one's illegitimate filiation when relying upon the provisions regarding "open and continuous possession" or "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws;" moreover, MONINA proved her filiation by more than mere preponderance of evidence. The last assigned error concerning laches likewise fails to convince. The essential elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct as having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complaint would assert the right in which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred. 58 The last element is the origin of the doctrine that stale demands apply only where by reason of the lapse of time it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. 59 As FRANCISCO set up laches as an affirmative defense, it was incumbent upon him to prove the existence of its elements. However, he only succeeded in showing MONINA's delay in asserting her claim, but miserably failed to prove the last element. In any event, it must be stressed that laches is based upon grounds of public policy

which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims, and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud and injustice. 60 Since the instant case involves paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, MONINA filed her action well within the period granted her by a positive provision of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would clearly be inequitable and unjust. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of 27 April 1990 in CA-G.R. CV No. 32860 is Affirmed. Costs against petitioner. Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ ., concur.

Article 173

EN BANC [G.R. No. 4275. March 23, 1909.] PAULA CONDE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMAN ABAYA, defendant-appellant. C. Oben, for appellant. L. Joaquin, for appellee.

4.ID.; ID. The relation of paternity and filiation between natural parents and children is also of a natural character, and therefore, reciprocal intestate succession between them is exclusively governed by articles 944 and 945 of the Civil Code. 5.ID.; ID. If the right of succession granted by the law to the natural children corresponds reciprocally to the natural father or mother in the same cases, and if the estate includes all property, rights and obligations of a person which do not expire at the latter's death, it is certain that, among the rights transferred to the natural mother by inheritance, at the time of the death of her natural child, is the right held by such child during his lifetime to demand his recognition as such by his natural father, should the latter still live, or by his heirs. 6.ID.; ID. There is no legal provision that declares the said right to demand the recognition of a natural child to be nontransferable to the latter's heirs, and specially to his natural mother, nor is there any rule declaring such right extinguished at the death of the natural child.

SYLLABUS 1.ESTATES: ACTION AGAINST EXECUTION OR ADMINISTRATIONS. While an estate is in the course of settlement in a special proceeding, no ordinary action can be maintained by a person claiming to be an heir, against the executor or administrator, for the purpose of having his rights in the estate determined. (Pimentel vs. Palanca, 5 Phil. Rep., 436.) 2.DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHTS OF ACTION BY LEGITIMATE AND BY NATURAL CHILDREN TO COMPEL RECOGNITION. 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. (Arts. 18 and 137, Civil Code.) Per Torres, J., dissenting: 3.NATURAL CHILDREN; SUCCESSION AND TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS TO DEMAND RECOGNITION. Although article 137 of the Civil Code contains no disposition authorizing the transfer, in favor of the natural mother in her capacity of heir of her natural child, of the right to judicially demand the recognition of her child by the heirs of his late natural father; yet there is no express provision therein that prohibits such transfer or that declares such right to be nontransferable.

7.ID.; ID. In the intestate succession of a natural child who dies during his minority, recognized by the law in favor of his father or mother who have acknowledged him, no limitation has been established excluding the said right from transferable rights, nor has it been expressly declared that the abovementioned right to demand the recognition of the natural child is extinguished at the latter's death, wherefore it is necessary to admit that the mother inherits from the natural child at his death, and that she is entitled to institute the corresponding action.

DECISION

ARELLANO, C.J p: From the hearing of the appeal interposed by Roman Abaya in the special proceedings brought in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna for the settlement of the intestate estate and the distribution of the property of Casiano Abaya it appears: I.As antecedents: that Casiano Abaya, unmarried, the son of Romualdo Abaya and Sabina Labadia, died on the 6th of April 1899; that Paula Conde, as the mother of the natural children Jose and Teopista Conde, whom she states she had by Casiano Abaya, on the 6th of November, 1905, moved the settlement of the said intestate succession; that an administrator having been appointed for the said estate on the 25th of November, 1905, Roman Abaya, a son of the said Romualdo Abaya and Sabina Labadia, the parents of the late Casiano Abaya, came forward and opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as being the nearest relative of the deceased; that this was granted by the court below on the 9th of

January, 1906; that on the 17th of November, 1906, Roman Abaya moved that, after due process of law, the court declare him to be the sole heir of Casiano Abaya, to the exclusion of all other persons, especially of Paula Conde, and to be therefore entitled to take possession of all the property of said estate, and that it be adjudicated to him; and that on November 22, 1906, the court ordered the publication of notices for the declaration of heirs and distribution of the property of the estate. II.That on the 28th of November, 1906, Paula Conde, in reply to the foregoing motion of Roman Abaya, filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged by Roman Abaya, but that she considered that her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing of the matter, and, in consequence of the evidence that she intended to present she prayed that she be declared to have preferential rights to the property left by Casiano Abaya, and that the same be adjudicated to her together with the corresponding products thereof. III.That the trial was held, both parties presenting documentary and oral evidence, and the court below entered the following judgment: "That the administrator of the estate of Casiana Abaya should recognize Teopista and Jose Conde as being natural children of Casiano Abaya; that the petitioner Paula Conde should succeed to the hereditary rights of her children with respect to the inheritance of their deceased natural father Casiano Abaya; and therefore, it is hereby declared that she is the only heir to the property of the said intestate estate, to the exclusion of the administrator, Roman Abaya." IV.That Roman Abaya excepted to the foregoing judgment, appealed to this court, and presented the following statement of errors: 1.The fact that the court below found that an ordinary action for the acknowledgment of natural children under articles 135 and 137 of the Civil Code, might be brought in special probate proceedings. 2.The finding that after the death of a person claimed to be an unacknowledged natural child, the mother of such presumed natural child, as heir to the latter, may bring an action to enforce the acknowledgment of her deceased child in accordance with articles 135 and 137 of the Civil Code. 3.The finding in the judgment that the alleged continuous possession of the deceased children of Paula Conde of the status of natural children of the late Casiano Abaya, has been fully proven in these proceedings; and 4.On the hypothesis that it was proper to adjudicate the property of this intestate estate to Paula Conde, as improperly found by the court below, the court erred in not having declared that said property should be reserved in favor of relatives of Casiano Abaya to the third degree, and in not having previously demanded securities from Paula Conde to guarantee the transmission of the property to those who might fall within the reservation.

As to the first error assigned, the question is set up as to whether in special proceedings for the administration and distribution of an intestate estate, an action might be brought to enforce the acknowledgment of the natural child of the person from whom the inheritance is derived, that is to say, whether one might appear as heir on the ground that he is a recognized natural child of the deceased, not having been so recognized by the deceased either voluntarily or compulsory by reason of a preexisting judicial decision, but asking at the same time that, in the special proceeding itself, he be recognized by the presumed legitimate heirs of the deceased who claim to be entitled to the succession opened in the special proceeding. According to section 782 of the Code of Civil Procedure "If there shall be a controversy before the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the deceased person are, or as to the distributive share to which each person is entitled under the law, the testimony as to such controversy shall be taken in writing by the judge, under oath and signed by witness. Any party in interest whose distributive share is affected by the determination of such controversy, may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance determining such controversy to the Supreme Court, within the time and in the manner provided in the last preceding section." This court has decided the present question in the manner shown in the case of Juana Pimental vs. Engracio Palanca (5 Phil. Rep. 436.) The main question with regard to the second error assigned, is whether or not the mother of a natural child now deceased, but who survived the person who, it is claimed, was his natural father, also deceased, may bring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child in order to appear in his behalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to be his natural father. In order to decide in the affirmative the court below has assigned the following as the only foundation: "In resolving a similar question Manresa says: 'An acknowledgment can only be demanded by the natural child and his descendants whom it shall benefit, and should they be minors or otherwise incapacitated, such person as legally represents them; the mother may ask it in behalf of her child so long as he is under her authority.' On this point no positive declaration has been made, undoubtedly because it was not considered necessary. A private action is in question and the general rule must be followed. Elsewhere the same author adds: 'It may so happen that the child dies before four years have expired after attaining majority, or that the document supporting his petition for acknowledgment is discovered after his death, such death perhaps occurring after his parents had died, as is supposed by article 137, or during their

lifetime. In any case such right of action shall pertain to the descendants of the child whom the acknowledgment may interest.' (See Commentaries to arts. 135 and 137, Civil Code. Vol. I.)' The above doctrine, advanced by one of the most eminent commentators of the Civil Code, lacks legal and doctrinal foundation. 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. It is without any support in law because the rule laid down in the code is most positive, limiting in form, when establishing the exception for the exercise of such right of action after the death of the presumed parents, as is shown hereafter. It is not supported by any doctrine, because up to the present time no argument has been presented, upon which even an approximate conclusion could be based. Although the Civil Code considerably improved the condition of recognized natural children, granting them rights and actions that they did not possess under the former laws, they were not, however, placed upon the same plane as legitimate ones. The difference that separates these two classes of children is still great, as proven by so many articles dealing with the rights of the family and with succession in relation to the members thereof. It may be laid down as a legal maxim, that whatever the code does not grant to the legitimate children, or in connection with their rights, must still less be understood as granted to recognized natural children or in connection with their rights. There is not a single exception in its provisions. If legitimacy is the attribute that constitutes the basis of the absolute family rights of the child, the acknowledgment of the natural child is, among illegitimate ones, that which unites him to the family of the father or the mother who recognizes him, and affords him a participation in the rights of the family, relatively advantageous according to whether they are alone or whether they concur with other individuals of the family of his purely natural father or mother. Thus, in order to consider the spirit of the Civil Code nothing is more logical than to establish a comparison between an action to claim the legitimacy, and one to enforce acknowledgment. "Art. 118.The action to claim its legitimacy may be brought by the child at any time of its lifetime and shall be transmitted to its heirs, should it die during minority or in a state of insanity. In such cases the heirs shall be allowed a period of five years in which to institute the action. "The action already instituted by the child is transmitted by its death to the heirs, if it has not lapsed before then. "Art. 137.The actions for the acknowledgment of natural children can be instituted only during the life of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:

"1.If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may institute the action before the expiration of the first four years of its majority. "2.If, after the death of the father or mother, some instrument, before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. "In this case the action must be instituted within the six months following the discovery of such instrument." On this supposition the first difference that results between one action and the other consists in that the right of action for legitimacy lasts during the whole lifetime of the child, that is, it can always be brought against the presumed parents or their heirs by the child itself, while the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child does not last his whole lifetime, and, as a general rule, it can not be instituted against the heirs of the presumed parents, inasmuch as it can be exercised only during the life of the presumed parents. With regard to the question at issue, that is, the transmission to the heirs of the presumed parents of the obligation to admit the legitimate filiation, or to recognize the natural filiation, there exists the most radical difference in that the former continues during the life of the child who claims to be legitimate, and he may demand it either directly and primarily from the said presumed parents, or indirectly and secondarily from the heirs of the latter; while the second does not endure for life; as a general rule, it only lasts during the life of the presumed parents. Hence the other difference, derived as a consequence, that an action for legitimacy is always brought against the heirs of the presumed parents in case of the death of the latter, while the action for acknowledgment is not brought against the heirs of such parents, with the exception of the two cases prescribed by article 137 transcribed above. So much for the passive transmission of the obligation to admit the legitimate filiation, or to acknowledge the natural filiation. As to the transmission to the heirs of the child of the latter's action to claim his legitimacy, or to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation, it is seen that the code grants it in the first case, but not the second. It contains provisions for the transmission of the right of action which, for the purpose of claiming his legitimacy inheres in the child, but it does not say a word with regard to the transmission of the right to obtain the acknowledgment of the natural filiation. Therefore, the respective corollary of each of the two above-cited articles is: (1) That the right of action which devolves upon the child to claim his legitimacy under article 118, may be transmitted to his heirs in certain cases designated in the said article; (2) That the right of action for the acknowledgment of natural children to which article 137 refers, can never be transmitted, for the reason that the code makes no mention of it in any case, not even as an exception.

It is most illogical and contrary to every rule of correct interpretation, that the right of action to secure acknowledgment by the natural child should be presumed to be transmitted, independently, as a rule, to his heirs, while the right of action to claim legitimacy from his predecessor is not expressly, independently, or, as a general rule, conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child, but only relatively and as an exception. Consequently, the pretension that the right of action on the part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation is transmitted to his descendants is altogether unfounded. No legal provision exists to sustain such pretension, nor can an argument of presumption be based on the lesser claim when there is no basis for the greater one, and when it is only given as an exception in well-defined cases. It is placing the heirs of the natural child on a better footing than the heirs of the legitimate one, when, as a matter of fact, the position of a natural child is no better than, nor even equal to, that of a legitimate child. From the express and precise precepts of the code the following conclusions are derived: The right of action that devolves upon the child to claim his legitimacy lasts during his whole life, while the right to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child lasts only during the life of his presumed parents. Inasmuch as the right of action accruing to the child to claim his legitimacy lasts during his whole life, he may exercise it either against the presumed parents, or their heirs; while the right of action to secure the acknowledgment of a natural child, since it does not last during his whole life, but depends on that of the presumed parents, as a general rule can only be exercised against the latter. Usually the right of action for legitimacy devolving upon the child is of a personal character and pertains exclusively to him, only the child may exercise it at any time during his lifetime. As an exception, and in three cases only, it may be transmitted to the heirs of the child, to wit, if he died during his minority, or while insane, or after action had been already instituted. An action for the acknowledgment of a natural child may, as an exception, be exercised against the heirs of the presumed parents in two cases: first, in the event of the death of the latter during the minority of the child, and second, upon the discovery of some instrument of express acknowledgment of the child, executed by the father or mother, the existence of which was unknown during the life of the latter. But as such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child can only be exercised by him. It can not be transmitted to his descendants, or to his ascendants. In support of the foregoing the following authorities may be cited: Sanchez Roman, in his Treatise on Civil Law, propounds the question as to whether said action should be considered transmissive to the heirs or descendants of the natural child, whether he had or had not exercised it up to the time of his death, and decides it as follows;

"There is an entire absence of legal provisions, and at most, it might be deemed admissible as a solution, that the right of action to claim the 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 a legitimate child, to claim his legitimacy, under article 118, but nothing more; because on this point nothing warrants placing the heirs of a natural child on a better footing than those of the legitimate child, and even to compare them would not fail to be a strained and questionable matter, and one of great difficulty for decision by the courts, for the simple reason that for the heirs of the legitimate child, the said article 118 exists, while for those of the natural child, as we have said, there is no provision in the code authorizing the same, although on the other hand there is none that prohibits it." (Vol. V.) Diaz Guijarro and Martinez Ruiz in their work on "The Civil Code as construed by the supreme court of Spain," commenting upon article 137, say: "Article 118, taking into account the privileges due to the legitimacy of children, grants them the right to claim said legitimacy during their lifetime, and even authorizes the transmission of said right for the space of five years to the heirs thereof, if the child die during his minority or in a state of insanity. But as article 137 is based on the consideration that in the case of a natural child, ties are less strong and sacred in the eyes of the law, it does not fix such a long and indefinite period for the exercise of the action; it limits it to the life of the parents, excepting in the two cases mentioned in said article; and it does not allow, as does article 118, the action to pass on to the heirs, inasmuch as, although it does not prohibit it, and for that reason it might be deemed on general principles of law to consent to it, such a supposition is inadmissible for the reason that a comparison of both articles shows that the silence of the law in the latter case is not, nor can it be, an omission, but a deliberate intent to establish a wide difference between the advantages granted to a legitimate child and to a natural one." (Ibid., Vol. II, 171.) Navarro Amandi (Cuestionario del Codigo Civil) raises the question: "Can the heirs of a natural child claim the acknowledgment in those cases wherein the father or mother are under obligation to acknowledge"? And says: "Opinions are widely divergent. The court of Rennes held (on April 13, 1844) that the right of investigation forms a part of the estate of the child, and along with his patrimony is transmitted to his heirs. The affirmation is altogether too categorical to be

admissible. If it were correct the same thing would happen as when the legitimacy of a child is claimed, and as already seen, the right of action to demand the legitimacy is not transmitted to the heirs in every case and as an absolute right, but under certain limitations and circumstances. Now, were we to admit the doctrine of the court of Rennes, the result would be that the claim for natural filiation would be more favored than one for legitimate filiation. This would be absurd, because it can not be conceived that the legislator should have granted a right of action to the heirs of the natural child, which is only granted under great limitations and in very few cases to those of a legitimate one. Some persons insist that the same rules that govern legitimate filiation apply by analogy to natural filiation, and that in this conception the heirs of the natural child are entitled to claim it in the cases prescribed by article 118. The majority, however, are inclined to consider the right to claim acknowledgment as a personal right, and consequently, not transmissive to the heirs. Really there are not legal grounds to warrant the transmission." (Vol. 2, 229.) In a decision like the present one it is impossible to bring forward the argument of analogy for the purpose of considering that the heirs of the natural child are entitled to the right of action which article 118 concedes to the heirs of the legitimate child. The existence of a provision for the one case and the absence thereof for the other is a conclusive argument that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, and it can not be understood that the provision of law should be the same when the same reason does not hold in the one case as in the other. The theory of the law of transmission is also entirely inapplicable in this case. This theory, which in the Roman Law expressed the general rule that an heir who did not accept an inheritance during his lifetime was incapacitated from transmitting it to his own heirs, included at the same time the idea that if the inheritance was not transmitted because the heir did not possess it, there were, however, certain things which the heir held and could transmit. Such was the law and the right to accept the inheritance, for the existing reason that all rights, both real and personal, shall pass to the heir; quia haeres representat defunctum in omnibus et per omnia. According to article 659 of the Civil Code, "the inheritance includes all the property, rights, and obligations of a person, which are not extinguished by his death." If the mother is the heir of her natural child, and the latter, among other rights during his lifetime was entitled to exercise an action for his acknowledgment against his father, during the life of the latter, or after his death in some of the excepting cases of article 137, such right, which is a portion of his inheritance, is transmitted to his mother as being his heir, and it was so understood by the court of Rennes when it considered the right in question, not as a personal and exclusive right of the child which is extinguished by his death, but as any other right which might be transmitted after his death. This right of supposed transmission is even less tenable than that sought to be sustained by the argument of analogy.

The right of action pertaining to the child to claim his legitimacy is in all respects superior to that of the child who claims acknowledgment as a natural child. And it is evident that the right of action to claim his legitimacy is not one of those rights which the legitimate child may transmit by inheritance to his heirs; it forms no part of the component rights of his inheritance. If it were so, there would have been no necessity to establish its transmissibility to heirs as an exception in the terms and conditions of article 118 of the code. So that, in order that it may constitute a portion of the child's inheritance, it is necessary that the conditions and the terms contained in article 118 shall be present, since without them, the right that the child held during his lifetime, being personal and exclusive in principle, and therefore, as a general rule not susceptible of transmission, would and should have been extinguished by his death. Therefore, where no express provision like that of article 118 exists, the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child is, in principle and without exception, extinguished by his death, and can not be transmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child. On the other hand, it said right of action formed a part of the child's inheritance, it would be necessary to establish the doctrine that the right to claim such an acknowledgment from the presumed natural father and from his heirs is an absolute right of the heirs of the child, not limited by certain circumstances as in the case of the heirs of a legitimate child; and if it is unreasonable to compare a natural child with a legitimate one to place the heirs of a natural child and his inheritance on a better footing than those of a legitimate child would not only be unreasonable, but, as stated in one of the above citations, most absurd and illegal in the present state of the law and in accordance with the general principles thereof. For all of the foregoing reasons we hereby reverse the judgment appealed from in all its parts, without any special ruling as to the costs of this instance. Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Article 176 SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 72078. June 27, 1994.] EUTIQUIO MARQUINO and MARIA TERENALMARQUINO Survived by: LUZ T. MARQUINO, ANA T. MARQUINO and EVA T. MARQUINO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST CIVIL CASES DIVISION, BIBIANA ROMANOPAGADORA, Survived by: PEDRO PAGADORA, EMY R. PAGADORA, JUNE R. PAGADORA, EDGAR R. PAGADORA, MAY R. PAGADORA, MAGO R. PAGADORA, ARDEN R. PAGADORA, and MARS R. PAGADORA, respondents.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACTION UNDER THE FAMILY CODE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE AS LONG AS THE CHILD IS ALIVE. Our law providing for the intransmissibility of an action for recognition, however, has been superseded by the New Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. Pursuant to Article 173 of the Family Code, the child can bring the action during his or her entire lifetime (not during the lifetime of the parents) and even after the death of the parents. In other words, the action does not prescribe as long as he lives. 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WITH NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT; REASON. Be that as it may, Article 173 of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect so as to apply to the case at bench because it will prejudice the vested rights of petitioners transmitted to them at the time of the death of their father, Eutiquio Marquino. "Vested right" is a right in property which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. It expresses the concept of present fixed interest, which in right reason and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action.

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATION; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF NATURAL CHILDREN; MAY BE BROUGHT ONLY DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE PRESUMED PARENTS; EXCEPTIONS. Article 285 of the Civil Code provides that an action for recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases: (1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority; (2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the child. In this case, the action must be commenced within four years from discovery of the document. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. The rationale for the rule is to give the alleged parents opportunity to be heard. the reason for the exceptions is to protect the heirs. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR, NOT AN EXCEPTION. In an action for compulsory recognition, the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. The need to hear the side of the putative parent is an overwhelming consideration because of the unsettling effects of such an action on the peace and harmonious relationship in the family of the putative parent. For this reason, Article 285 provides only two (2) exceptions when an action for recognition transcends the death of the putative parent. Neither of these exceptions obtains in the case at bench. Firstly, the death of Eutiquio did not occur during the minority of Bibiana. In fact, she was already forty-five (45) years old when the recognition case was filed on January 10, 1971. Secondly, no document was discovered, before unknown in which Bibiana was expressly acknowledged as a natural child. Consequently, the respondent court erred in ruling that the action can still be continued against the heirs of Eutiquio. DECISION

PUNO, J p: For resolution are the following issues: (1) the effect of the death of the natural child during the pendency of her action for recognition; and (2) the effect of the death of the putative parent also during the pendency of the case. The facts are as follows: Respondent Bibiana Roman-Pagador filed Civil Case No. 5197, an action for Judicial Declaration of Filiation, Annulment of Partition, Support, and Damages against petitioner Eutiquio Marquino on January 10, 1971 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Also impleaded as defendants, were Maria TerenalMarquino, wife of Eutiquio Marquino, and their legitimate children Luz, Ana, and Eva, all surnamed Terenal-Marquino. The records show that Bibiana was born on December 2, 1926 at Piapi, Dumaguete City, of Gregoria Romano and allegedly of Eutiquio Marquino. 1 At that time, Eutiquio was still single. Bibiana became personally known to the Marquino family when she was hired as domestic helper in their household at Luke Wright Street, Dumaguete City. She always received financial assistance from them. Thus, she claimed that she enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child by direct and unequivocal acts of her father and his family. The Marquinos, on the other hand, strongly denied her allegations. Cdpr

During the pendency of the case and before respondent Bibiana could finish presenting her evidence, she died on March 17, 1979. On March 23, 1979, her heirs were ordered substituted for her as parties-plaintiffs. On May 17, 1983, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. They averred that the action for recognition is intransmissible to the heirs being a personal act. 2 The trial court dismissed the case. Respondents appealed to the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals). On August 20, 1983, Eutiquio Marquino died while the case was pending appeal. On June 17, 1985, respondent court invoking the case of Banaga vs. Pascacio, (No. 4848-R, July 31, 1954, 50 O. G. No. 12, p. 5908) reversed the controverted order. It ruled: "[A]fter the death of the natural child, the heirs of said deceased natural child, cannot bring the action to compel recognition, but may however, continue the action already filed to compel recognition. xxx xxx xxx Summarizing, We hold that the death of the putative parent while the case against him for recognition of his alleged child is pending will not extinguish the action but the same can be continued with the heirs substituted for said deceased parents because: a)the law does not require that the case be brought and decided while the putative parent is alive; cdphil b)that would be adding another requisite for the action which is not sanctioned by the law or jurisprudence; c)it would be unfair to the plaintiff child to have his action for recognition depend on the speed of the Court in disposing of the case and on a fortuitous event. This is because if the court takes, let us say, 10 years to decide the case, the chances that the defendant parent would survive the case is very much less, especially if he was already of advanced age at the time the action is brought; d)there are no compelling reasons not to allow substitution of the deceased parent with his heirs, for with the death of the defendant parent, the effects of

recognition will practically be limited to successional rights. WHEREFORE, finding merit in this appeal, we hereby SET ASIDE the Order of the trial Court dated August 13, 1983 and remand the case to the Court of origin for continuation of the trial by the heirs of plaintiff against the heirs of defendant Eutiquio Marquino, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED." 3 The motion for Reconsideration was denied on May 19, 1985. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners hold respondent court to be in error, in these respects: I IN RULING THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF THE NATURAL CHILD, THE HEIRS OF SAID DECEASED NATURAL CHILD, CANNOT BRING THE ACTION TO COMPEL RECOGNITION, BUT THEY MAY HOWEVER, CONTINUE THE ACTION ALREADY FILED TO COMPEL RECOGNITION. LexLib II IN RULING THAT THE DEATH OF THE PUTATIVE PARENT WHILE THE CASE AGAINST HIM FOR RECOGNITION OF HIS ALLEGED CHILD IS PENDING WILL NOT EXTINGUISH THE ACTION BUT THE SAME CAN BE CONTINUED WITH THE HEIRS SUBSTITUTED FOR SAID DECEASED PARENT. 4 The Court writes finis to this controversy after twenty-three (23) years of protracted litigation. The first issue to be resolved is whether or not the right of action to compel recognition is intransmissible in character. Article 285 of the Civil Code provides that an action for recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases: (1)If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file the action before the

expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority; (2)If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the child. In this case, the action must be commenced within four years from discovery of the document. llcd The rationale for the rule is to give the alleged parents opportunity to be heard. The reason for the exception is to protect the heirs. 5 In Conde vs. Abaya, 6 we held that the right of action for the acknowledgment of natural children to which Article 285 (Article 137, Old Civil Code) refers, can never be transmitted. The reason is that the code makes no mention of it in any case, not even as an exception. 7 In the case at bench, it is evident that Bibiana was a natural child. She was born out of wedlock on December 2, 1926, of Gregoria Romano and allegedly of Eutiquio Marquino who at that time was single. Bibiana sued for compulsory recognition while Eutiquio was still alive. Sadly, she died on March 17, 1983 before she could present her proof of recognition. Her death tolled the action considering its personal nature and intransmissibility. As explained in the case of Conde vs. Abaya, 8 viz: "It is most illogical and contrary to every rule of correct interpretation that the right of action to secure acknowledgment by the natural child should be presumed to be transmitted, independently, as a rule to his heirs, while the right to claim legitimacy from his predecessor is not expressly, independently, or, as a general rule conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child, but only relatively and as an exception. Consequently, the pretension that the right of action on the part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation is transmitted to his descendants, is altogether unfounded. No legal provision exists to sustain such pretension, nor can an argument of presumption be based on the lesser claim when there is no basis for the greater one, and when it is only given as an exception in well-defined cases. It is placing the heirs of the natural child on a better footing than the heirs of the legitimate one, when, as a child is not better than, nor even equal to, that of a legitimate child."

This ruling was reiterated in the recent case of Heirs of Raymundo C. Banas vs. Heirs of Bibiano Banas' 9 thus: "Granting that, after the death of Bibiano Banas Raymundo could file an action for compulsory recognition against Bibiano's heirs, still plaintiffs-appellants cannot invoke Raymundo's right to file such action, because it is not transmissible to the natural child's heirs; the right is purely a personal one to the natural child." llcd The second issue for resolution is whether or not after the death of the putative father the action for recognition of a natural child can be continued against the heirs of the former. We rule against its continuance. In an action for compulsory recognition, the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. 10 The need to hear the side of the putative parent is an overwhelming consideration because of the unsettling effects of such an action on the peace and harmonious relationship in the family of the putative parent. For this reason, Article 285 provides only two (2) exceptions when an action for recognition transcends the death of the putative parent. Neither of these exceptions obtains in the case at bench. Firstly, the death of Eutiquio did not occur during the minority of Bibiana. In fact, she was already forty-five (45) years old when the recognition case was filed on January 10, 1971. Secondly, no document was discovered, before unknown, in which Bibiana was expressly acknowledged as a natural child. Consequently, the respondent court erred in ruling that the action can still be continued against the heirs of Eutiquio. 11 Our public policy at that time supports the rule limiting actions for recognition during the lifetime of the presumed parents, to quote: "Public policy, indeed public necessity, demands that before an illegitimate child be admitted into a legitimate family, every requisite of the law must be completely and fully complied with. No one should ever be permitted upon doubtful evidence to take from legitimate children the property which they and their parents have, by industry, fidelity, and frugality, acquired. To do so would in many instances where the legitimate children had 'labored unsparingly in order that they might have the comforts of life and joys of home,' be manifestly contrary to every plainest principles of justice. And again, if this can ever be done upon oral testimony alone, after the lips of the alleged father and mother have been closed by death, such testimony must be clear, strong, and convincing." 12

Our law providing for the intransmissibility of an action for recognition, however, has been superseded by the New Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.Under Article 173 of the Family Code, it is now provided: "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 (5) years within which to institute the action. The action commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties." (Emphasis supplied) LLjur Pursuant to this provision, the child can bring the action during his or her entire lifetime (not during the lifetime of the parents) and even after the death of the parents. In other words, the action does not prescribe as long as he lives. 13 Be that as it may, Article 173 of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect so as to apply to the case at bench because it will prejudice the vested rights of petitioners transmitted to them at the time of the death of their father, Eutiquio Marquino. "Vested right" is a right in property which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. 14 It expresses the concept of present fixed interest, which in right reason and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action. 15 WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 1985 is RESERVED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint in Civil Case No. 5197 of the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Republic Act No. 9255

February 24 2004

AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Article 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. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child." SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Article 177-180 EN BANC [A.M. No. MTJ-92-716. October 25, 1995.] MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR., Presiding Judge, 8th MCTC, Manukan and Jose Dalman, 9th Judicial Region, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, respondent. cdasia

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL CODE; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS; MARRIAGE; WHEN SANCTITY THEREOF VIOLATED; EFFECT IN CASE AT BAR. Contrary to his protestations that he started to cohabit with Priscilla Baybayan only after his first wife, Teresita Tabiliran, had long abandoned him and the conjugal home in 1966, it appears from the record that he had been scandalously and openly living with said Priscilla Baybayan as early as 1970 as shown by the fact that he begot three children by her, namely Buenasol, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Tabiliran. Buenasol was born on July 14, 1970; Venus was born on September 7, 1971; while Saturn was born on September 20, 1975. Evidently, therefore, respondent and Priscilla Baybayan had openly lived together even while respondent's marriage to his first wife was still valid and subsisting. The provisions of Sec. 3(w) of the Rules of Court and Art. 390 of the Civil Code which provide that, after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, the absent spouse shall be considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession, cannot be invoked by respondent. By respondent's own allegation, Teresita B. Tabiliran left the conjugal home in 1966. From that time on up to the time that respondent started to cohabit with Priscilla Baybayan in 1970, only four years had elapsed. Respondent had no right to presume therefore that Teresita B. Tabiliran was already dead for all purposes. Thus, respondent's actuation of cohabiting with Priscilla Baybayan in 1970 when his marriage to Teresita B. Tabiliran was still valid and subsisting constitutes gross immoral conduct. It makes mockery of the inviolability and sanctity of marriage as a basic social institution. According to Justice Malcolm: "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. It is not only a civil contract, but is a new relation, an institution on the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony." (Civil Code, 1993 Ed., Volume 1, p. 122, Ramon C. Aquino). By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession. ( Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690). 2.ID.; ID.; LEGITIMATION; CONSTRUED; WHEN NOT APPLICABLE; CASE AT BAR. An examination of the birth certificates of respondent's three illegitimate

children with Priscilla Baybayan clearly indicate that these children are his legitimate issues. It was respondent who caused the entry therein. It is important to note that these children, namely, Buenasol, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Tabiliran, were born in the year 1970, 1971, and 1975, respectively, and prior to the marriage of respondent to Priscilla, which was in 1986. As a lawyer and a judge, respondent ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla, these three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran. The applicable legal provision in the case at bar is Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386 as amended) which provides: Art. 269. 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. Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations (Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855). The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which took effect on August 3, 1988, reiterated the abovementioned provision thus: Art. 177. 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. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. The reasons for this limitation are given as follows: 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. (The Family Code, p. 252, Alicia V. Sempio Diy). 4.LEGAL ETHICS; NOTARY PUBLIC; COMPENSATION; RULE; WHEN VIOLATED; CASE AT BAR. Respondent himself admitted that he prepared and notarized the documents wherein he charged notarial fees. Though he was legally allowed to notarize documents and charge fees therefor due to the fact that there has been no Notary Public in the town of Manukan, this defense is not sufficient to justify his otherwise corrupt and illegal acts. Section 252 of the Notarial Law expressly provides thus: Sec. 252. Compensation of Notaries Public No fee, compensation, or reward of any sort, except such as is expressly prescribed and allowed by law, shall be collected or received for any service rendered by a notary public. Such money collected by notaries public proper shall belong to them personally. Officers acting as notaries public ex-officio shall charge for their services the fees prescribed by law and account therefor as for Government funds. (Notarial Law, Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines, p. 202.) Respondent's failure to properly account and turn over the fees collected by him as Ex-Officio notary to the municipal government as required by law raises the presumption that he had put such fund to his personal use. cdlex 5.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT; CASE AT BAR. With respect to the charge that respondent prepared an Affidavit of Desistance in a rape case filed before his sala for which he collected the

amount of P500.00 from the complainant therein, respondent merely denied the said imputation but failed to offer any evidence to support such denial. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People v. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166). It is unfortunate that respondent had failed to adhere to, and let this remind him once again of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit: Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. DECISION PER CURIAM p: "We have a list of these crooked judges whose actuations have been found to be patently wrong and indefensible. There ought to be no objection or compunction in weeding them out from the service. If they are not booted out now, it will take from here to eternity to clean this Augeun stable." 1 Indeed, our judicial structure is supposed to be manned by magistrates chosen for their probity, integrity, impartiality, dedication and learning. And so, any judge wanting in any of these qualities should be broomed off and out of the bench in order to improve the judicial landscape. Screening off the misfits, considering the great number of judges and justices in the country at present, is the arduous and Herculean task of this Court. The effort if dramatized with rectitude and sincerity should bring about the strengthening of the people's abiding faith in democracy and the integrity of our courts of justice. The herein administrative case arose from a complaint, dated September 8, 1992, filed by Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla, a Clerk of Court assigned at the sala of respondent, Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., of the 8th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte. Respondent stands charged with " gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption unbecoming of a judge." In her verified complaint, complainant Abadilla, in respect to the charge of gross immorality on the part of the respondent, contends that respondent had scandalously and publicly cohabited with a certain Priscilla Q. Baybayan during the existence of his legitimate marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Adding ignominy to an ignominious situation, respondent allegedly shamefacedly contracted marriage with the said Priscilla Baybayan on May 23, 1986. Complainant claims that this was a bigamous union because of the fact that the respondent was then still very much married to Teresita Banzuela. Furthermore, respondent falsely represented himself as " single" in the marriage contract (Exh. "A") and dispensed with the requirements of a marriage contract by invoking cohabitation with Baybayan for five years. cda Of persuasive effect on the charge of immorality is the fact that, earlier, respondent's wife filed a complaint in the case entitled, Teresita B. Tabiliran vs.Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., 115 SCRA 451. Respondent stood charged therein

for abandoning the family home and living with a certain Leonora Pillarion with whom he had a son. In respect of the charge of deceitful conduct, complainant claims that respondent caused to be registered as "legitimate," his three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan, namely: Buenasol B. Tabiliran born on July 14, 1970 Venus B. Tabiliran born on Sept. 7, 1971 Saturn B. Tabiliran born on Sept. 20, 1975 by falsely executing separate affidavits stating that the delayed registration was due to inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight, when in truth and in fact, respondent knew that these children cannot be legally registered as legitimate. The following acts are alleged to have constituted the charge of corruption: (1)Utilizing his office time, while being a judge, in the private practice of law by the preparation and notarization of documents, out of which he charged fees beyond the authorized rates allowed as Ex-Officio Notary Public. These acts which, according to the charge, amount to the private practice of law, prejudice public interest. Complainant submitted the following documents in support of these allegations: a)Affidavit of Ponciana Geromo (Annex "B"), attesting to the fact that respondent Judge Tabiliran prepared a Simultaneous Deed of Sale, (Annex "C", Doc. No. 901, Page No. 77, Book No. V, Series of 1991 of Ex-Officio Notary Public Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr.) and collect P600.00 from the vendees (par. 10(a) a-1 Complaint, p. 9 records); b)Receipt prepared under instruction of the respondent showing that he received P250.00 thru MCTC Aide Ely O. Inot for preparation and notarization of Joint Affidavit declaring the correct ages of Carlo Manzano, Lodmila Cinco, Kadapi Amad, Jul Samud and Amman Eddai dated November 12, 1991, when the legal fees therefor should have been P10.00 only (Annex "D") (par. 10(a) a-2 Complaint, p. 9 records); c)Another receipt (Annex "E") prepared thru the direction of the respondent dated November 12, 1991, showing that said

respondent received from Reynaldo Subebe the sum of P150.00 for preparation and notarization by him of a Joint Affidavit declaring the correct age of Agata Luna, Rosie Miranda and Jose Juneser Adrias (par. 10 (a) a-c Complaint, p. 9 records); d)Still another receipt (Annex "F") dated November 12, 1991, signed by the respondent himself showing that he received from Nelly Baradas the sum of P50.00 for preparation and notarization of Joint Affidavit attesting to the correct age of one Luzviminda Jacoba (par. 10(a) a-d Complaint, p. 9 records); e)Another receipt (Annex "G") dated November 12, 1991, issued by the respondent, showing that he received from Torres P. Modai the sum of P50.00, thru the same Ely O. Inot, MCTC Aide, for preparation of Joint Affidavit attesting to the correct age of Flores Jalampangan (par. 10 (a) a-e Complaint, pp. 9 & 10 records). (2)Accepting bribes from parties-litigants in his Court as supported by an affidavit (Annex "M") executed by a certain Calixto Calunod, a court aide, stating that he saw Edna Siton, complainant in a criminal case tried by respondent, hand over to the latter a bag of fish and squid which respondent Judge received. (3)Preparing an Affidavit of Desistance in a case filed with his sala out of which he collected the amount of P500.00 from the accused Antonio Oriola, as supported by the affidavits of Arcelita Salvador, the complainant therein, and Benito Sagario, one of the persons present when the accused perpetrated the acts aforesaid. (Submitted as Annexes "I" and "J", respectively.) Complainant manifests that the commission by the respondent of the foregoing acts renders him unfit to occupy the exalted position of a dispenser of justice. By the example shown by the respondent, the public had allegedly lost confidence in the administration of justice, perceiving as is evident to see that the person occupying the position of a judge lacks the morality and probity required of one occupying such a high office. Respondent, in his comment, dated December 25, 1992, declared that his cohabitation with Priscilla Baybayan is not and was neither bigamous nor immoral because he started living with Priscilla Baybayan only after his first wife had already left and abandoned the family home in 1966 and, since then, and until the present her whereabouts is not known and respondent has had no news of her being alive. He further avers that 25 years had already elapsed since the disappearance of his first wife when he married Priscilla Baybayan in 1986. Respondent cited Sec. 3(w), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court and Art. 390 of the Civil Code in order to show the legality of his acts:

"After the absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes except for those of succession." (Rule 131, Sec. 3(w), Rules of Court.) "After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession." (Art. 390, Civil Code.) The case of Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179, where this Court held that for the purpose of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee is to respondent's mind, a case in point. He admits that he indicated in his marriage contract that he was then "single," but he denied the charge that he acted with deceit or false misrepresentation, claiming that, since there were only three words to choose from, namely: Single, Widow or Divorced, he preferred to choose the word "single," it being the most appropriate. Besides, both he and Priscilla executed a joint affidavit wherein his former marriage to Banzuela was honestly divulged. On the charge of corruption, respondent submitted certifications (Annexes "4" & "5") from the Mayor of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, attesting to the fact that there was no Notary Public in Manukan and, as such, respondent may be allowed to notarize documents. He denied having charged exorbitant fees. He claims that all the amounts received by him were used to subsidize office expenses, since the funds he had been receiving from the municipal government were not enough to cover expenses in maintaining his office. Respondent submitted a certification (Annex "6") from the Accounting Department of the Municipal Government of Manukan to the effect that his yearly expenditures were more than the yearly appropriations. Respondent finds support in Canon 4, Rule 4.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states: "A Judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in activities to improve . . . the administration of justice." Respondent vehemently denies the charge of bribery claiming that it was inconceivable for him to receive a bag full of fish and squid since his residence was 42 kilometers from Jose Dalman where his courtroom or office was located. It takes one an hour and a half by bus to reach Katipunan and so, by the time he reaches his house, the fish and the squid should have become rotten. In support of his denials, respondent submitted as Annex "8", an affidavit of Ely D. Inot, their court Interpreter who declared: xxx xxx xxx

"3.That last June 6, 1991, I was with the Municipal Judge, Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., from the morning until we went home in the afternoon and we in fact dined together in the local Carenderia of Jose Dalman as it is the usual ways of the Judge to eat lunch together with the court personnel; 4.That when we went home in the afternoon of that day we were also together riding in a bus, the Lillian Express and until I drop in Roxas and he proceeded to Katipunan where his residence is ; 5.That all the time during that day I did not noticed him bringing anything except his 'Hand Bag' which he used to carry in going to the office;" (Annex "8", Affidavit of Ely O. Inot, December 17, 1992.) xxx xxx xxx Finally, respondent tags as a fabricated lie the charge that he prepared an Affidavit of Desistance in a case pending in his sala and thereafter charged the accused, Antonio Oriola, the sum of P500.00 for legal services. The complainant, he said, was the one who induced Arcelita Salvador (the complainant in the rape case) to execute an affidavit (Annex "I") in support of the charge of corruption against respondent. Complainant's filing of the present case was motivated by revenge and resentment because, earlier, respondent filed an administrative case (A.M. No. P91-597) against her for "Insubordination and Serious Misconduct." The Supreme Court decided to reprimand her with a warning that a repetition of her acts will be severely dealt with. Respondent claims that the complainant had nevertheless repeatedly continued to do acts of insubordination in the following manner: 1)She continues to keep court records and has kept refusing to hand them over to respondent inspite of verbal and written orders; 2)She refused to receive a memorandum from the Vice-Mayor requiring the Clerk of Court to submit an Annual report; 3)She refused to prepare the said annual report required of her as Clerk of Court; 4)She continue to refuse to obey just and lawful orders of the Court. On April 12, 1993, by resolution of this Court En Banc, the herein administrative case was referred to Executive Judge Jesus O. Angeles of the Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City, for investigation, report and recommendation.

Judge Angeles found respondent guilty only on two (2) counts of corruption: (1) for acting as notary public and collecting fees for his services; and (2) for preparing an affidavit of desistance in a case pending in his Court and receiving payment for it. In his report and recommendation dated August 3, 1993, Executive Judge Angeles found that: ON GROSS IMMORALITY: In contracting marriage with Priscilla Q. Baybayan on May 23, 1986, (p. 13 of the records), respondent did not hide the fact that he was married to Teresita T. Banzuela, having disclosed it in his affidavit jointly executed with Priscilla Q. Baybayan on May 23, 1986 (p. 115 of the records), particularly paragraph 4 thereof which reads: "4.That affiant Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., was formerly married to Teresita T . Banzuela but who left and abandoned their family home sometime in 1965 in Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte, and until now at present her whereabouts is not known." It was therefore a marriage contracted under Article 83(2) of the Civil Code which, although bigamous, remains valid until automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse (Art. 42, Family Code). Respondent's assertion that since 1965 to the present, his first wife Teresita T. Banzuela had left their conjugal dwelling and did not return, her whereabouts being unknown, was not controverted. Living as husband and wife pursuant to an authorized bigamous marriage, respondent cannot be said to be acting in an immoral and scandalous manner, and the immoral stigma of extra-marital union since 1969 duly declared in their aforesaid joint affidavit, may be considered cleansed by their marriage in 1986, if Art. 1395 of the Civil Code on ratification on contracts in general is allowed to be applied, it being ratification of marital cohabitation. Article 76 of Civil Code, now Art. 34 of the Family Code was intended to facilitate and encourage the marriage of persons who have been living in a state of concubinage for more than five years (Tolentino, Civil Code, Book I, 1974 Ed., p. 245, cited in Ernesto L. Pineda, Family Code, 1992 Ed., p. 38). Indicating his civil status in the marriage contract as "single" is hardly considered a misrepresentation of fact, specially to the solemnizing officer, Municipal Mayor Jacinto C. Ruedas, Jr. to whom the aforesaid joint affidavit was submitted.

ON DECEITFUL CONDUCT: Respondent's children begotten with Priscilla Q. Baybayan, namely: Buenasol B. Tabiliran, Venus B. Tabiliran and Saturn B. Tabiliran, all of whom were born before their marriage, were disclosed and made known to the solemnizing officer and the latter himself, in his affidavit dated May 23, 1986 (p. 116 of the records) which supports the marriage contract of respondent with Priscilla Q. Baybayan, having shown such fact. Exhibit P which purports to be an affidavit of Lydia T. Zanoria dated May 27, 1993, consisting of three pages, was submitted by the complainant for the purpose of proving her charge that the respondent falsely executed his three separate affidavits, namely: Exhibit K dated May 24, 1983 regarding the late registration of birth of his daughter Buenasol B. Tabiliran; Exhibit M dated May 28, 1988 regarding the late registration of birth of his third child Saturn B. Tabiliran; and his affidavit dated May 27, 1988, Exhibit O, in reference to the late registration of birth of his second child Venus B. Tabiliran, stating inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight as the reasons for the delayed registration of their births, without however presenting said affiant Mrs. Zanoria, consequently denying respondent the opportunity to cross examine her. Her affidavit is not among those brought out in the pre-hearing conference, and was not discussed during the hearing itself, submitting it only after the investigation proper was terminated. The supposed affiant claimed she was the government midwife who attended to the births of respondent's three children, denying, as the affidavit shows, negligence, inadvertence or oversight on her part to register their birth on time. Not having been presented for respondent to confront her, or an opportunity to do so, Exhibit P cannot be considered evidence of the charge. An affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented (People vs. Villeza, 127 SCRA 349), or admitted by the party against whom it is presented. ON CORRUPTION: 1.Acting as Notary Public during office hours, and collecting fees: Respondent has admitted having prepared the documents and collected fees, in the instances specified in par. 10 of the complaint, namely: (1) affidavit of Ponciana Geromo; (2) Joint Affidavit of Carlo Manzano, Lodmila Cinco, Kadapi Amad, Jul

Samud and Amman Eddai; (3) Joint Affidavit of Agata Luna, Rosie Miranda and Jose Juneser Adrias; (4) Joint Affidavit on the correct age of Luzviminda Jacoba; and (5) Joint Affidavit on the correct age of Flores Jalampangan, but not necessarily on the accuracy of the amounts therein stated as having been collected by him from them (please see Pre-Hearing Order of May 20, 1993 of the Investigating Judge). Seeking justification of his acts, respondent submitted Annexes 4 & 5 of his comments (pp. 118 and 119, records) which are certifications of Manukan Mayor Eugene U. Caballero attesting that in the absence of a Notary Public in Manukan town, respondent who is a Judge thereat was allowed "to prepare and ligalize (sic) documents." He declared "the fees derived from the preparation and notarization of documents were mostly used by respondent to buy supplies and materials of his Office," explaining that his office needs cannot be sustained by the appropriations of the local government which are inadequate. On page 120 of the records, his Annex 6 shows a shortage in his appropriations for supplies. And supplies from the Supreme Court can only be obtained if secured personally but has to assume the expenses for transportation, freight and handling. Respondent Judge maintains that the Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit him from acting as Notary Public, and the fees he has received were much lower than the rates prescribed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Zamboanga del Norte Chapter, submitting Annex 3, p. 117 of the records, to prove it. Further justifying his act under Canon 4, Rule 4.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a judge may, with due regard to official duties, engaged in activities to improve the administration of justice, respondent claims that due to his efforts, he was able to secure an extension room of his office covering a floor area of 24 square meters, from the Sangguniang Pampook of Region IX based in Zamboanga City, costing P19,000.00 per certification shown in his Annex 7 (page 121 of the records). In the light of 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct vis-a-vis the power of Municipal Trial Court Judges and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges to act in the capacity of Notary Public Ex-Officio, the Honorable Supreme Court in A.M. No. 89-11-1303, MTC, Dec. 19, 1989, has ruled: "MTC and MCTC Judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in their capacity as

notary public ex-officio perform any act within the competency of a regular Notary Public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned-over to the municipal treasurer (Lapea, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572);and (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit." LLpr Although absence of a notary public commissioned for, and residing in Manukan town, even in Jose Dalman which is within his circuit is confirmed, respondent Judge while he may be justified in so acting as notary public, did not, however, comply with requirement No. 1 which obliged him to charge for the account of the Government and turn-over to the municipal treasurer all notarial fees. And there is no way of determining the truth of his assertion that the notarial fees he collected were "mostly used" to buy supplies and materials for his office, absent any accounting. 2.Accepting Bribe from Parties-litigants: Admitting the existence of Annex H found on page 21 in the records, respondent, however, denied the imputation therein contained by affiant Calixto Calunod that he received a sando bag full of fish and squid from a certain Edna Siton who had a case with respondent's court as complainant in a certain criminal case. Instead of calling the affiant himself, complainant presented the Court Interpreter Ely O. Inot, who "confirmed that there was squid and fish contained in a plastic bag which was left in Aseniero Carenderia by a person unknown to her and some members of the Court staff. When informed by the carenderia owner that the stuff was intended for Judge Tabiliran, the latter told them to cook it, and they afterwards partook of it without the Judge who already boarded the passenger bus." (Record of Proceedings, p. 1, par. No. 1, dated June 11, 1993). Being her witness, complainant is bound by her testimony. This particular charge is, therefore, not proved. 3.Preparing Affidavit of Desistance and Collecting Fee for his Services: Under this count, two affidavits both sworn before 2nd Asst. Provincial Fiscal Valeriano B. Lagula were submitted: one

by Arcelita Salvador, complainant in an attempted rape case who was categorical in her declaration that respondent Judge asked and received from Pitoy Oriola, brother of accused Antonio Oriola the amount of P500.00 after the Judge prepared the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss which he made her sign (Annex I, p. 40 records). Benito Sagario who was present executed another separate affidavit, Annex J found on page 41 in the records, confirming it. In admitting the affidavit, respondent, however, denied the imputation, asserting that it is false, but without confronting them or presenting witnesses to dispute their accusation. He could have demanded that the affiants, including the persons they mentioned were present in the transaction, namely: accused Antonio Oriola, his brother Pitoy Oriola, Ignacio Salvador, and INC Minister Antonio Calua be required to appear for his confrontation, but respondent chose not, contended himself only with the explanation that it was just the handiwork of complainant Abadilla and her husband, a major in the military who is an active member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo of which affiant Arcelita Salvador also belonged, which is bare and unsubstantiated. No other conclusion can be drawn other than holding, as the Investigating Judge does, that this particular charge is true. Evidently, Judge Tabiliran wants to avoid meeting them by way of confrontation. If he is innocent, and is certain the charge is fabricated, he will surely raise hell to insist that he confronts them face to face. Clearly, his deportment betrays his insistence of innocence. On Respondent's Counterclaim: It was not proven. On the contrary, the controverting evidence shows that the records of Criminal Case No. 2279 referred to in his Annex 9, p. 123 of the records, were not in the possession of complainant. Quite obviously, Ely O. Inot, respondent's Court Interpreter tried to cover up the fact that the same were already being kept by Judge Tabiliran before he issued the memorandum, Annex 9. Complainant, who is respondent's Clerk of Court was not, therefore, in a position to comply with his Order. Also, Mrs. Abadilla's failure to prepare the annual report of the Court in 1992 as called for in Annexes 10 and 10-A was, contrary to respondent's claim, not by reason of her obstinate refusal to obey her superior but, by sheer impossibility to comply, considering that monthly reports upon which the annual report shall be based, were not prepared by her, not because of her refusal to do so which is among those included in her job description, but because the Judge himself took the work from her for no other

reason than to establish the false impression that the complainant is disobedient to the Judge, and does not attend to her duties. By and large, there is no harmony in their office. Complainant and respondent are not in talking terms. They are hostile to each other. Respondent's complaint that Mrs. Abadilla spat saliva in front of him whenever they meet each other; destroying the Court dry seal by throwing it at him one time she was mad; showing face; and sticking out her tongue to him, are all puerile acts which the undersigned cannot conclude as sufficiently established even with the testimony of Mrs. Ely O. Inot which is far from being definite and categorical, whose actuation is understandable because Judge Tabiliran, being her superior, has moral ascendancy over her (Record of Proceedings, June 11, 1993). The undersigned believes that the problem is on Judge Tabiliran, and not on Mrs. Abadilla, who has been in the service as Clerk of Court under a previous Judge of the same Court for quite long without any complaint having been filed. The evidence disputing his counterclaim tends to show that respondent tried to build up a situation of undesirability against his Clerk of Court whom he wanted pulled out from her position in his Court. Other Matters Not Covered By The Complaint And Comments: The authority to investigate being confined only to matters alleged in the complaint on the basis of which respondent filed his comments, other matters not therein covered which complainant brought out by way of presenting documentary exhibits, (from Exhibit AAA to HHH), are not subject of this report and recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: The charge of GROSS IMMORALITY and DECEITFUL CONDUCT have not been proven, but the undersigned believes evidence is sufficient to sustain a pronouncement of guilt on two counts of CORRUPTION, namely: acting as notary public and collecting fees for his services in preparing affidavit of desistance of a case in his Court. Likewise, acts of oppression, deceit and false imputation against his Clerk of Court are found duly established. WHEREFORE, suspension of the respondent Judge from the service for a period of three months is recommended.

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, We hold the respondent culpable for gross immorality, he having scandalously and openly cohabited with the said Priscilla Baybayan during the existence of his marriage with Teresita B. Tabiliran. Contrary to his protestations that he started to cohabit with Priscilla Baybayan only after his first wife, Teresita Tabiliran, had long abandoned him and the conjugal home in 1966, it appears from the record that he had been scandalously and openly living with said Priscilla Baybayan as early as 1970 as shown by the fact that he begot three children by her, namely Buenasol, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Tabiliran. Buenasol was born on July 14, 1970; Venus was born on September 7, 1971; while Saturn was born on September 20, 1975. Evidently, therefore, respondent and Priscilla Baybayan had openly lived together even while respondent's marriage to his first wife was still valid and subsisting. The provisions of Sec. 3(w) of the Rules of Court and Art. 390 of the Civil Code which provide that, after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, the absent spouse shall be considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession, cannot be invoked by respondent. By respondent's own allegation, Teresita B. Tabiliran left the conjugal home in 1966. From that time on up to the time that respondent started to cohabit with Priscilla Baybayan in 1970, only four years had elapsed. Respondent had no right to presume therefore that Teresita B. Tabiliran was already dead for all purposes. Thus, respondent's actuation of cohabiting with Priscilla Baybayan in 1970 when his marriage to Teresita B. Tabilaran was still valid and subsisting constitutes gross immoral conduct. It makes mockery of the inviolability and sanctity of marriage as a basic social institution. According to Justice Malcolm: "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. It is not only a civil contract, but is a new relation, an institution on the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony." (Civil Code, 1993 Ed., Volume 1, p. 122, Ramon C. Aquino). By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession. ( Imbing v. Tiongson , 229 SCRA 690). LLjur As to respondent's act of eventually marrying Priscilla Baybayan in 1986, We are not in a position to determine the legality thereof, absent all the facts for a proper determination. Sufficient for Our consideration is the finding of the Investigating Judge, that the said marriage is authorized under Art. 83 (2) of the Civil Code. With respect to the charge of deceitful conduct, We hold that the charge has likewise been duly established. An examination of the birth certificates (Exhs. "J", "L", & "M") of respondent's three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan clearly indicate that these children are his legitimate issues. It was respondent who caused the entry therein. It is important to note that these children, namely, Buenasol, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Tabiliran, were born in the year 1970, 1971, and 1975, respectively, and prior to the marriage of respondent to

Priscilla, which was in 1986. As a lawyer and a judge, respondent ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla, these three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran. The applicable legal provision in the case at bar is Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386 as amended) which provides: ARTICLE 269.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. Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations (Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855). The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which took effect on August 3, 1988, reiterated the above-mentioned provision thus: ARTICLE 177.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. The reasons for this limitation are given as follows: 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. (The Family Code, p. 252, Alicia V. Sempio Diy). It is clear, therefore, that no legal provision, whether old or new, can give refuge to the deceitful actuations of the respondent. It is also erroneous for respondent to state that his first wife Teresita disappeared in 1966 and has not been heard from since then. It appears that on December 8, 1969, Teresita filed a complaint against respondent entitled, Tabiliran vs. Tabiliran (A.C. No. 906) which was decided by this Court in 1982. In the said case, respondent was sued for abandonment of his family home

and for living with another woman with whom he allegedly begot a child. Respondent was, however, exonerated because of the failure of his wife to substantiate the charges. However, respondent was reprimanded for having executed a "Deed of Settlement of Spouses To Live Separately from Bed," with a stipulation that they allow each of the other spouse to live with another man or woman as the case may be, without the objection and intervention of the other. It was also in the same case where respondent declared that he has only two children, namely, Reynald Antonio and Jose III, both surnamed Tabiliran, who are his legitimate issues. Thus, his statements in his affidavits marked as Exhs. "M-4" and "O-4" that Saturn and Venus are his third and second children respectively, are erroneous, deceitful, misleading and detrimental to his legitimate children. With respect to the charge of corruption, We agree with the findings of the Investigating Judge that respondent should be found culpable for two counts of corruption: (1) acting as Notary Public; and (2) collecting legal fees in preparing an Affidavit of Desistance of a case in his court. Respondent himself admitted that he prepared and notarized the documents (Annexes "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G") wherein he charged notarial fees. Though he was legally allowed to notarize documents and charge fees therefor due to the fact that there has been no Notary Public in the town of Manukan, this defense is not sufficient to justify his otherwise corrupt and illegal acts. Section 252 of the Notarial Law expressly provides thus: SECTION 252.Compensation of Notaries Public. No fee, compensation, or reward of any sort, except such as is expressly prescribed and allowed by law, shall be collected or received for any service rendered by a notary public. Such money collected by notaries public proper shall belong to them personally. Officers acting as notaries public ex-officio shall charge for their services the fees prescribed by law and account therefor as for Government funds. (Notarial Law, Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines, p. 202.) LLcd Respondent's failure to properly account and turn over the fees collected by him as Ex-Officio notary to the municipal government as required by law raises the presumption that he had put such fund to his personal use. With respect to the charge that respondent prepared an Affidavit of Desistance in a rape case filed before his sala for which he collected the amount of P500.00 from the complainant therein, respondent merely denied the said imputation but failed to offer any evidence to support such denial. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People v. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166). It is unfortunate that respondent had failed

to adhere to, and let this remind him once again of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit: Canon 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. guilty of gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption and, consequently, orders his dismissal from the service. Such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government-service, all without prejudice to criminal or civil liability. SO ORDERED. Llibris Narvasa, C.J ., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. Panganiban, J., took no part.

Adoption EN BANC [G.R. No. L-18753. March 26, 1965.] VICENTE B. TEOTICO, petitioner-appellant, vs. ANA DEL VAL CHAN, ETC., oppositor-appellant. Antonio Gonzales for petitioner-appellants. J. C. Zulueta, G.D. David & N.J. Quisumbing for oppositor-appellee. SYLLABUS 1.CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; ALIEN WIFE OF CITIZEN NOT AUTOMATICALLY CITIZEN BUT MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS. The alien wife of a Filipino citizen does not automatically become a Philippine citizen upon her husband's naturalization. She must first prove that she has all the qualifications required by Section 2 and none of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 4 of the Naturalization Law before she may be deemed a Philippine citizen. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON FOR RULE; POLICY OF SELECTIVE ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. The rule laid down by this Court in this and in other cases heretofore decided is believed to be in line with the national policy of selective admission to Philippine citizenship which after all is a privilege granted only to those who are found worthy thereof, and not indiscriminately to anybody at all on the basis alone of marriage to a man who is a citizen of the Philippines, irrespective of moral character, ideological belief, and identification with Filipino ideals, customs and traditions. DECISION BAUTISTA ANGELO, J p: Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre died on July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila leaving properties worth P600,000.00. She left a will written in Spanish which she executed at her residence in No. 2 Legarda St., Quiapo, Manila. She affixed her signature at the bottom of the will and on the left margin of each and every page thereof in the presence of Pilar Borja, Pilar G. Sanchez, and Modesto Formilleza, who in turn affixed their signatures below the attestation clause and on the left margin of each and every page of the will in the presence of the testatrix and of each other. Said will was acknowledged before Notary Public Niceforo S. Agaton by the testatrix and her witnesses. In said will the testatrix made the following preliminary statement: that she was possessed of the full use of her mental faculties; that she was free from illegal pressure or influence of any kind from the beneficiaries of the will and from any influence of fear or threat; that she freely and spontaneously executed said will and that she had

neither ascendants nor descendants of any kind such that she could dispose of all her estate. Among the many legacies and devises made in the will was one of P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, married to the testatrix's niece named Josefina Mortera. To said spouses the testatrix left the usufruct of her interest in the Calvo building, while the naked ownership thereof she left in equal parts to her grandchildren who are the legitimate children of said spouses. The testatrix also instituted Josefina Mortera as her sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed of in the will. On July 17, 1955, Vicente B. Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of Manila which was set for hearing on September 3, 1955 after the requisite publication and service to all parties concerned. Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be an adopted child of Francisca Mortera, a deceased sister of the testatrix, as well as an acknowledged natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased brother of the same testatrix, filed on September 2, 1955 an opposition to the probate of the will alleging the following grounds: (1) said will was not executed as required by law; (2) the testatrix was physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at the time of its execution; and (3) the will was executed under duress, threat or influence of fear. Vicente B. Teotico filed a motion to dismiss the opposition alleging that the oppositor had no legal personality to intervene. The probate court, after due hearing, allowed the oppositor to intervene as an adopted child of Francisco Mortera, and on June 17, 1959, the oppositor amended her opposition by alleging the additional ground that the will is inoperative as to the share of Dr. Rene Teotico because the latter was the physician who took care of the testatrix during her last illness. After the parties had presented their evidence, the probate court rendered its decision on November 10, 1960 admitting the will to probate but declaring the disposition made in favor of Dr. Rene Teotico void with the statement that the portion to be vacated by the annulment should pass to the testatrix's heirs by way of intestate succession. Petitioner Teotico, together with the universal heir Josefina Mortera, filed a motion for reconsideration of that part of the decision which declares the portion of the estate to be vacated by the nullity of the legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico as passing to the legal heirs, while the oppositor filed also a motion for reconsideration of the portion of the judgment which decrees the probate of the will. On his part, Dr. Rene Teotico requested leave to intervene and to file a motion for reconsideration with regard to that portion of the decision which nullified the legacy made in his favor. The motions for reconsideration above adverted to having been denied, both petitioner and oppositor appealed from the decision, the former from that portion which nullifies

the legacy in favor of Dr. Rene Teotico and declares the vacated portion as subject of succession in favor of the legal heirs, and the latter from that portion which admits the will to probate. And in this instance both petitioner and oppositor assign several error which, stripped of non-essentials, may be boiled down to the following: (1) Has oppositor Ana del Val Chan the right to intervene in this proceeding?; (2) Has the will in question been duly admitted to probate?; and (3) Did the probate court commit an error in passing on the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will and in determining who should inherit the portion to be vacated by the nullification of the legacy made in favor of Dr. Rene Teotico? These issues will be discussed separately. 1.It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate (Ngo The Hua vs. Chung Kiat Hua, et al., L-17091, September 30, 1963); and an interested party has been defined as one who would be benefitted by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor (Idem.). On the other hand, in Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, et al., L-17750, December 17, 1962, this Court said: "According to Section 2, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, a petition for letters of administration must be filed by an 'interested person.' An interested party has been defined in this connection as one who would be benefitted by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor (Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanwa 40 O.G., 1171). And it is well settled in this jurisdiction that in civil actions as well as special proceedings, the interest required in order that a person may be a party thereto must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. (Trillana vs. Crisostomo, G. R. No. L-3370, August 22, 1951; Rapinosa vs. Barrion, 70 Phil. 311)." The question now may be asked: Has oppositor any interest in any of the provisions of the will, and, in the negative, would she acquire any right to the estate in the event that the will is denied probate? Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to intervene because she has no interest in the estate either as heir, executor, or administrator, nor does she have any claim to any property affected by the will, because it nowhere appears therein any provision designating her as heir, legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. She has also no interest in the will either as administratrix or executrix. Neither has she any claim against any portion of the estate because she is not a co-owner thereof, and while

she previously had an interest in the Calvo building located in Escolta, she had already disposed of it long before the execution of the will. In the supposition that the will is denied probate, would the oppositor acquire any interest in any portion of the estate left by the testatrix? She would acquire such right only if she were a legal heir of the deceased, but she is not under our Civil Code. It is true that oppositor claims to be an acknowledged natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased brother of the deceased, and also an adopted daughter of Francisca Mortera, a deceased sister of the testatrix, but such claim cannot give her any comfort for, even if it be true, the law does not give her any right to succeed to the estate of the deceased sister of both Jose Mortera and Francisca Mortera. And this is so because being an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural father. Thus, Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: "An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; . . ." And the philosophy behind this provision is well expressed in Grey vs. Fabie, 68 Phil., 128, as follows: "'Between the natural child and the legitimate relatives of the father or mother who acknowledged it, the Code denies any right of succession. They cannot be called relatives and they have no right to inherit. Of course, there is a blood tie, but the law does not recognize it. In this, article 943 is based upon the reality of the facts and upon the presumptive will of the interested parties; the natural child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the natural child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the natural child nothing but the product of sin, a palpable evidence of a blemish upon the family. Every relation is ordinarily broken in life; the law does no more them recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment.' (7 Manresa, 3d ed., p. 110.)"

The oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of Francisca Mortera because under our law the relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a consequence, the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.

"The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to the adopting parent, and does not extend to his other relatives, except as expressly provided by law. Thus, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter. The relationship created is exclusively between, the adopter and the adopted, and does not extend to the relatives of either." (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 652) "Relationship by adoption is limited to adopter and adopted, and does not extend to other members of the family of either; but the adopted is prohibited to marry the children of the adopter to avoid scandal." (An Outline of Philippines Civil law by Justice Jose B. L, Reyes and Ricardo C. Puno, Vol. 1, p. 313; See also Caguioa, Comments and Cases on Civil law, 1955, Vol. 1, pp. 312313; Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1959 ed., Vol. 1, p. 515) It thus appears that the oppositor has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in this probate proceeding contrary to the ruling of the court a quo. 2.The next question to be determined is whether the will Exhibit A was duly admitted to probate. Oppositor claims that the same should not have been admitted not only because it was not properly attested to but also because it was procured thru pressure and influence and the testatrix affixed her signature by mistake believing that it contained her true intent. The claim that the will was not properly attested to is contradicted by the evidence of record. In this respect it is fit that we state briefly the declarations of the instrumental witnesses. Pilar Borja testified that the testatrix was in perfect state of health at the time she executed the will for she carried her conversation with her intelligently; that the testatrix signed immediately above the attestation clause and on each and every page thereof at the left-hand margin in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public; that it was the testatrix herself who asked her and the other witnesses to act as such; and that the testatrix was the first one to sign and later she gave the will to the witnesses who read and signed it.

Pilar G. Sanchez also testified that she knew the testatrix since 1945; that it was the testatrix herself who asked her to be a witness to the will; that the testatrix was the first one to sign and she gave the will later to the witnesses to sign and afterwards she gave it to the notary public; that on the day of the execution of the will the testatrix was in the best of health. Modesto Formilleza also testified that he was asked by the testatrix to be one of the witnesses to the will; that he read and understood the attestation clause before he signed the document, and that all the witnesses spoke either in Spanish or in Tagalog. He finally said that the instrumental witnesses and the testatrix signed the will at the same time and place and identified their signatures. This evidence which has not been successfully refuted proves conclusively, that the will was duly executed because it was signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses and the notary public in the manner provided for by law. The claim that the will was procured by improper pressure and influence is also belied by the evidence. On this point the court a quo made the following observation: "The circumstance that the testatrix was then living under the same roof with Dr. Rene Teotico is no proof adequate in law to sustain the conclusion that there was improper pressure and undue influence. Nor is the alleged fact of isolation of the testatrix from the oppositor and her witnesses, for their supposed failure to see personally the testatrix, attributable to the vehemence of Dr. Rene Teotico to exclude visitors, took place years after the execution of the will on May 17, 1951. Although those facts may have some weight to support the theory of the oppositor, yet they must perforce yield to the weightier fact that nothing could have prevented the testatrix, had she really wanted to, from subsequently revoking her 1951 will if it did not in fact reflect and express her own testamentary dispositions. For, as testified to by the oppositor and her witnesses, the testatrix was often seen at the Escolta, in Quiapo and in Sta. Cruz, Manila, walking and accompanied by no one. In fact, on different occasions, each of them was able to talk with her." We have examined the evidence on the matter and we are fully in accord with the foregoing observation. Moreover, the mere claim that Josefina Mortera and her husband Rene Teotico had the opportunity to exert pressure on the testatrix simply because she lived in their house several years prior to the execution of the will and that she was old and suffering from hypertension in that she was virtually isolated from her friends for several years prior to her death is insufficient to disprove what the

instrumental witnesses had testified that the testatrix freely and voluntarily and with full consciousness of the solemnity of the occasion executed the will under consideration. The exercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported by substantial evidence and must be of a kind that would overpower and subjugate the mind of the testatrix as to destroy her free agency and make her express the will of another rather than her own (Coso vs. Deza, 42 Phil., 596). The burden is on the person challenging the will that such influence was exerted at the time of its execution, a matter which here was not done, for the evidence presented not only is sufficient but was disproved by the testimony the instrumental witnesses. 3.The question of whether the probate court could determine the intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will has been decided by this Court in a long line of decisions among which the following may be cited: "Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained in probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the law." (Palacios vs. Palacios, 58 O.G. 220) ". . . The authentication of a will decides no other questions than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency of the provisions; these may be impugned as being vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication. The questions relating to these points remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been authenticated. . . . "From the fact that the legalization of a will does not validate the provisions therein contained, it does not follow that such provisions lack of efficiency, or fail to produce the effects which the law recognizes when they are not impugned by anyone. In the matter of wills it is a fundamental doctrine that the will of the testator is the law governing the interested parties, and must be punctually complied with in so far as it is not contrary to the law or to public morals." (Montaano vs. Suesa, 14 Phil., pp. 676, 679-680) "To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a will was executed with the

formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec. 625.) The judgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid." Castaeda vs. Alemany, 3 Phil., 426, 428) Pursuant to the foregoing precedents the pronouncement made by the court a quo declaring invalid the legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico in the will Exhibit A must be set aside as having been made in excess of its jurisdiction. Another reason why said pronouncement should be set aside is that the legatee was not given an opportunity to defend the validity of the legacy for he was not allowed to intervene in this proceeding. As a corollary, the other pronouncements, touching on the disposition of the estate in favor of some relatives of the deceased should also be set aside for the same reason. WHEREFORE, with the exception of that portion of the decision which declares that the will in question has been duly executed and admitted the same to probate, the rest of the decision is hereby set aside. This case is ordered remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Dizon, J., took no part.

Republic Act No. 9523

March 12, 2009

AN ACT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD) TO DECLARE A "CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION" AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8552, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 603, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State that alternative protection and assistance shall be afforded to every child who is abandoned, surrendered, or neglected. In this regard, the State shall extend such assistance in the most expeditious manner in the interest of full emotional and social development of the abandoned, surrendered, or neglected child. It is hereby recognized that administrative processes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Welfare and Development for the declaration of a child legally available for adoption of abandoned, surrendered, or neglected children are the most expeditious proceedings for the best interest and welfare of the child. Section. 2. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean: (1) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the agency charged to implement the provisions of this Act and shall have the sole authority to issue the certification declaring a child legally available for adoption. (2) Child refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or a person over eighteen (18) years of age but is unable to fully take care of him/herself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or condition. (3) Abandoned Child refers to a child who has no proper parental care or guardianship, or whose parent(s) have deserted him/her for a period of at least three (3) continuous months, which includes a founding. (4) Neglected Child refers to a child whose basic needs have been deliberately unattended or inadequately attended within a period of three (3) continuous months. Neglect may occur in two (2) ways:

(a) There is physical neglect when the child is malnourished, ill-clad, and without proper shelter. A child is unattended when left by himself/herself without proper provisions and/or without proper supervision. (b) There is emotional neglect when the child is maltreated, raped, seduced, exploited, overworked, or made to work under conditions not conducive to good health; or is made to beg in the streets or public places; or when children are in moral danger, or exposed to gambling, prostitution, and other vices. (5) Child Legally Available for Adoption refers to a child in whose favor a certification was issued by the DSWD that he/she is legally available for adoption after the fact of abandonment or neglect has been proven through the submission of pertinent documents, or one who was voluntarily committed by his/her parent(s) or legal guardian. (6) Voluntarily Committed Child is one whose parent(s) or legal guardian knowingly and willingly relinquished parental authority to the DSWD or any duly accredited child-placement or child-caring agency or institution. (7) Child-caring agency or institution refers to a private non-profit or government agency duly accredited by the DSWD that provides twenty-four (24) hour residential care services for abandoned, neglected, or voluntarily committed children. (8) Child-placing agency or institution refers to a private non-profit institution or government agency duly accredited by the DWSD that receives and processes applicants to become foster or adoptive parents and facilitate placement of children eligible for foster care or adoption. (9) Petitioner refers to the head or executive director of a licensed or accredited child-caring or child-placing agency or institution managed by the government, local government unit, non-governmental organization, or provincial, city, or municipal Social Welfare Development Officer who has actual custody of the minor and who files a certification to declare such child legally available for adoption, or, if the child is under the custody of any other individual, the agency or institution does so with the consent of the child's custodian. (10) Secretary refers to the Secretary of the DSWD or his duly authorized representative.

(11) Conspicuous Place shall refer to a place frequented by the public, where by notice of the petition shall be posted for information of any interested person. (12) Social Case Study Report (SCSR) shall refer to a written report of the result of an assessment conducted by a licensed social worker as to the socialcultural economic condition, psychosocial background, current functioning and facts of abandonment or neglect of the child. The report shall also state the efforts of social worker to locate the child's biological parents/relatives. Section 3. Petition. The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. It shall contain facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall state the circumstances surrounding the abandonment or neglect of the child. The petition shall be supported by the following documents: (1) Social Case Study Report made by the DSWD, local government unit, licensed or accredited child-caring or child-placing agency or institution charged with the custody of the child; (2) Proof that efforts were made to locate the parent(s) or any known relatives of the child. The following shall be considered sufficient: (a) Written certification from a local or national radio or television station that the case was aired on three (3) different occasions; (b) Publication in one (1) newspaper of general circulation; (c) Police report or barangay certification from the locality where the child was found or a certified copy of a tracing report issued by the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), National Headquarters (NHQ), Social Service Division, which states that despite due diligence, the child's parents could not be found; and (d) Returned registered mail to the last known address of the parent(s) or known relatives, if any. (3) Birth certificate, if available; and (4) Recent photograph of the child and photograph of the child upon abandonment or admission to the agency or institution.

Section 4. Procedure for the Filing of the Petition. The petition shall be filed in the regional office of the DSWD where the child was found or abandoned. The Regional Director shall examine the petition and its supporting documents, if sufficient in form and substance and shall authorize the posting of the notice of the petition conspicuous place for five (5) consecutive days in the locality where the child was found. The Regional Director shall act on the same and shall render a recommendation not later than five (5) working days after the completion of its posting. He/she shall transmit a copy of his/her recommendation and records to the Office of the Secretary within forty-eight (48) hours from the date of the recommendation. Section 5. Declaration of Availability for Adoption. Upon finding merit in the petition, the Secretary shall issue a certification declaring the child legally available for adoption within seven (7) working days from receipt of the recommendation. Said certification, by itself shall be the sole basis for the immediate issuance by the local civil registrar of a foundling certificate. Within seven (7) working days, the local civil registrar shall transmit the founding certificate to the National Statistic Office (NSO). Section 6. Appeal. The decision of the Secretary shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals within five (5) days from receipt of the decision by the petitioner, otherwise the same shall be final and executory. Section 7. Declaration of Availability for Adoption of Involuntarily Committed Child and Voluntarily Committed Child. The certificate declaring a child legally available for adoption in case of an involuntarily committed child under Article 141, paragraph 4(a) and Article 142 of Presidential Decree No. 603 shall be issued by the DSWD within three (3) months following such involuntary commitment. In case of voluntary commitment as contemplated in Article 154 of Presidential Decree No. 603, the certification declaring the child legally available for adoption shall be issued by the Secretary within three (3) months following the filing of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment, as signed by the parent(s) with the DSWD. Upon petition filed with the DSWD, the parent(s) or legal guardian who voluntarily committed a child may recover legal custody and parental authority over him/her from the agency or institution to which such child was voluntarily committed when it is shown to the satisfaction of the DSWD that the parent(s) or legal guardian is in a position to adequately provide for the needs of the child: Provided, That, the petition for restoration is filed within (3) months after the signing of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment.

Section 8. Certification. The certification that a child is legally available for adoption shall be issued by the DSWD in lieu of a judicial order, thus making the entire process administrative in nature. The certification, shall be, for all intents and purposes, the primary evidence that the child is legally available in a domestic adoption proceeding, as provided in Republic Act No. 8552 and in an inter-country adoption proceeding, as provided in Republic Act No. 8043. Section. 9. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The DSWD, together with the Council for Welfare of Children, Inter-Country Adoption Board, two (2) representatives from licensed or accredited child-placing and child-caring agencies or institution, National Statistics Office and Office of the Civil Registrar, is hereby tasked to draft the implementing rules and regulations of this Act within sixty (60) days following its complete publication. Upon effectivity of this Act and pending the completion of the drafting of the implementing rules and regulations, petitions for the issuance of a certification declaring a child legally available for adoption may be filled with the regional office of the DSWD where the child was found or abandoned. Section 10. Penalty. The penalty of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) shall be imposed on any person, institution, or agency who shall place a child for adoption without the certification that the child is legally available for adoption issued by the DSWD. Any agency or institution found violating any provision of this Act shall have its license to operate revoked without prejudice to the criminal prosecution of its officers and employees. Violation of any provision of this Act shall subject the government official or employee concerned to appropriate administrative, civil and/or criminal sanctions, including suspension and/or dismissal from the government service and forfeiture of benefits. Section 11. Repealing Clause. Sections 2(c)(iii), 3(b), (e) and 8(a) of Republic Act No. 8552, Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 8043, Chapter 1 of Title VII, and VIII of Presidential Decree No. 603 and any law, presidential decree, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule, or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby reprealed, modified or amended accordingly. Section 12. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 13. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its complete publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation or in the Official Gazette.

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. Nos. 168992-93. May 21, 2009.] IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, petitioner. IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, petitioner. DECISION CARPIO, J p:

Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of Consent. 7 Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent. 8 Petitioner's husband Olario likewise executed an Affidavit of Consent 9 for the adoption of Michelle and Michael. In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle was considered as an abandoned child and the whereabouts of her natural parents were unknown. 10 The DSWD issued a similar Certification for Michael. 11 The Ruling of the Trial Court

The Case This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Monina P. Lim (petitioner) seeking to set aside the Decision 1 dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 (trial court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, which dismissed without prejudice the consolidated petitions for adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim. The Facts The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she married Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor children, whose parents were unknown, were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim registered the children to make it appear that they were the children's parents. The children 2 were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought to the clinic of petitioner. She was born on 15 March 1977. 3 Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban brought him to petitioner's clinic. His date of birth is 1 August 1983. 4 The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. They sent the children to exclusive schools. They used the surname "Lim" in all their school records and documents. Unfortunately, on 28 November 1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario (Olario), an American citizen. TcICEA Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty 5 given under Republic Act No. 8552 6 (RA 8552) to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April 2002, petitioner filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, respectively. At the time of the filing of the petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18 years and seven months old. On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the petitions. The trial court ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed the petition jointly with her new husband. The trial court ruled that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory citing Section 7 (c), Article III of RA 8552 and Article 185 of the Family Code. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision but the motion was denied in the Order dated 16 June 2005. In denying the motion, the trial court ruled that petitioner did not fall under any of the exceptions under Section 7 (c), Article III of RA 8552. Petitioner's argument that mere consent of her husband would suffice was untenable because, under the law, there are additional requirements, such as residency and certification of his qualification, which the husband, who was not even made a party in this case, must comply. As to the argument that the adoptees are already emancipated and joint adoption is merely for the joint exercise of parental authority, the trial court ruled that joint adoption is not only for the purpose of exercising parental authority because an emancipated child acquires certain rights from his parents and assumes certain obligations and responsibilities. Hence, the present petition. DEAaIS Issue Petitioner appealed directly to this Court raising the sole issue of whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt. The Court's Ruling Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption must be relaxed because it is the duty of the court and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare of the child to be adopted. Petitioner argues that the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" is not applicable

to adoption cases. She argues that joint parental authority is not necessary in this case since, at the time the petitions were filed, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was already 18 years of age. Parental authority is not anymore necessary since they have been emancipated having attained the age of majority. We deny the petition. Joint Adoption by Husband and Wife It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner had already remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario. We have no other recourse but to affirm the trial court's decision denying the petitions for adoption. Dura lex sed lex. The law is explicit. Section 7, Article III of RA 8552 reads: SEC. 7.Who May Adopt. The following may adopt: (a)Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee's parent; (b)Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the alien's qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following: (i)a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or

(ii)one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or (iii)one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouses; or (c)The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of his/her financial accountabilities. IcHTED Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases: (i)if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or (ii)if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or (iii)if the spouses are legally separated from each other. In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses. (Emphasis supplied) The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted provision means that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the spouses. 12 The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption were filed only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in denying the petitions for adoption on this ground. Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the children to be adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her husband Olario. Second, the children are not the illegitimate children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not legally separated from each other.

The fact that Olario gave his consent to the adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent does not suffice. There are certain requirements that Olario must comply being an American citizen. He must meet the qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA 8552 such as: (1) he must prove that his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines; (2) he must have been living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption; (3) he must maintain such residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt in his own country; and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopter's country as the latter's adopted child. None of these qualifications were shown and proved during the trial. These requirements on residency and certification of the alien's qualification to adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or adoptees are not relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees the legitimate children of petitioner. Effects of Adoption Petitioner contends that joint parental authority is not anymore necessary since the children have been emancipated having reached the age of majority. This is untenable. Parental authority includes caring for and rearing the children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. 13 The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. 14 Even the remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children. 15 It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation that is, when he attains the age of majority or 18 years of age 16 emancipation terminates parental authority over the person and property of the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. 17 However, parental authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates the effects of adoption, thus: ARTICLE V EFFECTS OF ADOPTION SEC. 16.Parental Authority. Except in cases where the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the same shall then be vested on the adopter(s). SEC. 17.Legitimacy. The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and

purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family. SEC. 18.Succession. In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern. Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee, except when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter; (2) deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adopter; and (3) give adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including but not limited to: (i) the right of the adopter to choose the name the child is to be known; and (ii) the right of the adopter and adoptee to be legal and compulsory heirs of each other. 18 Therefore, even if emancipation terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights 19 of a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and the mother; (2) to receive support from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which biological parents are entitled 20 such as support 21 and successional rights. 22 DSETac We are mindful of the fact that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family, as well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law. 23 But, as we have ruled in Republic v. Vergara: 24 We are not unmindful of the main purpose of adoption statutes, which is the promotion of the welfare of the children. Accordingly, the law should be construed liberally, in a manner that will sustain rather than defeat said purpose. The law must also be applied with compassion, understanding and less severity in view of the fact that it is intended to provide homes, love, care and education for less fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court is not in a position to affirm the trial court's decision favoring adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without violating the proscription against judicial legislation. Until such

time however, that the law on the matter is amended, we cannot sustain the respondent-spouses' petition for adoption. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, should have jointly filed the petitions with her husband. We cannot make our own legislation to suit petitioner. Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that subsequent events would show that joint adoption could no longer be possible because Olario has filed a case for dissolution of his marriage to petitioner in the Los Angeles Superior Court. We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario is of no moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of marriage. Until and unless there is a judicial decree for the dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still subsists. That being the case, joint adoption by the husband and the wife is required. We reiterate our ruling above that since, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner was married to Olario, joint adoption is mandatory. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. HcTSDa Puno, C.J., Corona, Leonardo-de Castro and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the "Domestic Adoption Act of 1998." Section 2. Declaration of Policies. (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of his/her parent(s) and be provided with love, care, understanding and security towards the full and harmonious development of his/her personality. Only when such efforts prove insufficient and no appropriate placement or adoption within the child's extended family is available shall adoption by an unrelated person be considered. (b) In all matters relating to the care, custody and adoption of a child, his/her interest shall be the paramount consideration in accordance with the tenets set forth in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child; UN Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption, Nationally and Internationally; and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Toward this end, the State shall provide alternative protection and assistance through foster care or adoption for every child who is neglected, orphaned, or abandoned. (c) It shall also be a State policy to: (i) Safeguard the biological parent(s) from making hurried decisions to relinquish his/her parental authority over his/her child; (ii) Prevent the child from unnecessary separation from his/her biological parent(s); (iii) Protect adoptive parent(s) from attempts to disturb his/her parental authority and custody over his/her adopted child.

Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 Republic Act No. 8552 February 25, 1998 Any voluntary or involuntary termination of parental authority shall be administratively or judicially declared so as to establish the status of the child as "legally available for adoption" and his/her custody transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development or to any duly licensed and accredited child-placing or child-caring agency, which entity shall be authorized to take steps for the permanent placement of the child; (iv) Conduct public information and educational campaigns to promote a positive environment for adoption; (v) Ensure that sufficient capacity exists within government and private sector agencies to handle adoption inquiries, process domestic adoption applications, and offer adoption-related services including, but not limited to, parent preparation and post-adoption education and counseling; and

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RULES AND POLICIES ON THE DOMESTIC ADOPTION OF FILIPINO CHILDREN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS

(vi) Encourage domestic adoption so as to preserve the child's identity and culture in his/her native land, and only when this is not available shall intercountry adoption be considered as a last resort. Section 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as: (a) "Child" is a person below eighteen (18) years of age. (b) "A child legally available for adoption" refers to a child who has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the Department or to a duly licensed and accredited child-placing or child-caring agency, freed of the parental authority of his/her biological parent(s) or guardian or adopter(s) in case of rescission of adoption. (c) "Voluntarily committed child" is one whose parent(s) knowingly and willingly relinquishes parental authority to the Department. (d) "Involuntarily committed child" is one whose parent(s), known or unknown, has been permanently and judicially deprived of parental authority due to abandonment; substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse; or incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities. (e) "Abandoned child" refers to one who has no proper parental care or guardianship or whose parent(s) has deserted him/her for a period of at least six (6) continuous months and has been judicially declared as such. (f) "Supervised trial custody" is a period of time within which a social worker oversees the adjustment and emotional readiness of both adopter(s) and adoptee in stabilizing their filial relationship. (g) "Department" refers to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. (h) "Child-placing agency" is a duly licensed and accredited agency by the Department to provide comprehensive child welfare services including, but not limited to, receiving applications for adoption, evaluating the prospective adoptive parents, and preparing the adoption home study. (i) "Child-caring agency" is a duly licensed and accredited agency by the Department that provides twenty four (24)-hour residential care services for abandoned, orphaned, neglected, or voluntarily committed children.

(j) "Simulation of birth" is the tampering of the civil registry making it appear in the birth records that a certain child was born to a person who is not his/her biological mother, causing such child to lose his/her true identity and status. ARTICLE II PRE-ADOPTION SERVICES Section 4. Counseling Service. The Department shall provide the services of licensed social workers to the following: (a) Biological Parent(s) Counseling shall be provided to the parent(s) before and after the birth of his/her child. No binding commitment to an adoption plan shall be permitted before the birth of his/her child. A period of six (6) months shall be allowed for the biological parent(s) to reconsider any decision to relinquish his/her child for adoption before the decision becomes irrevocable. Counseling and rehabilitation services shall also be offered to the biological parent(s) after he/she has relinquished his/her child for adoption. Steps shall be taken by the Department to ensure that no hurried decisions are made and all alternatives for the child's future and the implications of each alternative have been provided. (b) Prospective Adoptive Parent(s) Counseling sessions, adoption fora and seminars, among others, shall be provided to prospective adoptive parent(s) to resolve possible adoption issues and to prepare him/her for effective parenting. (c) Prospective Adoptee Counseling sessions shall be provided to ensure that he/she understands the nature and effects of adoption and is able to express his/her views on adoption in accordance with his/her age and level of maturity. Section 5. Location of Unknown Parent(s). It shall be the duty of the Department or the child-placing or child-caring agency which has custody of the child to exert all efforts to locate his/her unknown biological parent(s). If such efforts fail, the child shall be registered as a foundling and subsequently be the subject of legal proceedings where he/she shall be declared abandoned. Section 6. Support Services. The Department shall develop a pre-adoption program which shall include, among others, the above mentioned services. ARTICLE III ELIGIBILITY

Section 7. Who May Adopt. The following may adopt: (a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee's parent; (b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, Further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the alien's qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following: (i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or (ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or (iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse; or (c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of his/her financial accountabilities. Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases: (i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or (ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However, that the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other. In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses. Section 8. Who May Be Adopted. The following may be adopted: (a) Any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been administratively or judicially declared available for adoption; (b) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse by the other spouse; (c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified adopter to improve his/her status to that of legitimacy; (d) A person of legal age if, prior to the adoption, said person has been consistently considered and treated by the adopter(s) as his/her own child since minority; (e) A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or (f) A child whose biological or adoptive parent(s) has died: Provided, That no proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the time of death of said parent(s). Section 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. After being properly counseled and informed of his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required: (a) The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over; (b) The biological parent(s) of the child, if known, or the legal guardian, or the proper government instrumentality which has legal custody of the child; (c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee, if any; (d) The illegitimate sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter if living with said adopter and the latter's spouse, if any; and (e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.

ARTICLE IV PROCEDURE Section 10. Hurried Decisions. In all proceedings for adoption, the court shall require proof that the biological parent(s) has been properly counseled to prevent him/her from making hurried decisions caused by strain or anxiety to give up the child, and to sustain that all measures to strengthen the family have been exhausted and that any prolonged stay of the child in his/her own home will be inimical to his/her welfare and interest. Section 11. Case Study. No petition for adoption shall be set for hearing unless a licensed social worker of the Department, the social service office of the local government unit, or any child-placing or child-caring agency has made a case study of the adoptee, his/her biological parent(s), as well as the adopter(s), and has submitted the report and recommendations on the matter to the court hearing such petition. At the time of preparation of the adoptee's case study, the concerned social worker shall confirm with the Civil Registry the real identity and registered name of the adoptee. If the birth of the adoptee was not registered with the Civil Registry, it shall be the responsibility of the concerned social worker to ensure that the adoptee is registered. The case study on the adoptee shall establish that he/she is legally available for adoption and that the documents to support this fact are valid and authentic. Further, the case study of the adopter(s) shall ascertain his/her genuine intentions and that the adoption is in the best interest of the child. The Department shall intervene on behalf of the adoptee if it finds, after the conduct of the case studies, that the petition should be denied. The case studies and other relevant documents and records pertaining to the adoptee and the adoption shall be preserved by the Department. Section 12. Supervised Trial Custody. No petition for adoption shall be finally granted until the adopter(s) has been given by the court a supervised trial custody period for at least six (6) months within which the parties are expected to adjust psychologically and emotionally to each other and establish a bonding relationship. During said period, temporary parental authority shall be vested in the adopter(s). The court may motu proprio or upon motion of any party reduce the trial period if it finds the same to be in the best interest of the adoptee, stating the reasons for the reduction of the period. However, for alien adopter(s), he/she must complete the six (6)-month trial custody except for those enumerated in Sec. 7 (b) (i) (ii) (iii). If the child is below seven (7) years of age and is placed with the prospective adopter(s) through a pre-adoption placement authority issued by the Department, the

prospective adopter(s) shall enjoy all the benefits to which biological parent(s) is entitled from the date the adoptee is placed with the prospective adopter(s). Section 13. Decree of Adoption. If, after the publication of the order of hearing has been complied with, and no opposition has been interposed to the petition, and after consideration of the case studies, the qualifications of the adopter(s), trial custody report and the evidence submitted, the court is convinced that the petitioners are qualified to adopt, and that the adoption would redound to the best interest of the adoptee, a decree of adoption shall be entered which shall be effective as of the date the original petition was filed. This provision shall also apply in case the petitioner(s) dies before the issuance of the decree of adoption to protect the interest of the adoptee. The decree shall state the name by which the child is to be known. Section 14. Civil Registry Record. An amended certificate of birth shall be issued by the Civil Registry, as required by the Rules of Court, attesting to the fact that the adoptee is the child of the adopter(s) by being registered with his/her surname. The original certificate of birth shall be stamped "cancelled" with the annotation of the issuance of an amended birth certificate in its place and shall be sealed in the civil registry records. The new birth certificate to be issued to the adoptee shall not bear any notation that it is an amended issue. Section 15. Confidential Nature of Proceedings and Records. All hearings in adoption cases shall be confidential and shall not be open to the public. All records, books, and papers relating to the adoption cases in the files of the court, the Department, or any other agency or institution participating in the adoption proceedings shall be kept strictly confidential. If the court finds that the disclosure of the information to a third person is necessary for purposes connected with or arising out of the adoption and will be for the best interest of the adoptee, the court may merit the necessary information to be released, restricting the purposes for which it may be used. ARTICLE V EFFECTS OF ADOPTION Section 16. Parental Authority. Except in cases where the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the same shall then be vested on the adopter(s). Section 17. Legitimacy. The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family.

Section 18. Succession. In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern. ARTICLE VI RESCISSION OF ADOPTION Section 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. Upon petition of the adoptee, with the assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but is incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the following grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations. Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code. Section 20. Effects of Rescission. If the petition is granted, the parental authority of the adoptee's biological parent(s), if known, or the legal custody of the Department shall be restored if the adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated. The reciprocal rights and obligations of the adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be extinguished. The court shall order the Civil Registrar to cancel the amended certificate of birth of the adoptee and restore his/her original birth certificate. Succession rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption, but only as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission. Vested rights acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected. All the foregoing effects of rescission of adoption shall be without prejudice to the penalties imposable under the Penal Code if the criminal acts are properly proven. ARTICLE VII VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES Section 21. Violations and Penalties. (a) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), but not more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) at the discretion of the court shall be imposed on any person who shall commit any of the following acts:

(i) obtaining consent for an adoption through coercion, undue influence, fraud, improper material inducement, or other similar acts; (ii) non-compliance with the procedures and safeguards provided by the law for adoption; or (iii) subjecting or exposing the child to be adopted to danger, abuse, or exploitation. (b) Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under the name(s) of a person(s) who is not his/her biological parent(s) shall be guilty of simulation of birth, and shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). Any physician or nurse or hospital personnel who, in violation of his/her oath of office, shall cooperate in the execution of the abovementioned crime shall suffer the penalties herein prescribed and also the penalty of permanent disqualification. Any person who shall violate established regulations relating to the confidentiality and integrity of records, documents, and communications of adoption applications, cases, and processes shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years, and/or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) but not more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), at the discretion of the court. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated offense under this Article shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit any of the acts herein enumerated. Acts punishable under this Article, when committed by a syndicate or where it involves two (2) or more children shall be considered as an offense constituting child trafficking and shall merit the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Acts punishable under this Article are deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any of the unlawful acts defined under this Article. Penalties as are herein provided, shall be in addition to any other penalties which may be imposed for the same acts punishable under other laws, ordinances, executive orders, and proclamations. When the offender is an alien, he/she shall be deported immediately after service of sentence and perpetually excluded from entry to the country. Any government official, employee or functionary who shall be found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Act, or who shall conspire with private individuals shall, in addition to the above-prescribed penalties, be penalized in accordance with existing civil service laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That upon

the filing of a case, either administrative or criminal, said government official, employee, or functionary concerned shall automatically suffer suspension until the resolution of the case. Section 22. Rectification of Simulated Births. A person who has, prior to the effectivity of this Act, simulated the birth of a child shall not be punished for such act: Provided, That the simulation of birth was made for the best interest of the child and that he/she has been consistently considered and treated by that person as his/her own son/daughter: Provided, further, That the application for correction of the birth registration and petition for adoption shall be filed within five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act and completed thereafter:Provided, finally, That such person complies with the procedure as specified in Article IV of this Act and other requirements as determined by the Department. ARTICLE VIII FINAL PROVISIONS Section 23. Adoption Resource and Referral Office. There shall be established an Adoption Resources and Referral Office under the Department with the following functions: (a) monitor the existence, number, and flow of children legally available for adoption and prospective adopter(s) so as to facilitate their matching; (b) maintain a nationwide information and educational campaign on domestic adoption; (c) keep records of adoption proceedings; (d) generate resources to help child-caring and childplacing agencies and foster homes maintain viability; and (e) do policy research in collaboration with the Intercountry Adoption Board and other concerned agencies. The office shall be manned by adoption experts from the public and private sectors. Section 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. Within six (6) months from the promulgation of this Act, the Department, with the Council for the Welfare of Children, the Office of Civil Registry General, the Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, and two (2) private individuals representing child-placing and childcaring agencies shall formulate the necessary guidelines to make the provisions of this Act operative. Section 25. Appropriations. Such sum as may be necessary for the implementation of the provisions of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law and thereafter. Section 26. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule, or regulation contrary to, or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended accordingly.

Section 27. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting. Section 28. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its complete publication in any newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 92326. January 24, 1992.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ZENAIDA C. BOBILES, respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Mariano B. Miranda for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION NOT TO PREJUDICE OR IMPAIR VESTED OR ACQUIRED RIGHTS. Article 246 of the Family Code provides for retroactive effect of appropriate relevant provisions thereof, subject to the qualification that such retrospective application will not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. 2.ID.; EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS; VESTED RIGHT, EXPLAINED. A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder. The term expresses the concept of present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny. Vested rights include not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new obligations created after the right has vested. 3.REMEDIAL LAW; ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS; CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE; RIGHT THEREUNDER TO FILE PETITION FOR ADOPTION ALONE CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE ENACTMENT OF NEW LAW. Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, private respondent had the right to file a petition for adoption by herself, without joining her husband therein. When Mrs. Bobiles filed her petition, she was exercising her explicit and unconditional right under said law. Upon her filing thereof, her right to file such petition alone and to have the same proceed to final adjudication, in accordance with the law in force at the time, was already vested and cannot be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law. When private respondent filed her petition in Special Proceeding No. 1386, the trial court acquired jurisdiction thereover in accordance with the governing law. Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. We do not find in the present case such facts as would constitute it as an exception to the rule. 4.ID.; ID.; PROCEDURAL STATUTES MAY BE ORDINARILY BE ACCORDED A RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION; EXCEPTION. The first error assigned by petitioner warrants a review of applicable local and foreign jurisprudence. For that purpose, we start with the premise that Article 185 of the Family Code is remedial in nature. Procedural statutes are ordinarily accorded a retrospective construction in the sense that they may be applied to pending actions and proceedings, as well as to future

actions. However, they will not be so applied as to defeat procedural steps completed before their enactment. Procedural matters are governed by the law in force when they arise, and procedural statutes are generally retroactive in that they apply to pending proceedings and are not confined to those begun after their enactment although, with respect to such pending proceedings, they affect only procedural steps taken after their enactment. The rule that a statutory change in matters of procedure will affect pending actions and proceedings, unless the language of the act excludes them from its operation, is not so extensive that it may be used to validate or invalidate proceedings taken before it goes into effect, since procedure must be governed by the law regulating it at the time the question of procedure arises. 5.ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION; DETERMINED BY THE STATUTE IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION. The jurisdictional, as distinguished from the purely procedural, aspect of a case is substantive in nature and is subject to a more stringent rule. A petition cannot be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with a law which was not yet in force and effect at the time. As long as the petition for adoption was sufficient in form and substance in accordance with the law in governance at the time it was filed, the court acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully disposes of the case. To repeat, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. 6.ID.; ID.; WRITTEN CONSENT AND CONFIRMATORY STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE HUSBAND A CO-PETITIONER. Although Dioscoro Bobiles was not named as one of the petitioners in the petition for adoption filed by his wife, his affidavit of consent, attached to the petition as Annex "B" and expressly made an integral part thereof, shows that he himself actually joined his wife in adopting the child. The declarations in his written consent and his subsequent confirmatory testimony in open court, are sufficient to make him a co-petitioner. Under the circumstances then obtaining, and by reason of his foreign residence, he must have yielded to the legal advice that an affidavit of consent on his part sufficed to make him a party to the petition. This is evident from the text of his affidavit. Punctiliousness in language and pedantry in the formal requirements should yield to and be eschewed in the higher considerations of substantial justice. The future of an innocent child must not be compromised by arbitrary insistence of rigid adherence to procedural rules on the form of pleadings. 7.ID.; ID.; ADOPTION STATUTES AND PROCEDURES THEREFORE SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. We see no reason why the following doctrines in American law should not apply to this case and, for that matter, in our jurisdiction. It is a settled rule therein that adoption statutes, as well as matters of procedure leading up to adoption, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of the adoption institution and to protect the adopted child in the rights and privileges coming to it as a result of the adoption. The modern tendency of the courts is to hold that there

need not be more than a substantial compliance with statutory requirements to sustain the validity of the proceeding; to refuse would be to indulge in such a narrow and technical construction of the statute as to defeat its intention and beneficial results or to invalidate proceedings where every material requirement of the statute was complied with. 8.ID.; ID.; COURTS TO UPHOLD ACTS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES. In support of this rule it is said that it is not the duty of the courts to bring the judicial microscope to bear upon the case in order that every slight defect may be enlarged and magnified so that a reason may be found for declaring invalid an act consummated years before, but rather to approach the case with the inclination to uphold such acts if it is found that there was a substantial compliance with the statute. The technical rules of pleading should not be stringently applied to adoption proceedings, and it is deemed more important that the petition should contain facts relating to the child and its parents, which may give information to those interested, than that it should be formally correct as a pleading. Accordingly, it is generally held that a petition will confer jurisdiction if it substantially complies with the adoption statute, alleging all facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction. 9.ID.; ID.; DISCRETION OF COURT MUST BE EXERCISED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. In determining whether or not to set aside the decree of adoption the interests and welfare of the child are of primary and paramount consideration. The welfare of a child is of paramount consideration in proceedings involving its custody and the propriety of its adoption by another, and the courts to which the application for adoption is made is charged with the duty of protecting the child and its interests and, to bring those interests fully before it, it has authority to make rules to accomplish that end. Ordinarily, the approval of the adoption rests in the sound discretion of the court. This discretion should be exercised in accordance with the best interests of the child, as long as the natural rights of the parents over the child are not disregarded. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse, the exercise of this discretion by the approving official will not be disturbed. 10.ID.; ID.; OBJECTIVES OF ADOPTION STATUTES. Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family in the person of the adopted, as well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.

REGALADO, J p: Dissatisfied with the decision of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on February 20, 1990 1 which affirmed in toto the decision of Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City 2 granting the petition of herein private respondent to adopt the minor Jason Condat, petitioner seeks the reversal thereof in the present petition for review on certiorari. On February 2, 1988, Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat, then six (6) years old and who had been living with her family since he was four (4) months old, before the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, docketed therein as Special Proceeding No. 1386. 3

The court a quo, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, issued an order dated February 15, 1988 setting the petition for hearing on March 28, 1988. 4 The order was duly published, with copies thereof seasonably served on the Solicitor General; Assistant Provincial Fiscal Mediavillo, Jr. of Albay; Salvador Condat, father of the child; and the social worker assigned to the court. A copy of said order was posted on the bulletin board of the court and in the other places it had required for that purpose. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition. 5 Compliance with the jurisdictional requirements having been proved at the hearing, the testimonies of herein private respondent, together with that of her husband, Dioscoro Bobiles, and one Ma. Luz Salameno of the Department of Social Welfare and Development were taken and admitted in the proceedings. On March 20, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment disposing as follows: ACCORDINGLY, it is declared that henceforth, the minor child, JASON CONDAT, be freed from all legal obligations of obedience and maintenance with respect to his natural parents, and be, to all intents and purposes, the child of the spouses Dioscoro and Zenaida Bobiles, and the surname of the child be changed to "Bobiles" which is the surname of the petitioner. Furnish the Office of the Solicitor General, Manila, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Regional Office, Region V, Legaspi City, and the Local Civil Registrar of Tiwi, Albay, with copies of this decision. 6 Herein petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, as earlier stated, affirmed the aforesaid decision of the court below. Hence, this present petition with the following assignment of errors:

DECISION

1.The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Family Code cannot be applied retroactively to the petition for adoption filed by Zenaida C. Bobiles; and 2.The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision which granted the petition to adopt Jason Condat in favor of spouses Dioscoro Bobiles and Zenaida C. Bobiles. 7 The petition for adoption was filed by private respondent Zenaida C. Bobiles on February 2, 1988, when the law applicable was Presidential Decree No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code. Under said code, a petition for adoption may be filed by either of the spouses or by both of them. However, after the trial court rendered its decision and while the case was pending on appeal in the Court of Appeals, Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code, took effect on August 3, 1988. Under the said new law, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory. On the foregoing consideration, petitioner contends that the petition for adoption should be dismissed outright as it was filed solely by private respondent without joining her husband, in violation of Article 185 of the Family Code which requires joint adoption by the spouses. It argues that the Family Code must be applied retroactively to the petition filed by Mrs. Bobiles, as the latter did not acquire a vested right to adopt Jason Condat by the mere filing of her petition for adoption. We are not persuaded. Preliminarily, we observe that petitioner's theory implies that the non-inclusion of Dioscoro Bobiles as a co-petitioner is a jurisdictional defect, hence its prayer for an outright dismissal on that score. It could not be taking exception only on the ground of non-joinder since petitioner must be aware that non-joinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action or a special proceeding. 8 We further apprehend that this objection has been raised for the first time on appeal in respondent court. Nonetheless, we shall clarify petitioner's misgivings as postulated in its aforestated assignment of errors. Article 246 of the Family Code provides for retroactive effect of appropriate relevant provisions thereof, subject to the qualification that such retrospective application will not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder. 9 The term expresses the concept of present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny. 10 Vested rights include not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new obligations created after the right has vested. 11

Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, private respondent had the right to file a petition for adoption by herself, without joining her husband therein. When Mrs. Bobiles filed her petition, she was exercising her explicit and unconditional right under said law. Upon her filing thereof, her right to file such petition alone and to have the same proceed to final adjudication, in accordance with the law in force at the time, was already vested and cannot be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law. When private respondent filed her petition in Special Proceeding No. 1386, the trial court acquired jurisdiction thereover in accordance with the governing law. Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. 12 We do not find in the present case such facts as would constitute it as an exception to the rule. The first error assigned by petitioner warrants a review of applicable local and foreign jurisprudence. For that purpose, we start with the premise that Article 185 of the Family Code is remedial in nature. Procedural statutes are ordinarily accorded a retrospective construction in the sense that they may be applied to pending actions and proceedings, as well as to future actions. However, they will not be so applied as to defeat procedural steps completed before their enactment. 13 Procedural matters are governed by the law in force when they arise, and procedural statutes are generally retroactive in that they apply to pending proceedings and are not confined to those begun after their enactment although, with respect to such pending proceedings, they affect only procedural steps taken after their enactment. 14 The rule that a statutory change in matters of procedure will affect pending actions and proceedings, unless the language of the act excludes them from its operation, is not so extensive that it may be used to validate or invalidate proceedings taken before it goes into effect, since procedure must be governed by the law regulating it at the time the question of procedure arises. 15 The jurisdictional, as distinguished from the purely procedural, aspect of a case is substantive in nature and is subject to a more stringent rule. A petition cannot be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with a law which was not yet in force and effect at the time. As long as the petition for adoption was sufficient in form and substance in accordance with the law in governance at the time it was filed, the court acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully disposes of the case. 16 To repeat, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. 17

On the second issue, petitioner argues that, even assuming that the Family Code should not apply retroactively, the Court of Appeals should have modified the trial court's decision by granting the adoption in favor of private respondent Zenaida C. Bobiles only, her husband not being a petitioner. We do not consider this as a tenable position and, accordingly, reject the same. Although Dioscoro Bobiles was not named as one of the petitioners in the petition for adoption filed by his wife, his affidavit of consent, attached to the petition as Annex "B" and expressly made an integral part thereof, shows that he himself actually joined his wife in adopting the child. The pertinent parts of his written consent read as follows: xxx xxx xxx 2.That my wife, ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES and I mutually desire to adopt as our child, a boy named JASON CONDAT, still a minor being six (6) years old, likewise residing at 18 C. Imperial Street, Legaspi City, Albay, also in the Philippines; 3.That we are filing the corresponding Petition for Adoption of said minor child, JASON CONDAT, before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court, now the Regional Trial Court in Legaspi City, Albay in the Philippines; 4.That I, Dioscoro C. Bobiles as the husband and father, am giving my lawful consent to this adoption of said minor child, JASON CONDAT; 5.That further, my wife ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES, and I have continuously reared and cared for this minor child, JASON CONDAT since birth; 6.That as a result thereof, my wife and I have developed a kind of maternal and paternal love for the boy as our very own, exercising therein the care, concern and diligence of a good father toward him; 7.That I am executing this document, an AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT for whatever it is worth in the premises as to the matter of adoption of this minor child, JASON CONDAT, by my wife ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES and by me, DIOSCORO C. BOBILES, in any court of justice; (Emphasis supplied.) 18 xxx xxx xxx

The foregoing declarations, and his subsequent confirmatory testimony in open court, are sufficient to make him a co-petitioner. Under the circumstances then obtaining, and by reason of his foreign residence, he must have yielded to the legal advice that an affidavit of consent on his part sufficed to make him a party to the petition. This is evident from the text of his affidavit. Punctiliousness in language and pedantry in the formal requirements should yield to and be eschewed in the higher considerations of substantial justice. The future of an innocent child must not be compromised by arbitrary insistence of rigid adherence to procedural rules on the form of pleadings.

We see no reason why the following doctrines in American law should not apply to this case and, for that matter, in our jurisdiction. It is a settled rule therein that adoption statutes, as well as matters of procedure leading up to adoption, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of the adoption institution and to protect the adopted child in the rights and privileges coming to it as a result of the adoption. 19 The modern tendency of the courts is to hold that there need not be more than a substantial compliance with statutory requirements to sustain the validity of the proceeding; to refuse would be to indulge in such a narrow and technical construction of the statute as to defeat its intention and beneficial results or to invalidate proceedings where every material requirement of the statute was complied with. In support of this rule it is said that it is not the duty of the courts to bring the judicial microscope to bear upon the case in order that every slight defect may be enlarged and magnified so that a reason may be found for declaring invalid an act consummated years before, but rather to approach the case with the inclination to uphold such acts if it is found that there was a substantial compliance with the statute. 20 The technical rules of pleading should not be stringently applied to adoption proceedings, and it is deemed more important that the petition should contain facts relating to the child and its parents, which may give information to those interested, than that it should be formally correct as a pleading. Accordingly, it is generally held that a petition will confer jurisdiction if it substantially complies with the adoption statute, alleging all facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction. 21 In determining whether or not to set aside the decree of adoption the interests and welfare of the child are of primary and paramount consideration. 22 The welfare of a child is of paramount consideration in proceedings involving its custody and the propriety of its adoption by another, and the courts to which the application for adoption is made is charged with the duty of protecting the child and its interests and, to bring those interests fully before it, it has authority to make rules to accomplish that end. 23 Ordinarily, the approval of the adoption rests in the sound discretion of the court. This discretion should be exercised in accordance with the best interests of the child, as long as the natural rights of the parents over the child are not disregarded. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse, the exercise of this discretion by the approving official will not be disturbed. 24

In the case at bar, the rights concomitant to and conferred by the decree of adoption will be for the best interests of the child. His adoption is with the consent of his natural parents. 25 The representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development unqualifiedly recommended the approval of the petition for adoption 26and the trial court dispensed with the trial custody for several commendatory reasons, especially since the child had been living with the adopting parents since infancy. 27 Further, the said petition was with the sworn written consent of the children of the adopters. The trial court and respondent court acted correctly in granting the petition for adoption and we find no reason to disturb the same. As found and aptly stated by respondent court: "Given the facts and circumstances of the case and considered in the light of the foregoing doctrine, 28 We are of the opinion and so hold that the decree of adoption issued by the court a quo would go a long way towards promoting the welfare of the child and the enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happy life" 29 Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family in the person of the adopted, as well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law. 30 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Nocon, JJ ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 85044. June 3, 1992.] MACARIO TAMARGO, CELSO TAMARGO and AURELIA TAMARGO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS; THE HON. ARISTON L. RUBIO, RTC Judge, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; VICTOR BUNDOC; and CLARA BUNDOC, respondents. SYLLABUS 1.REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; CONSIDERED PRO FORMA WHERE NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING NOT CONTAINED THEREIN. It will be recalled that petitioners' motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed before the trial court, not having complied with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 41, and Section 4, Rule 15, of the Revised Rules of Court, were considered pro forma and hence did not interrupt and suspend the reglementary period to appeal: the trial court held that the motions, not having contained a notice of time and place of hearing, had become useless pieces of paper which did not interrupt the reglementary period. As in fact repeatedly held by this Court, what is mandatory is the service of the motion on the opposing counsel indicating the time and place of hearing. 2.ID.; SUPREME COURT; SUSPENSION OF APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL RULES EXERCISED IN CASE AT BAR. In view, however, of the nature of the issue raised in the instant Petition, and in order that substantial justice may be served, the Court, invoking its right to suspend the application of technical rules to prevent manifest injustice, elects to treat the notice of appeal as having been seasonably filed before the trial court, and the motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the trial court as having interrupted the reglementary period for appeal. (Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120 [1978]) 3.CIVIL LAW; TORTS; DOCTRINE OF "IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE" OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY, CONSTRUED. It is not disputed that Adelberto Bundoc's voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against him. (Article 2176 of the Civil Code) Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code) This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents their parental authority which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; BASIS. The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 36 Phil. 768 [1918]) 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PARENTAL DERELICTION, ONLY A PRESUMPTION. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overturned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. 6.REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; PARTIES; PARENTS WHO HAD ACTUAL CUSTODY OF MINOR, INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO ACTION FOR DAMAGES BASED ON TORT. In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occurred when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that the natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. 7.CIVIL LAW; TORTS; DOCTRINE OF "IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE" OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ADOPTION THEREON; CASE AT BAR. We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed. 8.REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WHERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ARE ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Under Article

35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or had already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the adopting parents. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent Bundoc spouses, Adelberto's natural parents, were indispensable parties to the suit for damages brought by petitioners, and that the dismissal by the trial court of petitioners' complaint, the indispensable parties being already before the court, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioners in their Reply contended that since Adelberto Bundoc was then actually living with his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased nor been relinquished by the mere filing and granting of a petition for adoption. The trial court on 3 December 1987 dismissed petitioners' complaint, ruling that respondent natural parents of Adelberto indeed were not indispensable parties to the action. Petitioners received a copy of the trial court's Decision on 7 December 1987. Within the 15-day reglementary period, or on 14 December 1987, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration on 15 January 1988. It appearing, however, that the motions failed to comply withSections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court that notice of the motion shall be given to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing of said motion; and that said notice shall state the time and place of hearing both motions were denied by the trial court in an Order dated 18 April 1988. On 28 April 1988, petitioners filed a notice of appeal. In its Order dated 6 June 1988, the trial court dismissed the notice of appeal, this time ruling that the notice had been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period ending 22 December 1987. Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for mandamus and certiorari questioning the trial court's Decision dated 3 December 1987 and the Orders dated 18 April 1988 and 6 June 1988. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioners had lost their right to appeal. In the present Petition for Review, petitioners once again contend that respondent spouses Bundoc are the indispensable parties to the action for damages caused by the acts of their minor child, Adelberto Bundoc. Resolution of this Petition hinges on the following issues: (1) whether or not petitioners, notwithstanding loss of their right to appeal, may still file the instant Petition; conversely, whether the Court may still take cognizance of the case even though petitioners' appeal had been filed out of time; and (2) whether or not the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned, may be given retroactive effect so as to make the adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against their adopted child, for acts committed by the latter when actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents. 1.It will be recalled that petitioners' motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed before the trial court, not having complied with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 41, and Section 4, Rule 15, of the Revised Rules of Court, were considered pro forma and hence did not interrupt and suspend the reglementary period to appeal: the trial court held that the motions, not having contained a notice of time and place of hearing, had become useless pieces of paper which did not interrupt the reglementary period. 1 As in fact repeatedly held by this Court, what is mandatory is the service of the motion on the opposing counsel indicating the time and place of hearing. 2

DECISION

FELICIANO, J p: On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 3457-V, by Petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent, and petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer's natural parents, against respondent spouses Victor and Clara Bundoc, Adelberto's natural parents with whom he was living at the time of the tragic incident. In addition to this case for damages, a criminal information for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence was filed [Criminal Case No. 1722-V] against Adelberto Bundoc. Adelberto, however, was acquitted and exempted from criminal liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment. Prior to the incident, or on 10 December 1981, the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition to adopt the minor Adelberto Bundoc in Special Proceedings No. 0373-T before the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. This petition for adoption was granted on 18 November 1982, that is, after Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer. In their Answer, respondent spouses Bundoc, Adelberto's natural parents, reciting the result of the foregoing petition for adoption, claimed that not they, but rather the adopting parents, namely the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura, were indispensable parties to the action since parental authority had shifted to the adopting parents from the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed.

In view, however, of the nature of the issue raised in the instant Petition, and in order that substantial justice may be served, the Court, invoking its right to suspend the application of technical rules to prevent manifest injustice, elects to treat the notice of appeal as having been seasonably filed before the trial court, and the motion (and supplemental motion) for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the trial court as having interrupted the reglementary period for appeal. As the Court held in Gregorio v. Court of Appeals: 3 "Dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeal on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules of procedure are used only to help secure not override, substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated." 4 2.It is not disputed that Adelberto Bundoc's voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against him. As Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides: "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict . . . ." Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the Civil Code reads: "The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. cdll xxx xxx xxx The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the person herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage." (Emphasis supplied) This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-American

tort law, where a person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents their parental authority which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. 5 The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained by the Court in Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co. 6 in the following terms: "With respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from negligence, whether of act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect and our Legislature has so elected to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by a legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extracontractual liability with certain well-defined exceptions to cases in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one's own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one's agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reasons of their status,occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct." 7 (Emphasis supplied) The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overturned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occurred when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that the natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.

The natural parents of Adelberto, however, stoutly maintain that because a decree of adoption was issued by the adoption court in favor of the Rapisura spouses, parental authority was vested in the latter as adopting parents as of the time of the filing the petition for adoption that is, before Adelberto had shot Jennifer with an air rifle. The Bundoc spouses contend that they were therefore free of any parental responsibility for Adelberto's allegedly tortious conduct. Respondent Bundoc spouses rely on Article 36 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code 8 which reads as follows: LLjur "Article 36.Decree of Adoption. If, after considering the report of the Department of Social Welfare or duly licensed child placement agency and the evidence submitted before it, the court is satisfied that the petitioner is qualified to maintain, care for, and educate the child, that the trial custody period has been completed, and that the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, a decree of adoption shall be entered, which shall be effective as of the date the original petition was filed. The decree shall state the name by which the child is thenceforth to be known." (Emphasis supplied). The Bundoc spouses further argue that the above Article 36 should be read in relation to Article 39 of the same Code: "Art. 39.Effect of Adoption. The adoption shall: xxx xxx xxx (2)Dissolve the authority vested in the natural parents, except where the adopter is the spouse of the surviving natural parent;" xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) and urge that their parental authority must be deemed to have been dissolved as of the time the petition for adoption was filed. The Court is not persuaded. As earlier noted, under the Civil Code, the basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law presumes, the parents exercise supervision and control. Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, re-enacted this rule:

"Article 58.Torts Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code." (Emphasis supplied). Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines 9 has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage: "Art. 221.Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law." (Emphasis supplied) We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed.

Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code fortifies the conclusion reached above. Article 35 provides as follows: "Art. 35.Trial Custody. No Petition for adoption shall be finally granted unless and until the adopting parents are given by the courts a supervised trial custody period of at least six months to assess their adjustment and emotional readiness for the legal union. During the period of trial custody, parental authority shall be vested in the adopting parents." (Emphasis supplied)

Under the above Article 35, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or had already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the adopting parents. llcd Accordingly, we conclude that respondent Bundoc spouses, Adelberto's natural parents, were indispensable parties to the suit for damages brought by petitioners, and that the dismissal by the trial court of petitioners' complaint, the indispensable parties being already before the court, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED DUE COURSE and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 6 September 1988, in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-15016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners' complaint filed before the trial court is hereby REINSTATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with this Decision. Costs against respondent Bundoc spouses. This Decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043

allowing aliens not presently allowed by law to adopt Filipino children if such children cannot be adopted by qualified Filipino citizens or aliens, the State shall take measures to ensure that inter-country adoptions are allowed when the same shall prove beneficial to the child's best interests, and shall serve and protect his/her fundamental rights. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act. the term: (a) Inter-country adoption refers to the socio-legal process of adopting a Filipino child by a foreigner or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad where the petition is filed, the supervised trial custody is undertaken, and the decree of adoption is issued outside the Philippines.

(b) Child means a person below fifteen (15) years of age unless sooner emancipated by law. (c) Department refers to the Department of Social Welfare and Development of the Republic of the Philippines. (d) Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. (e) Authorized and accredited agency refers to the State welfare agency or a licensed adoption agency in the country of the adopting parents which provide comprehensive social services and which is duly recognized by the Department. (f) Legally-free child means a child who has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the Department, in accordance with the Child and Youth Welfare Code.

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RULES TO GOVERN INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION OF FILIPINO CHILDREN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

(g) Matching refers to the judicious pairing of the adoptive child and the applicant to promote a mutually satisfying parent-child relationship. (h) Board refers to the Inter-country Adoption Board. ARTICLE II THE INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION BOARD Sec. 4. The Inter-Country Adoption Board. There is hereby created the InterCountry Adoption Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board to act as the central authority in matters relating to inter-country adoption. It shall act as the policy-making body for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act, in consultation and coordination with the Department, the different child-care and placement agencies,

ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995." Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide every neglected and abandoned child with a family that will provide such child with love and care as well as opportunities for growth and development. Towards this end, efforts shall be exerted to place the child with an adoptive family in the Philippines. However, recognizing that inter-country adoption may be considered as

adoptive agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations engaged in child-care and placement activities. As such, it shall: (a) Protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful, detrimental, or prejudicial to the child; Sec. 6. Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board shall have the following powers and functions:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

(b) Collect, maintain, and preserve confidential information about the child and the adoptive parents; (c) Monitor, follow up, and facilitate completion of adoption of the child through authorized and accredited agency; (d) Prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an adoption and deter improper practices contrary to this Act; (e) Promote the development of adoption services including post-legal adoption; (f) License and accredit child-caring/placement agencies and collaborate with them in the placement of Filipino children; (g) Accredit and authorize foreign adoption agency in the placement of Filipino children in their own country; and (h) Cancel the license to operate and blacklist the child-caring and placement agency or adoptive agency involved from the accreditation list of the Board upon a finding of violation of any provision under this Act.

(a) to prescribe rules and regulations as it may deem reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, after consultation and upon favorable recommendation of the different agencies concerned with the child-caring, placement, and adoption;

(b) to set the guidelines for the convening of an Inter-country Adoption Placement Committee which shall be under the direct supervision of the Board; (c) to set the guidelines for the manner by which selection/matching of prospective adoptive parents and adoptive child can be made; (d) to determine a reasonable schedule of fees and charges to be exacted in connection with the application for adoption; (e) to determine the form and contents of the application for inter-country adoption; (g) to institute systems and procedures to prevent improper financial gain in connection with adoption and deter improper practices which are contrary to this Act; (h) to promote the development of adoption services, including post-legal adoption services, (i) to accredit and authorize foreign private adoption agencies which have demonstrated professionalism, competence and have consistently pursued non-profit objectives to engage in the placement of Filipino children in their own country: Provided, That such foreign private agencies are duly authorized and accredited by their own government to conduct inter-country adoption:Provided, however, That the total number of authorized and accredited foreign private adoption agencies shall not exceed one hundred (100) a year; (j) to take appropriate measures to ensure confidentiality of the records of the child, the natural parents and the adoptive parents at all times; (k) to prepare, review or modify, and thereafter, recommend to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Memoranda of Agreement respecting inter-country adoption

Sec. 5. Composition of the Board. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary of the Department as ex officio Chairman, and six (6) other members to be appointed by the President for a nonrenewable term of six (6) years:Provided, That there shall be appointed one (1) psychiatrist or psychologist, two (2) lawyers who shall have at least the qualifications of a regional trial court judge, one (1) registered social worker and two (2) representatives from non-governmental organizations engaged in child-caring and placement activities. The members of the Board shall receive a per diem allowance of One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500) for each meeting attended by them:Provided, further, That no compensation shall be paid for more than four (4) meetings a month.

consistent with the implementation of this Act and its stated goals, entered into, between and among foreign governments, international organizations and recognized international non-governmental organizations; (l) to assist other concerned agencies and the courts in the implementation of this Act, particularly as regards coordination with foreign persons, agencies and other entities involved in the process of adoption and the physical transfer of the child; and (m) to perform such other functions on matters relating to inter-country adoption as may be determined by the President. ARTICLE III PROCEDURE

Sec. 9. Who May Adopt. An alien or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an application for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child if he/she:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

(a) is at least twenty-seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years older than the child to be adopted, at the time of application unless the adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such parent:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

(b) if married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the adoption; Sec. 7. Inter-Country Adoption as the Last Resort. The Board shall ensure that all possibilities for adoption of the child under the Family Code have been exhausted and that inter-country adoption is in the best interest of the child. Towards this end, the Board shall set up the guidelines to ensure that steps will be taken to place the child in the Philippines before the child is placed for inter-country adoption: Provided, however, That the maximum number that may be allowed for foreign adoption shall not exceed six hundred (600) a year for the first five (5) years. Sec. 8. Who May be Adopted. Only a legally free child may be the subject of intercountry adoption. In order that such child may be considered for placement, the following documents must be submitted to the Board: (a)Child study; (c) has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the appropriate counseling from an accredited counselor in his/her country; (d) has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; (e) is eligible to adopt under his/her national law; (f) is in a position to provide the proper care and support and to give the necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the child to be adopted; (g) agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as embodied under Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to implement the provisions of this Act; (h) comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that adoption is allowed under his/her national laws; and (i) possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided herein and in other applicable Philippine laws.

(b)Birth certificate/foundling certificate; (c)Deed of voluntary commitment/decree of abandonment/death certificate of parents; (d)Medical evaluation /history; (e)Psychological evaluation, as necessary; and (f)Recent photo of the child.

Sec. 10. Where to File Application. An application to adopt a Filipino child shall be filed either with the Philippine Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the child, or with the Board, through an intermediate agency, whether governmental or an authorized and accredited agency, in the country of the prospective adoptive parents,

which application shall be in accordance with the requirements as set forth in the implementing rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board. The application shall be supported by the following documents written and officially translated in English. (a) Birth certificate of applicant(s);

(a) The cost of bringing the child from the Philippines to the residence of the applicant(s) abroad, including all travel expenses within the Philippines and abroad; and

(b) The cost of passport, visa, medical examination and psychological evaluation required, and other related expenses.

(b) Marriage contract, if married, and divorce decree, if applicable; (c) Written consent of their biological or adoptive children above ten (10) years of age, in the form of sworn statement; (d) Physical, medical and psychological evaluation by a duly licensed physician and psychologist; (e) Income tax returns or any document showing the financial capability of the applicant(s); (f) Police clearance of applicant(s); (g) Character reference from the local church/minister, the applicant's employer and a member of the immediate community who have known the applicant(s) for at least five (5) years; and (h) Recent postcard-size pictures of the applicant(s) and his immediate family; The Rules of Court shall apply in case of adoption by judicial proceedings. Sec. 11. Family Selection/Matching. No child shall be matched to a foreign adoptive family unless it is satisfactorily shown that the child cannot be adopted locally. The clearance, as issued by the Board, with the copy of the minutes of the meetings, shall form part of the records of the child to be adopted. When the Board is ready to transmit the Placement Authority to the authorized and accredited intercountry adoption agency and all the travel documents of the child are ready, the adoptive parents, or any one of them, shall personally fetch the child in the Philippines. Sec. 12. Pre-adoptive Placement Costs. The applicant(s) shall bear the following costs incidental to the placement of the child; The Department of Foreign Affairs shall set up a system by which Filipino children sent abroad for trial custody are monitored and checked as reported by the authorized and accredited inter-country adoption agency as well as the repatriation to the Philippines of a Filipino child whose adoption has not been approved. Sec. 15. Executive Agreements. The Department of Foreign Affairs, upon representation of the Board, shall cause the preparation of Executive Agreements with countries of the foreign adoption agencies to ensure the legitimate concurrence of said countries in upholding the safeguards provided by this Act. ARTICLE IV PENALTIES Sec. 13. Fees, Charges and Assessments. Fees, charges, and assessments collected by the Board in the exercise of its functions shall be used solely to process applications for inter-country adoption and to support the activities of the Board. Sec. 14. Supervision of Trial Custody. The governmental agency or the authorized and accredited agency in the country of the adoptive parents which filed the application for inter-country adoption shall be responsible for the trial custody and the care of the child. It shall also provide family counseling and other related services. The trial custody shall be for a period of six (6) months from the time of placement. Only after the lapse of the period of trial custody shall a decree of adoption be issued in the said country a copy of which shall be sent to the Board to form part of the records of the child. During the trial custody, the adopting parent(s) shall submit to the governmental agency or the authorized and accredited agency, which shall in turn transmit a copy to the Board, a progress report of the child's adjustment. The progress report shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to issue the decree of adoption.

Sec. 16. Penalties. (a) Any person who shall knowingly participate in the conduct or carrying out of an illegal adoption, in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be punished with a penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), but not more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200.000), at the discretion of the court. For purposes of this Act, an adoption is illegal if it is effected in any manner contrary to the provisions of this Act or established State policies, its implementing rules and regulations, executive agreements, and other laws pertaining to adoption. Illegality may be presumed from the following acts: (1)consent for an adoption was acquired through, or attended by coercion, fraud, improper material inducement; (2)there is no authority from the Board to effect adoption; (3)the procedures and safeguards placed under the law for adoption were not complied with; and (4)the child to be adopted is subjected to, or exposed to danger, abuse and exploitation. (b)Any person who shall violate established regulations relating to the confidentiality and integrity of records, documents and communications of adoption applications, cases and processes shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years, and/or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000), but not more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000), at the discretion of the court. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under this Article shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit any of the acts herein enumerated. Acts punishable under this Article, when committed by a syndicate or where it involves two or more children shall be considered as an offense constituting child trafficking and shall merit the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Acts punishable under this Article are deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any of the unlawful acts defined under this Article.Penalties as are herein provided shall be in addition to any other penalties which may be imposed for the same acts punishable under other laws, ordinances, executive orders, and proclamations.

Sec. 17. Public Officers as Offenders. Any government official, employee or functionary who shall be found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Act, or who shall conspire with private individuals shall, in addition to the above-prescribed penalties, be penalized in accordance with existing civil service laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That upon the filing of a case, either administrative or criminal, said government official, employee or functionary concerned shall automatically suffer suspension until the resolution of the case. ARTICLE V FINAL PROVISIONS Sec. 18. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Inter-country Adoption Board, in coordination with the Council for the Welfare of Children, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of Justice, after due consultation with agencies involved in child-care and placement, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act within six (6) months after its effectivity. Sec. 19. Appropriations. The amount of Five million pesos (P5,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the proceeds of the Lotto for the initial operations of the Board and subsequently the appropriations of the same shall be included in the General Appropriations Act for the year following its enactment. Sec. 20. Separability Clause. If any provision, or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected, shall remain valid and subsisting. Sec. 21. Repealing Clause. Any law, decree, executive order, administrative order or rules and regulations contrary to, or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. Sec. 22. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

EN BANC [G.R. No. L-6706. March 29, 1954.] ALFREDO JAVIER, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite; SALUD R. ARCA and ALFREDO JAVIER, JR., respondents. David F. Barrera for petitioner. Jacinto, Santillan & Roxas for respondents.

Here comes Alfredo Javier with a petition for certiorari challenging such directive and arguing, in his own words: "1.The status of Salud R. Arca as wife of the petitioner is being contested; "2.Alfredo Javier Jr. is over 21 years on March 31, 1953 and no longer entitled to be supported; and "3.Even granting that Alfredo Javier, Jr. is entitled to support even if over 21 years of age to complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation, the support could not be paid because the decision is vague or silent on that point." The facts, as found in the action for support, are these: "On November 19, 1937, plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier had their marriage solemnized by Judge Mariano Nable of the Municipal Court of Manila. At the time of their marriage, they had already begotten a son named Alfredo Javier Junior who was born on December 2, 1931. Sometime in 1938, defendant Alfredo Javier left for the United States on board a ship of the United States Navy, for it appears that he had joined the United States Navy since 1927, such that at the time of his marriage with plaintiff Salud R. Arca, defendant Alfredo Javier was already an enlisted man in the United States Navy. Because of defendant Alfredo Javier's departure for the United States in 1938. his wife Salud R. Arca, who is from Tanza, Cavite, chose to live with defendant's parents at Naic, Cavite. But for certain incompatibility of character (frictions having occurred between plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant's folks) plaintiff Salud R. Arca had found it necessary to leave defendant's parents' abode and transfer her residence to Tanza, Cavite her native place. Since then the relation between plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier became strained such that on August 13, 1940 defendant Alfredo Javier brought an action for divorce against plaintiff Salud R. Arca before the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, docketed as Civil Case No. 14313 of that Court and marked as Exhibit 2(c) in this case. Having received a copy of the complaint for divorce on September 23, 1940, plaintiff Salud R. Arca answering the complaint alleged in her answer that she received copy of the complaint on September 23, 1940 although she was directed to file her answer thereto on or before September 13, 1940. In that answer she filed, plaintiff Salud R. Arca averred among other things that defendant Alfredo Javier was not a resident of Mobile County, State of Alabama, for the period of twelve months preceding the institution of the complaint, but that he was a resident of Naic, Cavite, Philippines. Another averment of interest, which is essential to relate here, is that under

SYLLABUS 1.JUDGMENT; IMMEDIATE EXECUTION THEREOF PENDING APPEAL. The order of the court directing petitioner to pay monthly pensions to his wife and son notwithstanding the pendency of his appeal having been issued before the record on appeal was submitted, the court did not exceed its jurisdiction in issuing the same. 2.ID.; ID.; GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE EXECUTION. One of the good reasons for the immediate execution of judgment pending appeal is where the education of the person to be supported would be unduly delayed if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal. 3.SUPPORT; ACQUITTAL OF A BIGAMY CHARGE, NOT GROUND FOR FORFEITURE. Acquittal of husband of a bigamy charge for lack of criminal intent is no different from an acquittal on reasonable doubt which would not be a ground for forfeiture of his wife's right to support.

DECISION

BENGZON, J p: In an action for alimony (Civil Case No. 5150, Cavite), the respondent judge, after hearing the parties and their evidence, ordered Alfredo Javier to give a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife Salud R. Arca and their son Alfredo Javier Jr. On April 14, 1953 the husband filed a notice of appeal, and on May 6, 1953, he submitted the appeal bond and the record on appeal. Meanwhile the wife and the son presented on April 30, 1953 a motion for "support pendente lite" "even pending the final determination of the case on appeal". Whereupon on May 8, 1953, the judge directed Alfredo Javier to pay the monthly pensions notwithstanding the pendency of his appeal.

paragraph 5 of her answer to the complaint for divorce, Salud R. Arca alleged that it was not true that the cause of their separation was desertion on her part but that if the defendant Alfredo Javier was in the United States at that time and she was not with him then it was because he was in active duty as an enlisted man of the United States Navy, as a consequence of which he had to leave for the United States without her. She further alleged that since his departure from the Philippines for the United States, he had always supported her and her co-plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior through allotments made by the Navy Department of the United States Government. She denied, furthermore, the allegation that she had abandoned defendant's home at Naic, Cavite, and their separation was due to physical impossibility for they were separated by about 10,000 miles from each other. At this juncture, under the Old Civil Code, the wife is not bound to live with her husband if the latter has gone to ultra-marine colonies. Plaintiff Salud R. Arca, in her answer to the complaint for divorce by defendant Alfredo Javier, prayed that the complaint for divorce be dismissed. However, notwithstanding Salud R. Arca's averments in her answer, contesting the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, to take cognizance of the divorce proceeding filed by defendant Alfredo Javier, as shown by her answer marked Exhibit 2(d), nevertheless the Circuit Court of Mobile County rendered judgment decreeing dissolution of the marriage of Salud R. Arca end Alfredo Javier, and granting the latter a decree of divorce dated April 9, 1941, a certified copy of which is marked Exhibit 2(f). Thereupon, the evidence discloses that some time in 1946 defendant Alfredo Javier returned to the Philippines but went back to the United States. In July 1941 that is after securing a divorce from plaintiff Salud R. Arca on April 9, 1941 defendant Alfredo Javier married Thelma Francis, an American citizen, and bought a house and lot at 248 Brooklyn, New York City. In 1940, Thelma Francis, defendant's American wife, obtained a divorce from him for reasons not disclosed by the evidence, and, later on, having retired from the United States Navy, defendant Alfredo Javier returned to the Philippines, arriving here on February 13, 1950. After his arrival in the Philippines, armed with two decrees of divorce one against his first wife Salud R. Arca and the other against him by his second wife Thelma Francis issued by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, defendant Alfredo Javier married Maria Odvina before Judge Natividad Almeda Lopez of the Municipal Court of Manila on April 19, 1950, marked Exhibit 2(b). At the instance of plaintiff Salud R. Arca an information for bigamy was filed by the City Fiscal of Manila on July 25, 1950

against defendant Alfredo Javier with the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13310 and marked Exhibit 2(a). However, defendant Alfredo Javier was acquitted of the charge of bigamy in a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila through Judge Alejandro J. Panlilio, dated August 10, 1951, predicated on the proposition that the marriage of defendant Alfredo Javier with Maria Odvina was made in all good faith and in the honest belief that his marriage with plaintiff Salud R. Arca had been legally dissolved by the decree of divorce obtained by him from the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, which had the legal effect of dissolving the marital ties between defendant Alfredo Javier and plaintiff Salud R. Arca. At this juncture, again, it is this Court's opinion that defendant Alfredo Javier's acquittal in that Criminal Case No. 13310 of the Court of First Instance of Manila by Judge Panlilio was due to the fact that the accused had no criminal intent in contracting a second or subsequent marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting." Turning now to the petition for certiorari, we perceive that, as to its first ground the respondent judge declared in his decision that Alfredo Javier and Salud Arca were married on November 19, 1937 when they had already a natural son named Alfredo Javier Junior, born December 2, 1931, and that, notwithstanding a decree of divorce which the husband Alfredo obtained in the United States in 1941, their marriage still subsists. Such being the situation, the principle in Franciscovs. Zandueta, 61 Phil., 752 on which petitioner entirely relies is not controlling, inasmuch as the existence of the married relation and the paternity had been established at least prima facie (cf. Sanchez vs. Zulueta, 68 Phil., 112.) Besides, as respondents point out, this is strictly not alimony pendente lite, under Rule 63, but execution of judgment pending appeal, under Rule 39. 1 In connection with the second ground of the petition, respondents observe that under the new Civil Code, article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported "until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority" and on the basis of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior. Said the Court, "while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet, under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his education, for some trade or profession.". Now then, was the order issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion? The court undoubtedly had jurisdiction, inasmuch as it was issued before the record on appeal was submitted. (Sumulong vs. Imperial, 51 Phil., 251; Syquia vs. Concepcion, 60 Phil., 186). Did the judge abuse his discretion?

Unquestionably, Alfredo Javier Jr. is the son of petitioner Alfredo Javier, and if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the appeal his education, or the completion thereof, would be unduly delayed. That is good reason for immediate execution. Petitioner claims that according to the records Alfredo Javier Jr. "is no longer studying". Yet probably he stopped going to school due to lack of means, since the petitioner himself admits that his son is just a prelaw graduate. But the real grievance of petitioner is contained in the last portion of his pleading, which says, "What Alfredo Javier now tries to avoid is to support a woman who has desperately tried to put him in jail, when she accused him of bigamy." Such disgust is easily understandable. But compliance with legal and contractual duties is not always pleasant. Under the New Civil Code articles 303 and 921 the wife forfeits her husband's support after "she has accused (him) of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, and the accusation has been found to be false." If bigamy is such a crime, and if her accusation had been found to be false, Salud Arca would lose her privilege. But the accusation was not "found to be false". Admittedly, he married a third time without the first marriage having been dissolved; but he was cleared of the bigamy charge for lack of criminal intent, inasmuch as he believed his divorce obtained in the U. S., had already ended his first marriage to Salud R. Arca. Such acquittal is no different from an acquittal on reasonable doubt, which in our opinion, and in the opinion of a member of the Code Commission that framed the New Civil Code, would not be ground to forfeit her right to support. 2 Of course, the question whether Alfredo Javier's prosecution for bigamy and subsequent acquittal extinguished his obligation to maintain his complaining spouse will definitely be decided when the main case (No. 5150) is reviewed on appeal. Other aspects of the issue could then undoubtedly be the subject of research and elucidation 3 . Nevertheless we briefly explain our first impressions or provisional conclusion in the task of examining the alleged misuse by respondent judge of his prerogatives. It is markworthy that the son has not forfeited his right to support. As the issues are presently framed, petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of demonstrating the judge's clear error or grievous mistake in ordering execution of his judgment pending appeal. Costs against petitioner. Paras, C. J., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Diokno, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 127578. February 15, 1999.] MANUEL DE ASIS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JAIME T. HAMOY, Branch 130, RTC, Kalookan City and GLEN CAMIL ANDRES DE ASIS represented by her mother/guardian VIRCEL D. ANDRES, respondents. Romualdo C. delos Santos for petitioner. Ismael J. Andres for private respondents. SYNOPSIS Private respondent, in her capacity as the legal guardian of the Minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, brought an action for maintenance and support against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, alleging that petitioner is the father of subject minor, and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the maintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. In his answer, petitioner denied his paternity of the said minor alleged and that he cannot be required to provide support for him. Subsequently, private respondent sent in a manifestation stating that because of petitioner's judicial declarations, it was futile and a useless exercise to claim support from him. Hence, she was withdrawing her complaint against petitioner subject to the condition that the latter should not pursue his counterclaim. By virtue of the said manifestation, the parties mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint. The motion was granted by the trial court, which then dismissed the case with prejudice. Subsequently, another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought against petitioner, this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, represented by her legal guardian, herein private respondent. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support for the reason that renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law. The trial court likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed the same. Hence, this petition. aIcDCH The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. The manifestation sent by private respondent amounted to renunciation as it severed the vinculum that gives the subject minor, the right to claim support from his putative parent, the petitioner. Furthermore, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and private respondent for the dismissal of the counterclaim was in the nature of a compromise, which cannot be countenanced. It violated the prohibition against any compromise of the right to support. Moreover, it is true that that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the parent. However, 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. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal with prejudice of the first case cannot bar the subsequent case for support. The second

action for support may still prosper. The Court therefore affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; SUPPORT; RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUPPORT; CANNOT BE RENOUNCED, TRANSMITTED AND/OR SUBJECT OF A COMPROMISE; REASON. The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Furthermore, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. The raison d' etrebehind the proscription against renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated, thus: "The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be renounced; hence, support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot be renounced. . . . To allow renunciation or transmission or compensation of the family right of a person to support is virtually to allow either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public burden. This is contrary to public policy. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. The manifestation sent in by respondent's mother in the first case, which acknowledged that it would be useless to pursue its complaint for support, amounted to renunciation as it severed the vinculum that gives the minor, Glen Camil, the right to claim support from his putative parent, the petitioner. Furthermore, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent's mother for the dismissal of the complaint for maintenance and support conditioned upon the dismissal of the counterclaim is in the nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. It violates the prohibition against any compromise of the right to support. CaDATc 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; DECLARATION OF THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE THEREOF CANNOT BE LEFT TO THE WILL OF THE PARTIES. It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the parent. However, 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. "The civil status of a son having been denied, and this civil status, from which the right to support is derived being in issue, it is apparent that no effect can be given to such a claim until an authoritative declaration has been made as to the existence of the cause." Although in the case under scrutiny, the admission may be binding upon the respondent, such an admission is at most evidentiary and does not conclusively establish the lack of filiation. 4.REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR; RULING IN ADVINCULA CASE (10 SCRA 189),

CITED. Neither are we persuaded by petitioner's theory that the dismissal with prejudice of Civil Case Q-88-935 has the effect of res judicata on the subsequent case for support. The case of Advincula vs. Advincula comes to the fore. In disposing such case, this Court ruled, thus: It appears that the former dismissal was predicated upon a compromise. Acknowledgment, affecting as it does the civil status of persons and future support, cannot be the subject of compromise. (pars. 1 & 4, Art. 2035, Civil Code) Hence, the first dismissal cannot have force and effect and cannot bar the filing of another action, asking for the same relief against the same defendant." (italics supplied) Conformably, notwithstanding the dismissal of Civil Case Q-88 935 and the lower court's pronouncement that such dismissal was with prejudice, the second action for support may still prosper. DECISION PURISIMA, J p: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's Orders, dated November 25, 1993 and February 4, 1994, respectively, denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Civil Case No. C-16107, entitled "Glen Camil Andres de Asis, etc. vs. Manuel de Asis", and the motion for reconsideration. LLphil The pertinent facts leading to the filing of the petition at bar are, as follows: On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres, (the herein private respondent) in her capacity as the legal guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, brought an action for maintenance and support against Manuel de Asis, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-88-935 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, alleging that the defendant Manuel de Asis (the petitioner here) is the father of subject minor Glen Camil Andres de Asis, and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the maintenance of the latter, despite repeated demands. In his Answer, petitioner denied his paternity of the said minor and theorized that he cannot therefore be required to provide support for him. On July 4, 1989, private respondent Vircel D. Andres, through counsel, sent in a manifestation the pertinent portion of which, reads; "1.That in his proposed Amended Answer, defendant (herein petitioner) has made a judicial admission/declaration that "1) defendant denies that the said minor child (Glen Camil) is his child; 2) he (petitioner) has no obligation to the plaintiff Glen Camil . . . ." 2.That with the aforesaid judicial admissions/declarations by the defendant, it seems futile and a useless exercise to claim support from said defendant."

3.That under the foregoing circumstances it would be more practical that plaintiff withdraws the complaint against the defendant subject to the condition that the defendant should not pursue his counterclaim in the above-entitled case, . . . ." 1 By virtue of the said manifestation, both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to move for the dismissal of the case. Acting thereupon, the Regional Trial Court a quo issued the following Order of August 8, 1989, dismissing Civil Case No. Q-88-935 with prejudice, to wit: "Acting on the manifestation of Atty. Romualdo C. delos Santos, counsel for the defendant, that counsel for the plaintiff Atty. Ismael J. Andres has no objection that this case be withdrawn provided that the defendant will withdraw the counterclaim, as prayed for, let the case be dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED." 2 On September 7, 1995, another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought against Manuel A. de Asis, this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, represented by her legal guardian/mother, Vircel D. Andres. Docketed as Civil Case No. C-16107 before Branch 130 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan, the said Complaint prayed, thus: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant: 1.To pay plaintiff the sum of not less than P2,000.00 per month for every month since June 1, 1987 as support in arrears which defendant failed to provide plaintiff shortly after her birth in June 1987 up to the present; 2.To give plaintiff a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 to be paid in advance on or before the 5th of each and every month; 3.To give plaintiff by way of support pendente lite, a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 per month, the first monthly allowance to start retroactively from the first day of this month and the subsequent ones to be paid in advance on or before the 5th of each succeeding month; 4.to pay the costs of suit.

Plaintiff prays for such other relief just and equitable under the premises." 3 On October 8, 1993, petitioner moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of res judicata, alleging that Civil Case C-16107 is barred by the prior judgment which dismissed with prejudice Civil Case Q-88-935. In the Order dated November 25, 1993 denying subject motion to dismiss, the trial court ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support for the reason that renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by law. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said Order met the same fate. It was likewise denied. cdphil Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari. But on June 7, 1996, the Court of Appeals found the said Petition devoid of merit and dismissed the same. Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this court via the present petition, posing the question whether or not the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in upholding the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court, and holding that an action for support cannot be barred by res judicata. To buttress his submission, petitioner invokes the previous dismissal of the Complaint for maintenance and support, Civil Case Q-88-935, filed by the mother and guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de Asis, ( the herein private respondent). In said case, the complainant manifested that because of the defendant's judicial declaration denying that he is the father of subject minor child, it was " futile and a useless exercise to claim support from defendant". Because of such manifestation, and defendant's assurance that he would not pursue his counterclaim anymore, the parties mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint. The motion was granted by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, which then dismissed the case with prejudice. Petitioner contends that the aforecited manifestation, in effect, admitted the lack of filiation between him and the minor child, which admission binds the complainant, and since the obligation to give support is based on the existence of paternity and filiation between the child and the putative parent, the lack thereof negates the right to claim for support. Thus, petitioner maintains that the dismissal of the Complaint by the lower court on the basis of the said manifestation bars the present action for support, especially so because the order of the trial court explicitly stated that the dismissal of the case was with prejudice. The petition is not impressed with merit. The right to receive support can neither be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Article 301 of the Civil Code, the law in point, reads:

ARTICLE 301.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, ibid, provides, that: "No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1)The civil status of persons; (2)The validity of a marriage or legal separation; (3)Any ground for legal separation; (4)Future support; (5)The jurisdiction of courts; (6)Future legitime. The raison d' etre behind the proscription against renunciation, transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated, thus: "The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life itself. The right to life cannot be renounced; hence, support, which is the means to attain the former, cannot be renounced. xxx xxx xxx To allow renunciation or transmission or compensation of the family right of a person to support is virtually to allow either suicide or the conversion of the recipient to a public burden. This is contrary to public policy. 4 In the case at bar, respondent minor's mother, who was the plaintiff in the first case, manifested that she was withdrawing the case as it seemed futile to claim support from petitioner who denied his paternity over the child. Since the right to claim for support is predicated on the existence of filiation between the minor child and the putative parent, petitioner would like us to believe that such

manifestation admitting the futility of claiming support from him puts the issue to rest and bars any and all future complaint for support. The manifestation sent in by respondent's mother in the first case, which acknowledged that it would be useless to pursue its complaint for support, amounted to renunciation as it severed the vinculum that gives the minor, Glen Camil, the right to claim support from his putative parent, the petitioner. Furthermore, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent's mother for the dismissal of the complaint for maintenance and support conditioned upon the dismissal of the counterclaim is in the nature of a compromise which cannot be countenanced. It violates the prohibition against any compromise of the right to support. cda "Thus, the admission made by counsel for the wife of the facts alleged in a motion of the husband, in which the latter prayed that his obligation to support be extinguished cannot be considered as an assent to the prayer, and much less, as a waiver of the right to claim for support." 5 It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the parent. However, 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. "The civil status of a son having been denied, and this civil status, from which the right to support is derived being in issue, it is apparent that no effect can be given to such a claim until an authoritative declaration has been made as to the existence of the cause." 6 Although in the case under scrutiny, the admission may be binding upon the respondent, such an admission is at most evidentiary and does not conclusively establish the lack of filiation. Neither are we persuaded by petitioner's theory that the dismissal with prejudice of Civil Case Q-88-935 has the effect of res judicata on the subsequent case for support. The case of Advincula vs. Advincula 7 comes to the fore. In Advincula, the minor, Manuela Advincula, instituted a case for acknowledgment and support against her putative father, Manuel Advincula. On motion of both parties and for the reason that the "plaintiff has lost interest and is no longer interested in continuing the case against the defendant and has no further evidence to introduce in support of the complaint", the case was dismissed. Thereafter, a similar case was instituted by Manuela, which the defendant moved to dismiss, theorizing that the dismissal of the first case precluded the filing of the second case.

In disposing such case, this Court ruled, thus: "The new Civil Code provides that the allowance for support is provisional because the amount may be increased or decreased depending upon the means of the giver and the needs of the recipient (Art. 297); and 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 obligator (Art. 301). Furthermore, the right to support can not be waived or transferred to third parties and future support cannot be the subject of compromise (Art. 2035; Coral v. Gallego, 38 O.G. 3135, cited in IV Civil Code by Padilla, p. 648, 1956 Ed.). This being true, it is indisputable that the present action for support can be brought, notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against the same defendant was dismissed. And it also appearing that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3553, was not an adjudication upon the merits, as heretofore shown, the right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support and acknowledgment is available, as her needs arise. Once the needs of plaintiff arise, she has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only then that her cause of action accrues. . . . xxx xxx xxx It appears that the former dismissal was predicated upon a compromise. Acknowledgment, affecting as it does the civil status of persons and future support, cannot be the subject of compromise. (pars. 1 & 4, Art. 2035, Civil Code). Hence, the first dismissal cannot have force and effect and can not bar the filing of another action, asking for the same relief against the same defendant." (emphasis supplied) Conformably, notwithstanding the dismissal of Civil Case Q-88-935 and the lower court's pronouncement that such dismissal was with prejudice, the second action for support may still prosper. WHEREFORE, the petition under consideration is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. LLphil SO ORDERED. Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Parental Authority THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 115640. March 15, 1995.] REYNALDO ESPIRITU and GUILLERMA LAYUG, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TERESITA MASAUDING, respondents. Ponce Enrile Cayetano Reyes & Manalastas for petitioners. Abesamis Medialdea & Abesamis Law Offices for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; FAMILY RELATIONS; PARENTAL AUTHORITY; IN CASE OF SEPARATION; CHOICE OF PARENTS, PARAMOUNT CRITERION IS THE CHILD'S INTEREST AND WELFARE. The task of choosing the parent to whom custody shall be awarded is not a ministerial function to be determined by a simple determination of the age of a minor child. Whether a child is under or over seven years of age, the paramount criterion must always be the child's interests. Discretion is given to the court to decide who can best assure the welfare of the child, and award the custody on the basis of that consideration. In Unson III vs.Navarro (101 SCRA 183 [1980]), we laid down the rule that "in all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, education, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents"; and in Medina vs. Makabali (27 SCRA 502 [1969]), where custody of the minor was given to a non-relative as against the mother, then the country's leading civilist, Justice J.B.L. Reyes, explained its basis in this manner: . . . While our law recognizes the right of a parent to the custody of her child. Courts must not lose sight of the basic principle that "in all questions on the care, custody, education and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount" (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 363), and that for compelling reasons, even a child under seven may be ordered separated from the mother (do.). This is as it should be, for in the continual evolution of legal institutions, the patria potestas has been transformed from the jus vitae ac necis (right of life and death) of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a chattel of his parents into a radically different institution, due to the influence of Christian faith and doctrines. The obligational aspect is now supreme. As pointed out by Puig Pena, now "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights (of parents) but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor." As a result, the right of parents to the company and custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties to provide the children with adequate support, education, moral, intellectual and civic training and development (Civil Code, Art. 356). In ascertaining the welfare and best interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to take into account all relevant considerations. If a child is under seven years of age, the law presumes that the mother is the best custodian. The presumption is strong but it is not conclusive. It can be overcome by "compelling reasons." If a child is over seven, his choice is paramount but, again, the court is not bound by that choice. In its discretion, the court may find the

chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to a third party as it deems fit under the circumstances. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CHOICE OF CHILDREN OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF AGE; ELUCIDATED. Considerations involving the choice made by a child must be ascertained at the time that either parent is given custody over the child. The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If the parent who was given custody suffers a future character change and becomes unfit, the matter of custody can always be reexamined and adjusted (Unson III v. Navarro, supra, at p. 189). To be sure, the welfare, the best interests, the benefit, and the good of the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian. At the present time, both children are over 7 years of age and are thus perfectly capable of making a fairly intelligent choice. 3.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXPERT WITNESS; PURPOSE IS TO ASSIST THE COURT IN DETERMINATION OF ISSUES BEFORE IT. The professional integrity and competence of the expert witnesses and the objectivity of the interviews were unshaken and unimpeached. Their testimony remain uncontroverted. The examinations made by the experts were conducted in late 1991, well over a year before the filing by Teresita of the habeas corpus petition in December, 1992. Thus, the examinations were at that time not intended to support petitioners' position in litigation, because there was then not even an impending possibility of one. That they were subsequently utilized in the case a quo when it did materialize does not change the tenor in which they were first obtained. Furthermore, such examinations, when presented to the court must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it. The persons who effected such examinations were presented in the capacity of expert witnesses testifying on matters within their respective knowledge and expertise. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONIES; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. In regard to testimony of expert witnesses it was held in Salomon, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (185 SCRA 352 [1990]): . . . Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which reserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the

discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.

Pasig, pp. 210-222, Rollo). Teresita, meanwhile, decided to return to the Philippines and on December 8, 1992 and filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpusagainst herein two petitioners to gain custody over the children, thus starting the whole proceedings now reaching this Court. On June 30, 1993, the trial court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus. It suspended Teresita's parental authority over Rosalind and Reginald and declared Reynaldo to have sole parental authority over them but with rights of visitation to be agreed upon by the parties and to be approved by the Court. llcd On February 16, 1994, the Court of Appeals per Justice Isnani, with Justices de Pano and Ivay-Somera concurring, reversed the trial court's decision. It gave custody to Teresita and visitation rights on weekends to Reynaldo. Petitioners now come to this Court on a petition for review, in the main contending that the Court of Appeals disregarded the factual findings of the trial court; that the Court of Appeals further engaged in speculations and conjectures, resulting in its erroneous conclusion that custody of the children should be given to respondent Teresita. prcd We believe that respondent court resolved the question of custody over the children through an automatic and blind application of the age proviso of Article 363 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 363.In all questions on the care, custody, education and property of the children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount. No mother shall be separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the court finds compelling reasons for such measure. and of Article 213 of the Family Code which in turn provides: Art. 213.In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age unless the parent chosen is unfit. The decision under review is based on the report of the Code Commission which drafted Article 213 that a child below seven years still needs the loving, tender care that only a mother can give and which, presumably, a father cannot give in equal measure. The commentaries of a member of the Code Commission, former Court of Appeals Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy, in a textbook on the Family Code, were also taken into account. Justice Diy believes that a child below seven years should still be awarded to her mother even if the latter is a prostitute or is unfaithful to her husband. This is on the theory that moral dereliction has no effect

DECISION

MELO, J p: This case concerns a seemingly void marriage and a relationship which went sour. The innocent victims are two children born out of the same union. Upon this Court now falls the not too welcome task of deciding the issue of who, between the father and mother, is more suitable and better qualified in helping the children to grow into responsible, well-adjusted, and happy young adulthood. cdll Petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and respondent Teresita Masauding first met sometime in 1976 in Iligan City where Reynaldo was employed by the National Steel Corporation and Teresita was employed as a nurse in a local hospital. In 1977, Teresita left for Los Angeles, California to work as a nurse. She was able to acquire immigrant status sometime later. In 1984, Reynaldo was sent by his employer, the National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as its liaison officer and Reynaldo and Teresita then began to maintain a common law relationship of husband and wife. On August 16, 1986, their daughter, Rosalind Therese, was born. On October 7, 1987, while they were on a brief vacation in the Philippines, Reynaldo and Teresita got married, and upon their return to the United States, their second child, a son, this time, and given the name Reginald Vince, was born on January 12, 1988. cdll The relationship of the couple deteriorated until they decided to separate sometime in 1990. Teresita blamed Reynaldo for the break-up, stating he was always nagging her about money matters. Reynaldo, on the other hand, contended that Teresita was a spendthrift, buying expensive jewelry and antique furniture instead of attending to household expenses. Instead of giving their marriage a second chance as allegedly pleaded by Reynaldo, Teresita left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. She claims, however, that she spent a lot of money on long distance telephone calls to keep in constant touch with her children. Reynaldo brought his children home to the Philippines, but because his assignment in Pittsburgh was not yet completed, he was sent back by his company to Pittsburgh. He had to leave his children with his sister, co-petitioner Guillerma Layug and her family. Teresita claims that she did not immediately follow her children because Reynaldo filed a criminal case for bigamy against her and she was afraid of being arrested. The judgment of conviction in the bigamy case was actually rendered only on September 29, 1994. (Per Judge Harriet O. Demetriou, Branch 70, RTC,

on a baby unable to understand such action. (Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, 1988 Ed., p. 297.) The Court of Appeals was unduly swayed by an abstract presumption of law rather than an appreciation of relevant facts and the law which should apply to those facts. The task of choosing the parent to whom custody shall be awarded is not a ministerial function to be determined by a simple determination of the age of a minor child. Whether a child is under or over seven years of age, the paramount criterion must always be the child's interests. Discretion is given to the court to decide who can best assure the welfare of the child, and award the custody on the basis of that consideration. In Unson III vs. Navarro (101 SCRA 183 [1980]), we laid down the rule that "in all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, education, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents"; and in Medina vs. Makabali(27 SCRA 502 [1969]), where custody of the minor was given to a non-relative as against the mother, then the country's leading civilist, Justice J.B.L. Reyes, explained its basis in this manner: . . . While our law recognizes the right of a parent to the custody of her child, Courts must not lose sight of the basic principle that "in all questions on the care, custody, education and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount" (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 363), and that for compelling reasons, even a child under seven may be ordered separated from the mother (do.). This is as it should be, for in the continual evolution of legal institutions, the patria potestas has been transformed from the jus vitae ac necis (right of life and death) of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a chattel of his parents, into a radically different institution, due to the influence of Christian faith and doctrines. The obligational aspect is now supreme. As pointed out by Puig Pena, now "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights (of parents) but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor." As a result, the right of parents to the company and custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties to provide the children with adequate support, education, moral, intellectual and civic training and development (Civil Code, Art. 356). prcd (pp. 504-505.) In ascertaining the welfare and best interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to take into account all relevant considerations. If a child is under seven years of age, the law presumes that the mother is the best

custodian. The presumption is strong but it is not conclusive. It can be overcome by "compelling reasons." If a child is over seven, his choice is paramount but, again, the court is not bound by that choice. In its discretion, the court may find the chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to a third party as it deems fit under the circumstances. In the present case, both Rosalind and Reginald are now over seven years of age. Rosalind celebrated her seventh birthday on August 16, 1993 while Reginald reached the same age on January 12, 1985. Both are studying in reputable schools and appear to be fairly intelligent children, quite capable of thoughtfully determining the parent with whom they would want to live. Once the choice has been made, the burden to the court to investigate if the parent thus chosen is unfit to assume parental authority and custodial responsibility. Herein lies the error of the Court of Appeals. Instead of scrutinizing the records to discover the choice of the children and rather than verifying whether that parent is fit or unfit, respondent court simply followed statutory presumptions and general propositions applicable to ordinary or common situations. The sevenyear age limit was mechanically treated as an arbitrary cut off period and not a guide based on a strong presumption. A scrutiny of the pleadings in this case indicates that Teresita, or at least, her counsel are more intent on emphasizing the "torture and agony" of a mother separated from her children and the humiliation she suffered as a result of her character being made a key issue in court rather than the feelings and future, the best interest and welfare of her children. While the bonds between a mother and her small child are special in nature, either parent, whether father or mother, is bound to suffer agony and pain if deprived of custody. One cannot say that his or her suffering is greater than that of the other parent. It is not so much the suffering, pride, and other feelings of either parent but the welfare of the child which is the paramount consideration. prLL We are inclined to sustain the findings and conclusions of the regional trial court because it gave greater attention to the choice of Rosalind and considered in detail all the relevant factors bearing on the issue of custody. When she was a little over 5 years old, Rosalind was referred to a child psychologist, Rita Flores Macabulos, to determine the effects of uprooting her from the Assumption College where she was studying. Four different tests were administered. The results of the tests are quite revealing. The responses of Rosalind about her mother were very negative, causing the psychologist to delve deeper into the child's anxiety. Among the things revealed by Rosalind was an incident where she saw her mother hugging and kissing a "bad" man who lived in their house and worked for her father. Rosalind refused to talk to her mother even on the telephone. She tended to be emotionally emblazed because of constant fears that she may have to leave school and her aunt's family to go back to the United States to live with her mother. The 5-1/2 page report deals at length with feelings of insecurity and anxiety arising from strong conflict with the mother. The child tried to compensate by having fantasy activities. All of the 8 recommendations of

the child psychologist show that Rosalind chooses petitioners over the private respondent and that her welfare will be best served by staying with them (pp. 199205, Rollo). At about the same time, a social welfare case study was conducted for the purpose of securing the travel clearance required before minors may go abroad. Social Welfare Officer Emma D. Estrada Lopez, stated that the child Rosalind refused to go back to the United States and be reunited with her mother. She felt unloved and uncared for. Rosalind was more attached to her Yaya who did everything for her and Reginald. The child was found suffering from emotional shock caused by her mother's infidelity. The application for travel clearance was recommended for denial (pp. 206-209, Rollo). LLphil Respondent Teresita, for her part, argues that the 7-year age reference in the law applies to the date when the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed, not to the date when a decision is rendered. This argument is flawed. Considerations involving the choice made by a child must be ascertained at the time that either parent is given custody over the child. The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If the parent who was given custody suffers a future character change and becomes unfit, the matter of custody can always be reexamined and udjusted (Unson III v. Navarro, supra, at p. 189). To be sure, the welfare, the best interests, the benefit, and the good of the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian. At the present time, both children are over 7 years of age and are thus perfectly capable of making a fairly intelligent choice. According to respondent Teresita, she and her children had tearful reunion in the trial court, with the children crying, grabbing, and embracing her to prevent the father from taking them away from her. We are more inclined to believe the father's contention that the children ignored Teresita in court because such an emotional display as described by Teresita in her pleadings could not have been missed by the trial court. Unlike the Justices of the Court of Appeals Fourth Division, Judge Lucas P. Bersamin personally observed the children and their mother in the courtroom. What the Judge found is diametrically opposed to the contentions of respondent Teresita. The Judge had this to say on the matter:

Respondent Teresita also questions the competence and impartiality of the expert witnesses. Respondent court, in turn, states that the trial court should have considered the fact that Reynaldo and his sister, herein petitioner Guillerma Layug, hired the two expert witnesses. Actually, this was taken into account by the trial court which stated that the allegations of bias and unfairness made by Teresita against the psychologist and social worker were not substantiated. The trial court stated that the professional integrity and competence of the expert witnesses and the objectivity of the interviews were unshaken and unimpeached. We might add that their testimony remain uncontroverted. We also note that the examinations made by the experts were conducted in the late 1991, well over a year before the filing by Teresita of the habeas corpus petition in December, 1992. Thus, the examinations were at the time not intended to support petitioners' position in litigation, because there was then not even an impending possibility of one. That they were subsequently utilized in the case a quowhen it did materialize does not change the tenor in which they were first obtained. Furthermore, such examinations, when presented to the court must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it. The persons who effected such examinations were presented in the capacity of expert witnesses testifying on matters within their respective knowledge and expertise. On this matter, this Court had occasion to rule in the case of Sali vs. Abukakar, et al. (17 SCRA 988 [1966]). LexLib The fact that, in a particular litigation, an NBI expert examines certain contested documents, at the request, not of a public officer or agency of the Government, but of a private litigant, does not necessarily nullify the examination thus made. Its purpose, presumably, to assist the court having jurisdiction over said litigation, in the performance of its duty to settle correctly the issues relative to said documents. Even a non-expert private individual may examine the same, if there are facts within his knowledge which may help the court in the determination of said issue. Such examination, which may properly be undertaken by a non-expert private individual, does not, certainly become null and void when the examiner is an expert and/or an officer of the NBI. (pp. 991-992.) In regard to testimony of expert witnesses it was held in Salomon, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (185 SCRA 352 [1990]): . . . Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the

And, lastly, the Court cannot look at petitioner [Teresita] in similar light, or with more understanding, especially as her conduct and demeanor in the courtroom (during most of the proceedings) or elsewhere (but in the presence of the undersigned presiding judge) demonstrated her ebullient temper that tended to corroborate the alleged violence of her physical punishment of the children (even if only for ordinary disciplinary purposes) and emotional instability, typified by her failure (or refusal?) to show deference and respect to the Court and the other parties (pp. 12-13, RTC Decision)

province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which reserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effects (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. (p. 359.)

professional of her potential and stature would compromise her professional standing. llcd Teresita questions the findings of the trial court that: 1.Her morality is questionable as shown by her marrying Reynaldo at the time she had a subsisting marriage with another man. 2.She is guilty of grave indiscretion in carrying on a love affair with one of the Reynaldo's fellow NSC employees. 3.She is incapable of providing the children with necessities and conveniences commensurate to their social standing because she does not even own any home in the Philippines. 4.She is emotionally unstable with ebullient temper.

It was in the exercise of this discretion, coupled with the opportunity to assess the witnesses' character and to observe their respective demeanor that the trial court opted to rely on their testimony, and we believe that the trial court was correct in its action. Under direct examination on February 4, 1993, Social Worker Lopez stated that Rosalind and her aunt were about to board a plane when they were offloaded because there was no required clearance. They were referred to her office, at which time Reginald was also brought along and interviewed. One of the regular duties of Social Worker Lopez in her job appears to be the interview of minors who leave for abroad with their parents or other persons. The interview was for purposes of foreign travel by a 5-year old child and had nothing to do with any pending litigation. On cross-examination, Social Worker Lopez stated that her assessment of the minor's hatred for her mother was based on the disclosures of the minor. It is inconceivable, much less presumable that Ms. Lopez would compromise her position, ethics, and the public trust reposed on a person of her position in the course of doing her job by falsely testifying just to support the position of any litigant. The psychologist, Ms. Macabulos, is a B.S. magna cum laude graduate in Psychology and an M.A. degree holder also in Psychology with her thesis graded "Excellent." She was a candidate for a doctoral degree at the time of the interview. Petitioner Reynaldo may have shouldered the cost of the interview but Ms. Macabulos services were secured because Assumption College wanted an examination of the child for school purposes and not because of any litigation. She may have been paid to examine the child and to render a finding based on her examination, but she was not paid to fabricate such findings in favor of the party who retained her services. In this instance it was not even petitioner Reynaldo but the school authorities who initiated the same. It cannot be presumed that a

It is contended that the above findings do not constitute the compelling reasons under the law which would justify depriving her of custody over the children; worse, she claims, these findings are non-existent and have not been proved by clear and convincing evidence. Public and private respondents give undue weight to the matter of a child under 7 years of age not to be separated from the mother, without considering what the law itself denominates as compelling reasons or relevant considerations to otherwise decree. In the Unson III case, earlier mentioned, this Court stated that it found no difficulty in not awarding custody to the mother, it being in the best interest of the child "to be freed from the obviously unwholesome, not to say immoral influence, that the situation where [the mother] had placed herself . . . might create in the moral and social outlook of [the child] who was in her formative and most impressionable stage. . . ." Then too, it must be noted that both Rosalind and Reginald are now over 7 years of age. They understand the difference between right and wrong, ethical behavior and deviant immorality. Their best interests would be better served in an environment characterized by emotional stability and a certain degree of material sufficiency. There is nothing in the records to show that Reynaldo is an "unfit" person under Article 213 of the Family Code. In fact, he has been trying his best to give the children the kind of attention and care which the mother is not in a position to extend. The argument that the charges against the mother are false is not supported by the records. The findings of the trial court are based on evidence. Teresita does not deny that she was legally married to Roberto Lustado on December 17, 1984 in California (p. 13, Respondent's Memorandum; p.

238,Rollo; pp. 11, RTC Decision). Less than a year later, she had already driven across the continental United States to commence living with another man, petitioner Reynaldo, in Pittsburgh. The two were married on October 7, 1987. Of course, to dilute this disadvantage on her part, this matter of her having contracted a bigamous marriage later with Reynaldo, Teresita tried to picture Reynaldo as a rapist, alleging further that she told Reynaldo about her marriage to Lustado on the occasion when she was raped by Reynaldo. Expectedly, Judge Harriet Demetriou of the Pasig RTC lent no weight to such tale. And even if this story were given credence, it adds to and not subtracts from the conviction of this Court about Teresita's values. Rape is an insidious crime against privacy. Confiding to one's potential rapist about a prior marriage is not a very convincing indication that the potential victim is averse to the act. The implication created is that the act would be acceptable if not for the prior marriage. cdrep More likely is Reynaldo's story that he learned of the prior marriage only much later. In fact, the rape incident itself is unlikely against a woman who had driven three days and three nights from California, who went straight to the house of Reynaldo in Pittsburgh and upon arriving went to bed and, who immediately thereafter started to live with him in a relationship which is marital in nature if not in fact. Judge Bersamin of the court a quo believed the testimony of the various witnesses that while married to Reynaldo, Teresita entered into an illicit relationship with Perdencio Gonzales right there in the house of petitioner Reynaldo and respondent Teresita. Perdencio had been assigned by the National Steel Corporation to assist in the project in Pittsburgh and was staying with Reynaldo, his co-employee, in the latter's house. The record shows that the daughter Rosalind suffered emotional disturbance caused by the traumatic effect of seeing her mother hugging and kissing a boarder in their house. The record also shows that it was Teresita who left the conjugal home and the children, bound for California. When Perdencio Gonzales was reassigned to the Philippines, Teresita followed him and was seen in his company in a Cebu hotel, staying in one room and taking breakfast together. More significant is that letters and written messages from Teresita to Perdencio were submitted in evidence (p. 12, RTC Decision). The argument that moral laxity or the habit of flirting from one man to another does not fall under "compelling reasons" is neither meritorious nor applicable in this case. Not only are the children over seven years old and their clear choice is the father, but the illicit or immoral activities of the mother had already caused emotional disturbances, personality conflicts, and exposure to conflicting moral values, at least in Rosalind. This is not to mention her conviction for the crime of bigamy, which from the records appears to have become final (pp. 210-222, Rollo). Respondent court's finding that the father could not very well perform the role of a sole parent and substitute mother because his job is in the United States while the children will be left behind with their aunt in the Philippines is

misplaced. The assignment of Reynaldo in Pittsburgh is or was a temporary one. He was sent there to oversee the purchase of a steel mill component and various equipment needed by the National Steel Corporation in the Philippines. Once the purchases are completed, there is nothing to keep him there anymore. In fact, in a letter dated January 30, 1995, Reynaldo informs this Court of the completion of his assignment abroad and of his permanent return to the Philippines (ff. p. 263, Rollo). The law is more than satisfied by the judgment of the trial court. The children are now both over seven years old. Their choice of the parent with whom they prefer to stay is clear from the record. From all indications, Reynaldo is a fit person, thus meeting the two requirements found in the first paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code. The presumption under the second paragraph of said article no longer applies as the children are over seven years. Assuming that the presumption should have persuasive value for children only one or two years beyond the age of seven years mentioned in the statute, there are compelling reasons and relevant considerations not to grant custody to the mother. The children understand the unfortunate shortcomings of their mother and have been affected in their emotional growth by her behavior. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, and the decision of Branch 96 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Quezon City and presided over by the Honorable Lucas P. Bersamin in its Civil Case No. Q-92-14206 awarding custody of the minors Rosalind and Reginald Espiritu to their father, Reynaldo Espiritu, is reinstated. No special pronouncement is made as to costs. SO ORDERED. Feliciano, Romero, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Substitute and Special Parental Authority EN BANC [G.R. No. L-47745. April 15, 1988.] JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA, PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH, SERGIO P. DAMASO, JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO, ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON, thru his parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO VALENCIA, thru his guardian, ATTY. FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents. Jose S. Amadora & Associates for petitioners. Padilla Law Office for respondents. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; QUASI-DELICT; LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS; APPLIES TO ALL SCHOOLS, WHETHER ACADEMIC OR NOT; RATIONALE. The provision in Article 2180 of the Civil Code should apply to all schools, academic as well as nonacademic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. 2.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION; REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS; APPLIED IN ARTICLE 2180 OF THE CIVIL CODE. Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides: "Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody." Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis, "teachers should apply to the words "pupils and student's and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices." 3.CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; QUASI-DELICT; LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE PERIOD THE STUDENT IS IN SCHOOL PREMISES IN PURSUANCE OF

LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE. The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, DEFINED. The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY FALLS DIRECTLY ON THE TEACHER OR HEAD OF SCHOOL. It should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. 6.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, BASIS OF LIABILITY OF SCHOOL FOR NEGLIGENCE OF TEACHERS AND HEADS. If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof under the general principle of respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. 7.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY, PROPER DEFENSE. Such defense of bonus pater familias is also available to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed by the student. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180. 8.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY ATTACHES REGARDLESS OF AGE OF STUDENT. It should be observed that the teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for the law does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who will be liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the student's age. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring and dissenting: 1.CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; QUASI-DELICT; LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS; TERM NOT LIMITED TO TEACHER-IN-CHARGE; EMBRACES ONE THAT STANDS IN LOCO PARENTIS. I concur, except with respect to the restricted meaning given the term "teacher" in

Article 2180 of the Civil Code as "teacher-in-charge." This would limit liability to occasions where there are classes under the immediate charge of a teacher, which does not seem to be the intendment of the law. The philosophy of the law is that whoever stands in loco parentis will have the same duties and obligations as parents whenever in such a standing. Those persons are mandatorily held liable for the tortious acts of pupils and students so long as the latter remain in their custody, meaning their protective and supervisory custody. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE OF LIABILITY. "The protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of the students' activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that some students themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence on their fellow students. (Palisoc vs, Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548) 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENSE AGAINST LIABILITY. As provided for in the same Article 2180, the responsibility treated of shall cease when the persons mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS, EXPLAINED; DEFENSE AVAILABLE. And while a school is, admittedly, not directly liable since Article 2180 speaks only of teachers and schools heads, yet, by virtue of the same provision, the school, as their employer, may be held liable for the failure of its teachers or school heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute parents (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & Damages, 1978 ed., p. 201). Again, the school may exculpate itself from liability by proving that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family. DECISION CRUZ, J p: Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking forward to the commencement exercises where he would ascend the stage and in the presence of his relatives and friends receive his high school diploma. These ceremonies were scheduled on April 16, 1972. As it turned out, though, fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience. On April 13, 1972, while they were in the auditorium of their school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes, a classmate, Pablito Daffon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as well. The victim was only seventeen years old. 1 Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. 2 Additionally, the herein petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180

of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents. The complaint against the students was later dropped. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs in the sum of P294,984.00, representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 3 On appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely absolved. 4 In its decision, which is now the subject of this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the respondent court found that Article 2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. It also held that the students were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester had already ended, that there was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and that in any event the defendants had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury. 5 The basic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora went to the San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972, and while in its auditorium was shot to death by Pablito Daffon, a classmate. On the implications and consequences of these facts, the parties sharply disagree. prLL The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to finish his physics experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the private respondents. The private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school only for the purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in their custody because the semester had already ended.

There is also the question of the identity of the gun used which the petitioners consider important because of an earlier incident which they claim underscores the negligence of the school and at least one of the private respondents. It is not denied by the respondents that on April 7, 1972, Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys, confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol but later returned it to him without making a report to the principal or taking any further action. 6 As Gumban was one of the companions of Daffon when the latter fired the gun that killed Alfredo, the petitioners contend that this was the same pistol that had been confiscated from Gumban and that their son would not have been killed if it had not been returned by Damaso. The respondents say, however, that there is no proof that the gun was the same firearm that killed Alfredo. Resolution of all these disagreements will depend on the interpretation of Article 2180 which, as it happens, is invoked by both parties in support of their conflicting positions. The pertinent part of this article reads as follows:

"Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody." Three cases have so far been decided by the Court in connection with the above-quoted provision, to wit: Exconde v. Capuno, 7 Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 8 andPalisoc v. Brillantes. 9 These will be briefly reviewed in this opinion for a better resolution of the case at bar. In the Exconde Case, Dante Capuno, a student of the Balintawak Elementary School and a Boy Scout, attended a Rizal Day parade on instructions of the city school supervisor. After the parade, the boy boarded a jeep, took over its wheel and drove it so recklessly that it turned turtle, resulting in the death of two of its passengers. Dante was found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence. In the separate civil action filed against them, his father was held solidarily liable with him in damages under Article 1903 (now Article 2180) of the Civil Code for the tort committed by the 15year old boy. This decision, which was penned by Justice Bautista Angelo on June 29, 1957, exculpated the school in an obiter dictum (as it was not a party to the case) on the ground that it was not a school of arts and trades. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, with whom Justices Sabino Padilla and Alex Reyes concurred, dissented, arguing that it was the school authorities who should be held liable. Liability under this role, he said, was imposed on (1) teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. The modifying clause "of establishments of arts and trades" should apply only to "heads" and not "teachers." Exconde was reiterated in the Mercado Case, and with an elaboration. A student cut a classmate with a razor blade during recess time at the Lourdes Catholic School in Quezon City, and the parents of the victim sued the culprit's parents for damages. Through Justice Labrador, the Court declared in another obiter (as the school itself had also not been sued) that the school was not liable because it was not an establishment of arts and trades. Moreover, the custody requirement had not been proved as this "contemplates a situation where the student lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influences on the pupil supersede those of the parents." Justice J.B.L. Reyes did not take part but the other members of the court concurred in this decision promulgated on May 30, 1960. cdrep In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on October 4, 1971, a 16-year old student was killed by a classmate with fist blows in the laboratory of the Manila Technical Institute. Although the wrongdoer who was already of age was not boarding in the school, the head thereof and the teacher in charge were held solidarily liable with him. The Court declared through Justice Teehankee:

"The phrase used in the cited article 'so long as (the students) remain in their custody' means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live and board in the school, as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by the present decision." This decision was concurred in by five other members, 10 including Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who stressed, in answer to the dissenting opinion, that even students already of age were covered by the provision since they were equally in the custody of the school and subject to its discipline. Dissenting with three others, 11 Justice Makalintal was for retaining the custody interpretation in Mercado and submitted that the rule should apply only to torts committed by students not yet of age as the school would be acting only in loco parentis. In a footnote, Justice Teehankee said he agreed with Justice Reyes' dissent in the Exconde Case but added that "since the school involved at bar is a non-academic school, the question as to the applicability of the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to await another case wherein it may properly be raised." This is the case. Unlike in Exconde and Mercado, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos has been directly impleaded and is sought to be held liable under Article 2180; and unlike in Palisoc, it is not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. The parties herein have also directly raised the question of whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades, and, if so, when the offending student is supposed to be "in its custody." After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well as nonacademic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis,"teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices."

The Court thus conforms to the dissenting opinion expressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Exconde where he said in part: "I can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 of the Old Civil Code to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference is there between them insofar as concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching that his pupils do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil. In my opinion, in the phrase 'teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades' used in Art. 1903 of the old Civil Code, the words 'arts and trades' does not qualify 'teachers' but only 'heads of establishments.' The phrase is only an updated version of the equivalent terms `preceptores y artesanos' used in the Italian and French Civil Codes. cdrep "If, as conceded by all commentators, the basis of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 in some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority, it would seem clear that where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody, for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. And if there is no authority, there can be no responsibility.' There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. The suggestion in the Exconde and Mercado Cases is that the provision would make the teacher or even the head of the school of arts and trades liable for an injury caused by any student in its custody but if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no liability would attach to the teacher or the school head. All other circumstances being the same, the teacher or the head of the academic school would be absolved whereas the teacher and the head of the non-academic school would be held liable, and simply because the latter is a school of arts and trades. The Court cannot see why different degrees of vigilance should be exercised by the school authorities on the basis only of the nature of their respective schools. There does not seem to be any plausible reason for relaxing that vigilance simply because the school is academic in nature and for increasing such vigilance where the school is non-

academic. Notably, the injury subject of liability is caused by the student and not by the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of the school or its equipment. The injury contemplated may be caused by any student regardless of the school where he is registered. The teacher certainly should not be able to excuse himself by simply showing that he is teaching in an academic school where, on the other hand, the head would be held liable if the school were non-academic.

These questions, though, may be asked: If the teacher of the academic school is to be held answerable for the torts committed by his students, why is it the head of the school only who is held liable where the injury is caused in a school of arts and trades? And in the case of the academic or non-technical school, why not apply the rule also to the head thereof instead of imposing the liability only on the teacher? The reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of the academic school. The old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally and directly instructed them on the technique and secrets of their craft. The head of the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was personally involved in the task of teaching his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and influence. By contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students. The head of the academic school had then (as now) only a vicarious relationship with the students. Consequently, while he could not be directly faulted for the acts of the students, the head of the school of arts and trades, because of his closer ties with them, could be so blamed. It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains at present in view of the expansion of the schools of arts and trades, the consequent increase in their enrollment, and the corresponding diminution of the direct and personal contact of their heads with the students. Article 2180, however, remains unchanged. In its present state, the provision must be interpreted by the Court according to its clear and original mandate until the legislature, taking into account the changes in the situation subject to be regulated, sees fit to enact the necessary amendment. LLpr The other matter to be resolved is the duration of the responsibility of the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades over the students. Is such responsibility coextensive with the period when the student is actually undergoing studies during the school term, as contended by the respondents and impliedly admitted by the petitioners themselves? From a reading of the provision under examination, it is clear that while the custody requirement, to repeat Palisoc v. Brillantes, does not mean that the student must be

boarding with the school authorities, it does signify that the student should be within the control and under the influence of the school authorities at the time of the occurrence of the injury. This does not necessarily mean that such, custody be coterminous with the semester, beginning with the start of classes and ending upon the close thereof, and excluding the time before or after such period, such as the period of registration, and in the case of graduating students, the period before the commencement exercises. In the view of the Court, the student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. It is too tenuous to argue that the student comes under the discipline of the school only upon the start of classes notwithstanding that before that day he has already registered and thus placed himself under its rules. Neither should such discipline be deemed ended upon the last day of classes notwithstanding that there may still be certain requisites to be satisfied for completion of the course, such as submission of reports, term papers, clearances and the like. During such periods, the student is still subject to the disciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider himself released altogether from observance of its rules. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180. During all these occasions, it is obviously the teacher-in-charge who must answer for his students' torts, in practically the same way that the parents are responsible for the child when he is in their custody. The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. Thus, for the injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him. In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof under the general principle of respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.

Such defense is, of course, also available to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed by the student. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180, which also states that: "The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages." In this connection, it should be observed that the teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for the law does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who will be liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the student's age. Thus, in the Palisoc Case, liability attached to the teacher and the head of the technical school although the wrongdoer was already of age. In this sense, Article 2180 treats the parent more favorably than the teacher. The Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions expressed by Justice Makalintal in his dissenting opinion in Palisoc that the school may be unduly exposed to liability under this article in view of the increasing activism among the students that is likely to cause violence and resulting injuries in the school premises. That is a valid fear, to be sure. Nevertheless, it should be repeated that, under the present ruling, it is not the school that will be held directly liable. Moreover, the defense of due diligence is available to it in case it is sought to be held answerable as principal for the acts or omission of its head or the teacher in its employ. cdll The school can show that it exercised proper measures in selecting the head or its teachers and the appropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction of the pupils pursuant to its rules and regulations for the maintenance of discipline among them. In almost all cases now, in fact, these measures are effected through the assistance of an adequate security force to help the teacher physically enforce those rules upon the students. This should bolster the claim of the school that it has taken adequate steps to prevent any injury that may be committed by its students. A fortiori, the teacher himself may invoke this defense as it would otherwise be unfair to hold him directly answerable for the damage caused by his students as long as they are in the school premises and presumably under his influence. In this respect, the Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility imposed on the parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. Obviously, the parent can expect more obedience from the child because the latter's dependence on him is greater than on the teacher. It need not be stressed that such dependence includes the child's support and sustenance whereas submission to the teacher's influence, besides being co-terminous with the period of custody, is usually enforced only because of the students' desire to pass the course. The parent can instill

more lasting discipline on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher for the tort committed by the child. And if it is also considered that under the article in question, the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice even if he is already of age and therefore less tractable than the minor then there should all the more be justification to require from the school authorities less accountability as long as they can prove reasonable diligence in preventing the injury. After all, if the parent himself is no longer liable for the student's acts because he has reached majority age and so is no longer under the former's control, there is then all the more reason for leniency in assessing the teacher's responsibility for the acts of the student.

On the contrary, the private respondents have proved that they had exercised due diligence, through the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline. llcd 4.In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable, especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned the same later to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher authorities. While this was clearly negligence on his part, for which he deserves sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador as it has not been shown that the confiscated and returned pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son. 5.Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in connection with such custody. In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein announced that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Daffon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972. While we deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic circumstances here related, we nevertheless are unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the law they have invoked. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Yap, Narvasa, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and GrioAquino, JJ., concur. Teehankee, C.J., did not participate in deliberations. Fernan andPadilla, JJ., took no part, formerly counsel for Colegio de San JoseRecoletos.

Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court has arrived at the following conclusions: 1.At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos notwithstanding that the fourth year classes had formally ended. It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to submit his physics report for what is important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. As previously observed, even the mere savoring of the company of his friends in the premises of the school is a legitimate purpose that would have also brought him in the custody of the school authorities. 2.The rector, the high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of them was exercising only a general authority over the student body and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its discipline. The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone to school that day in connection with his physics report did not necessarily make the physics teacher, respondent Celestino Dicon, the teacher-incharge of Alfredo's killer. 3.At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their nonobservance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not supposed or required to report to school on that day. And while it is true that the offending student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge even if the latter was physically absent when the tort was committed, it has not been established that it was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the student.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-33722. July 29, 1988.] FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO, petitioners, vs. EDGARDO AQUINO, MAURO SORIANO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Buenaventura C. Evangelista for petitioners. Modesto V. Cabanela for respondent Edgardo Aquino. Manuel P. Pastor for respondent Mauro Soriano. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICT; ART. 2180, CIVIL CODE; ONLY TEACHERS OF ACADEMIC SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ANSWERABLE FOR TORTS COMMITTED BY THEIR STUDENTS; RULING IN AMADORA VS. COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BAR. As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. This is in line with Our ruling in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, wherein this Court thoroughly discussed the doctrine that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. This Court went on to say that in a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable. Hence, applying the said doctrine to this case, We rule that private respondent Soriano, as principal, cannot be held liable for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly admitted by private respondent Aquino, private respondent Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging. From the foregoing, it can be easily seen that private respondent Aquino can be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the children for being negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons. 2.ID.; ID.; ART. 2176, CIVIL CODE; THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT AMOUNTED TO FAULT AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE WHICH HAVE DIRECT CAUSAL RELATION TO THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM. However, as earlier pointed out, petitioners base the alleged liability of private respondent Aquino on Article 2176 which is separate and distinct from that provided for in Article 2180. With this in mind, the question We need to answer is this: Were there acts and omissions on the part of private respondent Aquino amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to the death of his pupil Ylarde? Our answer is in the affirmative. He is liable for damages. From a review of the record of this case, it is very clear that private respondent Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling; (4)

went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde. Left by themselves, it was but natural for the children to play around. Tired from the strenuous digging, they just had to amuse themselves with whatever they found. Driven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not knowing the risk they were facing, three of them jumped into the hole while the other one jumped on the stone. Since the stone was so heavy and the soil was loose from the digging, it was also a natural consequence that the stone would fall into the hole beside it, causing injury on the unfortunate child caught by its heavy weight. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of the negligent acts of private respondent Aquino. Needless to say, the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED OF MINOR CHILDREN; CASE AT BAR. In ruling that the child Ylarde was imprudent, it is evident that the lower court did not consider his age and maturity. This should not be the case. The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. Bearing this in mind, We cannot charge the child Ylarde with reckless imprudence. 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; DILIGENCE OF A VERY CAUTIOUS PERSON AS A DEFENSE TO ART. 2176, CIVIL CODE; ABSENT IN THE CASE AT BAR. The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company. 6.ID.; ID.; ID.; PAYMENT FOR DAMAGES ORDERED BY THE COURT. We close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did. Were it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the child Ylarde would probably be alive today, a grown-man of thirty-five. Due to his failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish

all these years. In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby granted and the questioned judgment of the respondent court is reversed and set aside and another judgment is hereby rendered ordering private respondent Edgardo Aquino to pay petitioners the following: (1) Indemnity for the death of Child Ylarde P30,000.00; (2) Exemplary damages 10,000.00; (3) Moral damages 20,000.00.

A few minutes after private respondent Aquino left, three of the four kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. As a result thereof, Ylarde sustained the following injuries: "1.Contusion with hematoma, left inguinal region and suprapublic region. 2.Contusion with occhymosis, entire acrotal region. prLL 3.Lacerated wound, left lateral aspect of penile skin with phimosis. 4.Abrasion, gluteal region, bilateral.

DECISION

GANCAYCO, J p: In this petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 36390-R entitled "Federico Ylarde, et al. vs. Edgardo Aquino, et al.," a case which originated from the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, We are again called upon to determine the responsibility of the principals and teachers towards their students or pupils. In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan. Private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. At that time, the school was littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the huge stones were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez stated burying them one by one as early as 1962. In fact, he was able to bury ten of these blocks all by himself. Deciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo Aquino gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after class dismissal on October 7, 1963. Being their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole wherein the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The following day, also after classes, private respondent Aquino called four of the original eighteen pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one meter and forty centimeters deep. At this point, private respondent Aquino alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging. When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, private respondent Aquino and his four pupils got out of the hole. Then, said private respondent left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about thirty meters away. Private respondent wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, private respondent Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone."

5.Intraperitoneal and extrapertitoneal extravasation of blood and urine about 2 liters. 6.Fracture, simple, symphesis pubis. 7.Ruptured (macerated) urinary bladder with body of bladder almost entirely separated from its neck. REMARKS: 1.Above were incurred by crushing injury. 2.Prognosis very poor. (Sgd.) MELQUIADES A. BRAVO Physician on Duty." 1 Three days later, Novelito Ylarde died. Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for damages against both private respondents Aquino and Soriano. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the following grounds: (1) that the digging done by the pupils is in line with their course called Work Education; (2) that Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very

cautious person; and (3) that the demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence. 2 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the lower court. Petitioners base their action against private respondent Aquino on Article 2176 of the Civil Code for his alleged negligence that caused their son's death while the complaint against respondent Soriano as the head of school is founded on Article 2180 of the same Code. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides: "Art. 2176.Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter." On the other hand, the applicable provision of Article 2180 states: "Art. 2180.. . . xxx xxx xxx "Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody." 3 The issue to be resolved is whether or not under the cited provisions, both private respondents can be held liable for damages. llcd As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. This is in line with Our ruling in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, 4 wherein this Court thoroughly discussed the doctrine that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. This Court went on to say that in a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable. In the same case, We explained: "After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature,

responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon ofreddendo singula sinquilis, 'teachers' should apply to the words 'pupils and students' and 'heads of establishments of arts and trades' to the word 'apprentices.'" Hence, applying the said doctrine to this case, We rule that private respondent Soriano, as principal, cannot be held liable for the reason that the school he heads is an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Besides, as clearly admitted by private respondent Aquino, private respondent Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging. From the foregoing, it can be easily seen that private respondent Aquino can be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the children for being negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons. However, as earlier pointed out, petitioners base the alleged liability of private respondent Aquino on Article 2176 which is separate and distinct from that provided for in Article 2180. With this in mind, the question We need to answer is this: Were there acts and omissions on the part of private respondent Aquino amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to the death of his pupil Ylarde? Our answer is in the affirmative. He is liable for damages. From a review of the record of this case, it is very clear that private respondent Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance. The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde. Left by themselves, it was but natural for the children to play around. Tired from the strenuous

digging, they just had to amuse themselves with whatever they found. Driven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not knowing the risk they were facing, three of them jumped into the hole while the other one jumped on the stone. Since the stone was so heavy and the soil was loose from the digging, it was also a natural consequence that the stone would fall into the hole beside it, causing injury on the unfortunate child caught by its heavy weight. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of the negligent acts of private respondent Aquino. Needless to say, the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. LexLib We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that the injuries which resulted in the death of the child Ylarde were caused by his own reckless imprudence. It should be remembered that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident. As such, he is expected to be playful and daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. Going back to the facts, it was not only him but the three of them who jumped into the hole while the remaining boy jumped on the block. From this, it is clear that he only did what any other ten-year old child would do in the same situation. In ruling that the child Ylarde was imprudent, it is evident that the lower court did not consider his age and maturity. This should not be the case. The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. 5 The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. 6 Bearing this in mind, We cannot charge the child Ylarde with reckless imprudence. The court is not persuaded that the digging done by the pupils can pass as part of their Work Education. A single glance at the picture showing the excavation and the huge concrete block 7 would reveal a dangerous site requiring the attendance of strong, mature laborers and not ten-year old grade-four pupils. We cannot comprehend why the lower court saw it otherwise when private respondent Aquino himself admitted that there were no instructions from the principal requiring what the pupils were told to do. Nor was there any showing that it was included in the lesson plan for their Work Education. Even the Court of Appeals made mention of the fact that respondent Aquino decided all by himself to help his co-teacher Banez bury the concrete remnants of the old school shop. 8 Furthermore, the excavation should not be placed in the category of school gardening, planting trees, and the like as these undertakings do not expose the children to any risk that could result in death or physical injuries. The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving them

there all by themselves, may result in an accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company. We close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did. Were it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the child Ylarde would probably be alive today, a grown-man of thirty-five. Due to his failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish all these years.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the questioned judgment of the respondent court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby rendered ordering private respondent Edgardo Aquino to pay petitioners the following: (1)Indemnity for the death of Child YlardeP30,000.00 (2)Exemplary damages10,000.00 (3)Moral damages20,000.00 SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 143363. February 6, 2002.] ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA, respondents. Padilla Law Office for petitioner. Peter Y. Co for respondents Daniel and Villanueva. Feliciano M. Maraon for respondent Carpitanos. SYNOPSIS Sherwin Carpitanos, son of respondents Carpitanos, died in an accident caused by the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva. The vehicle was then driven by James Daniel II, a minor. The incident occurred during an enrollment drive conducted by petitioner academy where Sherwin was a student. Sherwin's parents filed an action for damages against petitioner and the other respondents. The trial court ruled in favor of Sherwin's parents ordering petitioner to pay civil indemnity for the loss of life of Sherwin, actual and moral damages, and attorney's fees under Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, and declared respondents Daniel subsidiarily liable. Respondent Villanueva was absolved from any liability. Under Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, for the school to be principally and solidarily liable for the acts of its students, the latter's negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. In this case, there was no evidence that petitioner allowed the minor to drive the jeep and that the proximate cause of the accident was a mechanical defect in the vehicle, thus, petitioner may not be held liable for the death of Sherwin. However, as the registered owner of the vehicle, Villanueva was held primarily liable for the death of Sherwin.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; PRINCIPAL AND SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY. Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction, or custody. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITE. However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. In this case, the respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Further, there was no evidence that petitioner school allowed the minor James Daniel II to drive the jeep of respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva, grandson of respondent Vivencio Villanueva, who had possession and control of the jeep. He was driving the vehicle and he allowed James Daniel II, a minor, to drive the jeep at the time of the accident. Considering that the negligence of the minor driver or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over which petitioner St. Mary's Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from such accident. Consequently, we find that petitioner likewise cannot be held liable for moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. In this case, the proximate cause of the accident was not attributable to petitioner. For the reason that petitioner was not directly liable for the accident, the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering petitioner to pay death indemnity to respondent Carpitanos must be deleted. Moreover, the grant of attorney's fees as part of damages is the exception rather than the rule. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification. Thus, the grant of attorney's fees against the petitioner is likewise deleted. aESICD 5.ID.; DAMAGES; REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC OR TO THIRD PERSONS WHILE VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN ON THE HIGHWAYS OR STREETS. We have held that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets. Hence, with the overwhelming evidence presented by petitioner and the respondent Daniel spouses that the accident occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, it is not the school, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall be held responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.

SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER A MINOR CHILD. Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall have special parental authority over a minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody: (1) the school, its administrators and teachers; or (2) the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care. This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. Thus, such authority and responsibility applies to field trips, excursions and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers.

DECISION

c.TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) for attorney's fees; d.FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) for moral damages; and to pay costs. 2.Their liability being only subsidiary, defendants James Daniel, Sr. and Guada Daniel are hereby ordered to pay herein plaintiffs the amount of damages above-stated in the event of insolvency of principal obligor St. Mary's Academy of Dipolog City; 3.Defendant James Daniel II, being a minor at the time of the commission of the tort and who was under special parental authority of defendant St. Mary's Academy, is ABSOLVED from paying the above-stated damages, same being adjudged against defendants St. Mary's Academy, and subsidiarily, against his parents; 4.Defendant Vivencio Villanueva is hereby ABSOLVED of any liability. His counterclaim not being in order as earlier discussed in this decision, is hereby DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED."' (Decision, pp. 32-33; Records, pp. 205206)." "From the records it appears that from 13 to 20 February 1995, defendant-appellant St. Mary's Academy of Dipolog City conducted an enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996. A facet of the enrollment campaign was the visitation of schools from where prospective enrollees were studying. As a student of St. Mary's Academy, Sherwin Carpitanos was part of the campaigning group. Accordingly, on the fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high school students were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on their way to Larayan Elementary School, Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James Daniel II then 15 years old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove the jeep in a reckless manner and as a result the jeep turned turtle.

PARDO, J p: The Case The case is an appeal via certiorari from the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals as well as the resolution denying reconsideration, holding petitioner liable for damages arising from an accident that resulted in the death of a student who had joined a campaign to visit the public schools in Dipolog City to solicit enrollment. The Facts The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: "Claiming damages for the death of their only son, Sherwin Carpitanos, spouses William Carpitanos and Lucia Carpitanos filed on June 9, 1995 a case against James Daniel II and his parents, James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner, Vivencio Villanueva and St. Mary's Academy before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City. "On 20 February 1997, Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "'WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in the following manner: 1.Defendant St. Mary's Academy of Dipolog City, is hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs William Carpitanos and Luisa Carpitanos, the following sums of money: a.FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) indemnity for the loss of life of Sherwin S. Carpitanos; b.FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00) actual damages incurred by plaintiffs for burial and related expenses;

"Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the injuries he sustained from the accident." 2 In due time, petitioner St. Mary's Academy appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. 3 On February 29, 2000, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision reducing the actual damages to P25,000.00 but otherwise affirming the decision a quo, in toto. 4 On February 29, 2000, petitioner St. Mary's Academy filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. However, on May 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. 5 Hence, this appeal. 6 The Issues 1)Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the petitioner liable for damages for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos. 2)Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of moral damages against the petitioner. The Court's Ruling We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held petitioner St. Mary's Academy liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos under Articles 218 7 and 219 8 of the Family Code, pointing out that petitioner was negligent in allowing a minor to drive and in not having a teacher accompany the minor students in the jeep.

Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction, or custody. 10 However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence, must have a causal connection to the accident. 11 In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that the injury for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. For, negligence, no matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury complained of. And the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. 12 In this case, the respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. In their comment to the petition, respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted the documentary exhibits, establishing that the cause of the accident was the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Hence, the cause of the accident was not the recklessness of James Daniel II but the mechanical defect in the jeep of Vivencio Villanueva. Respondents, including the spouses Carpitanos, parents of the deceased Sherwin Carpitanos, did not dispute the report and testimony of the traffic investigator who stated that the cause of the accident was the detachment of the steering wheel guide that caused the jeep to turn turtle. Significantly, respondents did not present any evidence to show that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the school authorities, or the reckless driving of James Daniel II. Hence, the respondents reliance on Article 219 of the Family Code that those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor was unfounded.

Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall have special parental authority over a minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody: (1) the school, its administrators and teachers; or (2) the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care. This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. Thus, such authority and responsibility applies to field trips, excursions and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers. 9

Further, there was no evidence that petitioner school allowed the minor James Daniel II to drive the jeep of respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva, grandson of respondent Vivencio Villanueva, who had possession and control of the jeep. He was driving the vehicle and he allowed James Daniel II, a minor, to drive the jeep at the time of the accident. Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the minor's parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Mary's Academy was only a remote cause of the accident. Between the remote cause and the injury, there intervened the negligence of the minor's parents or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. "The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred." 13 Considering that the negligence of the minor driver or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over which petitioner St. Mary's Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from such accident. Consequently, we find that petitioner likewise cannot be held liable for moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. 14 In this case, the proximate cause of the accident was not attributable to petitioner. For the reason that petitioner was not directly liable for the accident, the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering petitioner to pay death indemnity to respondent Carpitanos must be deleted. Moreover, the grant of attorney's fees as part of damages is the exception rather than the rule. 15 The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification. 16 Thus, the grant of attorney's fees against the petitioner is likewise deleted. Incidentally, there was no question that the registered owner of the vehicle was respondent Villanueva. He never denied and in fact admitted this fact. We have held that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets." 17 Hence, with the

overwhelming evidence presented by petitioner and the respondent Daniel spouses that the accident occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, it is not the school, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall be held responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos. The Fallo WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals 18 and that of the trial court. 19 The Court remands the case to the trial court for determination of the liability of defendants, excluding petitioner St. Mary's Academy, Dipolog City. DaTHAc No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Effect and Suspension/Termination of Parental Authority EN BANC [G.R. No. 70890. September 18, 1992.] CRESENCIO LIBI * and AMELIA YAP LIBI, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, FELIPE GOTIONG and SHIRLEY GOTIONG, respondents. Alex Y. Tan for petitioners. Mario D. Ortiz and Danilo V. Ortiz for private respondents. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; QUASI DELICT; LIABILITY OF PARENTS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THEIR MINOR CHILDREN; RULE. The parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. That primary liability is premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to damages ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without discernment; and, with regard to their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary liability shall be imposed pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. For civil liability arising from quasi-delicts committed by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance with Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code, as so modified.

lovers died while still in the prime of their years, a bitter episode for those whose lives they have touched. While we cannot expect to award complete assuagement to their families through seemingly prosaic legal verbiage, this disposition should at least terminate the acrimony and rancor of an extended judicial contest resulting from the unfortunate occurrence. In this final denouement of the judicial recourse the stages whereof were alternately initiated by the parties, petitioners are now before us seeking the reversal of the judgment of respondent court promulgated on January 2, 1985 in AC-G.R. CV No. 69060 with the following decretal portion: "WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court dismissing plaintiff's complaint is hereby reversed; and instead, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendants, jointly and solidarily, to pay to plaintiffs the following amounts: prcd 1.Moral damages, P30,000.000; 2.Exemplary damages, P10,000.00; 3.Attorney's fees, P20,000.00, and costs. However, denial of defendants-appellees' counterclaims is affirmed." 1 Synthesized from the findings of the lower courts, it appears that respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of Julie Ann Gotiong who, at the time of the deplorable incident which took place and from which she died on January 14, 1979, was an 18year old first year commerce student of the University of San Carlos, Cebu City; while petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age living with his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the same event on the same date. For more than two (2) years before their deaths, Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts until December, 1978 when Julie Ann broke up her relationship with Wendell after she supposedly found him to be sadistic and irresponsible. During the first and second weeks of January, 1979, Wendell kept pestering Julie Ann with demands for reconciliation but the latter persisted in her refusal, prompting the former to resort to threats against her. In order to avoid him, Julie Ann stayed in the house of her best friend, Malou Alfonso, at the corner of Maria Cristina and Juana Osmea Streets, Cebu City, from January 7 to 13, 1978. On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann and Wendell died, each from a single gunshot wound inflicted with the same firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of petitioner Cresencio Libi, which was recovered from the scene of the crime inside the residence of private respondents at the corner of General Maxilom and D. Jakosalem streets of the same city.

DECISION

REGALADO, J p: One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that sorrow is sometimes a touchstone of love. A tragic illustration is provided by the instant case, wherein two

Due to the absence of an eyewitness account of the circumstances surrounding the death of both minors, their parents, who are the contending parties herein, posited their respective theories drawn from their interpretation of circumstantial evidence, available reports, documents and evidence of physical facts. Private respondents, bereaved over the death of their daughter, submitted that Wendell caused her death by shooting her with the aforesaid firearm and, thereafter, turning the gun on himself to commit suicide. On the other hand, petitioners, puzzled and likewise distressed over the death of their son, rejected the imputation and contended that an unknown third party, whom Wendell may have displeased or antagonized by reason of his work as a narcotics informer of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), must have caused Wendell's death and then shot Julie Ann to eliminate any witness and thereby avoid identification. LibLex As a result of the tragedy, the parents of Julie Ann filed Civil Case No. R-17774 in the then Court of First Instance of Cebu against the parents of Wendell to recover damages arising from the latter's vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. After trial, the court below rendered judgment on October 20, 1980 as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for insufficiency of the evidence. Defendants' counterclaim is likewise denied for lack of sufficient merit." 2 On appeal to respondent court, said judgment of the lower court dismissing the complaint of therein plaintiffs-appellants was set aside and another judgment was rendered against defendants-appellees who, as petitioners in the present appeal by certiorari, now submit for resolution the following issues in this case: 1.Whether or not respondent court correctly reversed the trial court in accordance with established decisional laws; and 2.Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code was correctly interpreted by respondent court to make petitioners liable for vicarious liability. 3 In the proceedings before the trial court, Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, Police Medico-Legal Officer of Cebu, submitted his findings and opinions on some postulates for determining whether or not the gunshot wound was inflicted on Wendell Libi by his own suicidal act. However, undue emphasis was placed by the lower court on the absence of gunpowder or tattooing around the wound at the point of entry of the bullet. It should be emphasized, however, that this is not the only circumstance to be taken into account in the determination of whether it was suicide or not.

It is true that said witness declared that he found no evidence of contact or closecontact of an explosive discharge in the entrance wound. However, as pointed out by private respondents, the body of deceased Wendell Libi must have been washed at the funeral parlor, considering the hasty interment thereof a little after eight (8) hours from the occurrence wherein he died. Dr. Cerna himself could not categorically state that the body of Wendell Libi was left untouched at the funeral parlor before he was able to conduct his autopsy. It will also be noted that Dr. Cerna was negligent in not conducting a paraffin test on Wendell Libi, hence possible evidence of gunpowder residue on Wendell's hands was forever lost when Wendell was hastily buried. LexLib More specifically, Dr. Cerna testified that he conducted an autopsy on the body of Wendell Libi about eight (8) hours after the incident or, to be exact, eight (8) hours and twenty (20) minutes based on the record of death; that when he arrived at the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, the body of the deceased was already on the autopsy table and in the stage of rigor mortis; and that said body was not washed, but it was dried. 4 However, on redirect examination, he admitted that during the 8-hour interval, he never saw the body nor did he see whether said body was wiped or washed in the area of the wound on the head which he examined because the deceased was inside the morgue. 5 In fact, on cross-examination, he had earlier admitted that as far as the entrance of the wound, the trajectory of the bullet and the exit of the wound are concerned, it is possible that Wendell Libi shot himself. 6 He further testified that the muzzle of the gun was not pressed on the head of the victim and that he found no burning or singeing of the hair or extensive laceration on the gunshot wound of entrance which are general characteristics of contact or near-contact fire. On direct examination, Dr. Cerna nonetheless made these clarification: "QIs it not a fact that there are certain guns which are so made that there would be no black residue or tattooing that could result from these guns because they are what we call clean? AYes, sir. I know that there are what we call smokeless powder. ATTY. ORTIZ: QYes. So, in cases, therefore, of guns where the powder is smokeless, those indications that you said may not rule out the possibility that the gun was closer than 24 inches, is that correct?

AIf the . . . assuming that the gun used was .. the bullet used was a smokeless powder.

QAt any rate, doctor, from . . . disregarding those other matters that you have noticed, the singeing, etc., from the trajectory, based on the trajectory of the bullet as shown in your own sketch, is it not a fact that the gun could have been fired by the person himself, the victim himself, Wendell Libi, because it shows a point of entry a little above the right ear and point of exit a little above that, to be very fair and on your oath? AAs far as the point of entrance is concerned and as far as the trajectory of the bullet is concerned and as far as the angle or the manner of fire is concerned, it could have been fired by the victim." 7 As shown by the evidence, there were only two used bullets 8 found at the scene of the crime, each of which were the bullets that hit Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi, respectively. Also, the sketch prepared by the Medico-Legal Division of the National Bureau of Investigation, 9 shows that there is only one gunshot wound of entrance located at the right temple of Wendell Libi. The necropsy report prepared by Dr. Cerna states: xxx xxx xxx "Gunshot wound, ENTRANCE, ovaloid, 0.5 x 0.4 cm., with contusion collar widest inferiorly by 0.2 cm., edges inverted, oriented upward, located at the head, temporal region, right, 2.8 cms. behind and 5.5 cms. above right external auditory meatus, directed slightly forward, upward and to the left, involving skin and soft tissues, making a punch-in fracture on the temporal bone, right, penetrating cranial cavity, lacerating extensively along its course the brain tissues, fracturing parietal bone, left, and finally making an EXIT wound, irregular, 2.0 x 1.8 cms., edges (e)verted, parietal region, left, 2.0 cms. behind and 12.9 cms. above left external auditory meatus. LLjur xxx xxx xxx "Evidence of contact or close-contact fire, such as burning around the gunshot wound of entrance, gunpowder tatooing (sic), smudging, singeing of hair, extensive laceration or bursting of the gunshot wound of entrance, or separation of the skin from the underlying tissue, are absent." 10 On cross-examination, Dr. Cerna demonstrated his theory which was made of record, thus:

"QNow, will you please use yourself as Wendell Libi, and following the entrance of the wound, the trajectory of the bullet and the exit of the wound, and measuring yourself 24 inches, will you please indicate to the Honorable Court how would it have been possible for Wendell Libi to kill himself? Will you please indicate the 24 inches? WITNESS: AActually, sir, the 24 inches is approximately one arm's length. ATTY. SENINING: I would like to make of record that the witness has demonstrated by extending his right arm almost straight towards his head." 11 Private respondents assail the fact that the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of defendants' witnesses Lydia Ang and James Enrique Tan, the first being a resident of an apartment across the street from the Gotiongs and the second, a resident of the house adjacent to the Gotiong residence, who declared having seen a "shadow" of a person at the gate of the Gotiong house after hearing shots therefrom. On cross-examination, Lydia Ang testified that the apartment where she was staying faces the gas station; that it is the second apartment; that from her window she can see directly the gate of the Gotiongs and, that there is a firewall between her apartment and the gas station. 12 After seeing a man jump from the gate of the Gotiongs to the rooftop of the Tans, she called the police station but the telephone lines were busy. Later on, she talked with James Enrique Tan and told him that she saw a man leap from the gate towards his rooftop. 13 However, James Enrique Tan testified that he saw a "shadow" on top of the gate of the Gotiongs, but denied having talked with anyone regarding what he saw. He explained that he lives in a duplex house with a garden in front of it; that his house is next to Felipe Gotiong's house; and he further gave the following answers to these questions: prcd "ATTY. ORTIZ: (TO WITNESS). QWhat is the height of the wall of the Gotiong's in relation to your house? WITNESS:

AIt is about 8 feet. ATTY. ORTIZ: (TO WITNESS) QAnd where were you looking from? WITNESS: AFrom upstairs in my living room. ATTY. ORTIZ (TO WITNESS) QFrom Your living room window, is that correct? WITNESS: AYes, but not very clear because the wall is high." 14 Analyzing the foregoing testimonies, we agree with respondent court that the same do not inspire credence as to the reliability and accuracy of the witnesses' observations, since the visual perceptions of both were obstructed by high walls in their respective houses in relation to the house of herein private respondents. On the other hand, witness Manolo Alfonso, testifying on rebuttal, attested without contradiction that he and his sister, Malou Alfonso, were waiting for Julie Ann Gotiong when they heard her scream; that when Manolo climbed the fence to see what was going on inside the Gotiong house, he heard the first shot; and, not more than five (5) seconds later, he heard another shot. Consequently, he went down from the fence and drove to the police station to report the incident. 15 Manolo's direct and candid testimony establishes and explains the fact that it was he whom Lydia Ang and James Enrique Tan saw as the "shadow" of a man at the gate of the Gotiong house. We have perforce to reject petitioners' effete and unsubstantiated pretension that it was another man who shot Wendell and Julie Ann. It is significant that the Libi family did not even point to or present any suspect in the crime nor did they file any case against any alleged "John Doe." Nor can we sustain the trial court's dubious theory that Wendell Libi did not die by his own hand because of the overwhelming evidence testimonial, documentary and pictorial the confluence of which point to Wendell as the assailant of Julie Ann, his motive being revenge for her rejection of his persistent pleas for a reconciliation. LibLex Petitioners' defense that they had exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family, hence they should not be civilly liable for the crime committed by their minor son, is not borne out by the evidence on record either.

Petitioner Amelita Yap Libi, mother of Wendell, testified that her husband, Cresencio Libi, owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in their bedroom. Each of these petitioners holds a key to the safety deposit box and Amelita's key is always in her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell. They have never seen their son Wendell taking or using the gun. She admitted, however, that on that fateful night the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box. 16 We, accordingly, cannot but entertain serious doubts that petitioner spouses had really been exercising the diligence of a good father of a family by safely locking the fatal gun away. Wendell could not have gotten hold thereof unless one of the keys to the safety deposit box was negligently left lying around or he had free access to the bag of his mother where the other key was. The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and child relationship consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the child. Petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently supervising the activities of their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so much so that it was only at the time of Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was a CANU agent and that Cresencio's gun was missing from the safety deposit box. Both parents were sadly wanting in their duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the activities of their children who, for all they know, may be engaged in dangerous work such as being drug informers, 17 or even drug users. Neither was a plausible explanation given for the photograph of Wendell, with a handwritten dedication to Julie Ann at the back thereof, 18 holding upright what clearly appears as a revolver and on how or why he was in possession of that firearm. In setting aside the judgment of the court a quo and holding petitioners civilly liable, as explained at the start of this opinion, respondent court waved aside the protestations of diligence on the part of petitioners and had this to say: ". . . It is still the duty of parents to know the activity of their children who may be engaged in this dangerous activity involving the menace of drugs. Had the defendants-appellees been diligent in supervising the activities of their son, Wendell, and in keeping said gun from his reach, they could have prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann Gotiong. Therefore, appellants are liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides: 'The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live in their company.' "Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell Libi from having access to said gun which was allegedly kept in a safety deposit box, defendants-appellees are subsidiarily liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of said minor who was

living in their company. This vicarious liability of herein defendants-appellees has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in many cases, prominent of which is the case of Fuellas vs. Cadano, et. al. (L-14409, Oct. 31, 1961, 3 SCRA 361-367), which held that: 'The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses.' 'The subsidiary liability of parent's arising from the criminal acts of their minor children who acted with discernment is determined under the provisions of Article 2180, N.C.C. and under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, because to hold that the former only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damages caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.' (3 SCRA 361-362).

under lock, but learned that it was missing from the safety deposit box only after the crime had been committed." (Emphases ours.) 19 We agree with the conclusion of respondent court that petitioners should be held liable for the civil liability based on what appears from all indications was a crime committed by their minor son. We take this opportunity, however, to digress and discuss its ratiocination therefor on jurisprudential dicta which we feel require clarification. In imposing sanctions for the so-called vicarious liability of petitioners, respondent court cites Fuellas vs. Cadano, et al. 20 which supposedly holds that "(t)he subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses," followed by an extended quotation ostensibly from the same case explaining why under Article 2180 of the Civil Code and Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code parents should assume subsidiary liability for damages caused by their minor children. The quoted passages are set out two paragraphs back, with pertinent underscoring for purposes of the discussion hereunder. LLphil Now, we do not have any objection to the doctrinal rule holding, the parents liable, but the categorization of their liability as being subsidiary, and not primary, in nature requires a hard second look considering previous decisions of this court on the matter which warrant comparative analyses. Our concern stems from our readings that if the liability of the parents for crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is subsidiary, then the parents can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. On the other hand, if such liability imputed to the parents is considered direct and primary, that diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. We believe that the civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors, the persons responsible for the act or omission, in this case the minor and the father and, in case of his death of incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable. Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and not subsidiary, hence the last paragraph of Article 2180 provides that "(t) he responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages." We are also persuaded that the liability of the parents for felonies committed by their minor children is likewise primary, not subsidiary. Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "ARTICLE 101.Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.

". . . In the instant case, minor son of herein defendants-appellees, Wendell Libi somehow got hold of the key to the drawer where said gun was kept under lock without defendant-spouses ever knowing that said gun had been missing from that safety box since 1978 when Wendell Libi had a picture taken wherein he proudly displayed said gun and dedicated this picture to his sweetheart, Julie Ann Gotiong; also since then, Wendell Libi was said to have kept said gun in his car, in keeping up with his supposed role of a CANU agent . . ." llcd xxx xxx xxx "Based on the foregoing discussions of the assigned errors, this Court holds that the lower court was not correct in dismissing herein plaintiffs-appellants' complaint because as preponderantly shown by evidence, defendants-appellees utterly failed to exercise all the diligence of a good father of the family in preventing their minor son from committing this crime by means of the gun of defendants-appellees which was freely accessible to Wendell Libi for they have not regularly checked whether said gun was still

xxx xxx xxx First. In cases of subdivisions . . . 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by . . . a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part." (Emphases supplied.) 21 Accordingly, just like the rule in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, under the foregoing provision the civil liability of the parents for crimes committed by their minor children is likewise direct and primary, and also subject to the defense of lack of fault or negligence on their part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. That in both quasi-delicts and crimes the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both codes that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of insolvency of the former. Thus, for civil liability ex quasi delicto of minors, Article 2182 of the Civil Code states that "(i)f the minor causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor . . . shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed." For civil liability ex delicto of minors, an equivalent provision is found in the third paragraph of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: "Should there be no person having such . . . minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said . . . minor shall respond with (his) own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with civil law." The civil liability of parents for felonies committed by their minor children contemplated in the aforesaid rule in Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code has, aside from the aforecited case of Fuellas, been the subject of a number of cases adjudicated by this Court, viz.: Exconde vs. Capuno, et al., 22 Araneta vs. Arreglado, 23 Salen, et al. vs. Balce, 24 Paleyan, etc., et al. vs. Bangkili, et al., 25 and Elcano, et al, vs. Hill, et al. 26 Parenthetically, the aforesaid cases were basically on the issue of the civil liability of parents for crimes committed by their minor children over 9 but under 15 years of age, who acted with discernment, and also of minors 15 years of age or over, since these situations are not covered by Article 101, Revised Penal Code. In both instances, this Court held that the issue of parental civil liability should be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the reasons well expressed inSalen and adopted in the cases hereinbefore enumerated that to hold that the civil liability under Article 2180 would

apply only to quasi-delicts and not to criminal offenses would result in the absurdity that in an act involving mere negligence the parents would be liable but not where the damage is caused with criminal intent. In said cases, however, there are unfortunate variances resulting in a regrettable inconsistency in the Court's determination of whether the liability of the parents, in cases involving either crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children, is primary or subsidiary. In Exconde, where the 15-year old minor was convicted of double homicide through reckless imprudence, in a separate civil action arising from the crime the minor and his father were held jointly and severally liable for failure of the latter to prove the diligence of a good father of a family. The same liability in solidum and, therefore, primary liability was imposed in a separate civil action in Araneta on the parents and their 14-year old son who was found guilty of frustrated homicide, but on the authority of Article 2194 of the Civil Code providing for solidary responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict. However, in Salen, the father was declared subsidiarily liable for damages arising from the conviction of his son, who was over 15 but less than 18 years of age, by applying Article 2180 but, this time, disregarding Article 2194 of the Civil Code. In the present case, as already explained, the petitioners herein were also held liable but supposedly in line with Fuellas which purportedly declared the parents subsidiarily liable for the civil liability for serious physical injuries committed by their 13-year old son. On the other hand, in Paleyan, the mother and her 19-year old son were adjudged solidarily liable for damages arising from his conviction for homicide by the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code since this is likewise not covered by Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, in Elcano, although the son was acquitted in a homicide charge due to "lack of intent, coupled with mistake," it was ruled that while under Article 2180 of the Civil Code there should be solidary liability for damages, since the son, "although married, was living with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence," but "is now of age, as a matter of equity" the father was only held subsidiarily liable. It bears stressing, however, that the Revised Penal Code provides for subsidiary liability only for persons causing damages under the compulsion of irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear; 27 innkeepers, tavern-keepers and proprietors of establishments; 28 employers, teachers, persons and corporations engaged in industry; 29 and principals, accomplices and accessories for the unpaid civil liability of their co-accused in the other classes. 30 Also, coming back to respondent court's reliance on Fuellas in its decision in the present case, it is not exactly accurate to say that Fuellas provided for subsidiary liability of the parents therein. A careful scrutiny shows that what respondent court quoted verbatim in its decision now on appeal in the present case, and which it attributed to Fuellas, was the syllabus on the law report of said case which spoke of "subsidiary" liability. However, such categorization does not specifically appear in the text of the decision in Fuellas. In fact, after reviewing therein the cases of Exconde,

Araneta and Salen and the discussions in said cases of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, this Court concluded its decision in this wise:

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C .J ., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, Jr., JJ ., concur. Feliciano, J ., is on leave. Davide, Jr., J ., took no part. I used to be counsel of one of the parties. Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ ., took no part.

"Moreover, the case at bar was decided by the Court of Appeals on the basis of evidence submitted therein by both parties, independent of the criminal case. And responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176 upon which the present action was instituted, is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault or negligence under the Penal Code (Art. 2177), and having in mind the reasons behind the law as heretofore stated, any discussion as to the minor's criminal responsibility is of no moment." Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, we hereby rule that the parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. That primary liability is premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to damages ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without discernment; and, with regard to their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary liability shall be imposed pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 31 Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. 3 2 However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. 33 For civil liability arising from quasi-delicts committed by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance with Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code, as so modified. In the case at bar, whether the death of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was caused by a felony or a quasi-delict committed by Wendell Libi, respondent court did not err in holding petitioners liable for damages arising therefrom. Subject to the preceding modifications of the premises relied upon by it therefor and on the bases of the legal imperatives herein explained, we conjoin in its findings that said petitioners failed to duly exercise the requisite diligentissimi patris familias to prevent such damages.

Republic Act No. 7610

June 17, 1992

(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death. (c) "Circumstances which gravely threaten or endanger the survival and normal development of children" include, but are not limited to, the following; (1) Being in a community where there is armed conflict or being affected by armed conflict-related activities; (2) Working under conditions hazardous to life, safety and normal which unduly interfere with their normal development; (3) Living in or fending for themselves in the streets of urban or rural areas without the care of parents or a guardian or basic services needed for a good quality of life; (4) Being a member of a indigenous cultural community and/or living under conditions of extreme poverty or in an area which is underdeveloped and/or lacks or has inadequate access to basic services needed for a good quality of life; (5) Being a victim of a man-made or natural disaster or calamity; or (6) Circumstances analogous to those abovestated which endanger the life, safety or normal development of children. (d) "Comprehensive program against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination" refers to the coordinated program of services and facilities to protected children against: (1) Child Prostitution and other sexual abuse;

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: ARTICLE I Title, Policy, Principles and Definitions of Terms Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." Section 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all firms of abuse, neglect, cruelty exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. The State shall intervene on behalf of the child when the parent, guardian, teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation and discrimination or when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care and custody of the same.1awphi1@alf It shall be the policy of the State to protect and rehabilitate children gravely threatened or endangered by circumstances which affect or will affect their survival and normal development and over which they have no control. The best interests of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the principle of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life. Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;

(2) Child trafficking; (3) Obscene publications and indecent shows; (4) Other acts of abuses; and (5) Circumstances which threaten or endanger the survival and normal development of children.1awphi1 ARTICLE II Program on Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Section 4. Formulation of the Program . There shall be a comprehensive program to be formulated, by the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Welfare and Development in coordination with other government agencies and private sector concerned, within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, to protect children against child prostitution and other sexual abuse; child trafficking, obscene publications and indecent shows; other acts of abuse; and circumstances which endanger child survival and normal development. ARTICLE III Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: (a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; (2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means; (3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute; (4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or

(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution. (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and (c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment. Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal Code. ARTICLE IV Child Trafficking Section 7. Child Trafficking. Any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration, or barter, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. Section 8. Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking. There is an attempt to commit child trafficking under Section 7 of this Act:1awphi1@alf

(a) When a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development or written permit or justification from the child's parents or legal guardian; (c) When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose of child trafficking; or (d) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates birth for the purpose of child trafficking; or (e) When a person engages in the act of finding children among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be offered for the purpose of child trafficking. A penalty lower two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Section 7 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit child trafficking under this Act. ARTICLE V Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows. Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said materials shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period. If the child used as a performer, subject or seller/distributor is below twelve (12) years of age, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child who shall cause and/or allow such child to be employed or to participate in an obscene play, scene, act, movie or show or in any other acts covered by this section shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period. ARTICLE VI Other Acts of Abuse Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development.

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. (b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty. (c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over the minor. (d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to take along with him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a place or establishment. (e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other child to; (1) Beg or use begging as a means of living; (2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or (3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as

amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12) years age. The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. ARTICLE VII Sanctions for Establishments or Enterprises Section 11. Sanctions of Establishments or Enterprises which Promote, Facilitate, or Conduct Activities Constituting Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse, Child Trafficking, Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows, and Other Acts of Abuse . All establishments and enterprises which promote or facilitate child prostitution and other sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene publications and indecent shows, and other acts of abuse shall be immediately closed and their authority or license to operate cancelled, without prejudice to the owner or manager thereof being prosecuted under this Act and/or the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws. A sign with the words "off limits" shall be conspicuously displayed outside the establishments or enterprises by the Department of Social Welfare and Development for such period which shall not be less than one (1) year, as the Department may determine. The unauthorized removal of such sign shall be punishable by prision correccional. An establishment shall be deemed to promote or facilitate child prostitution and other sexual abuse, child trafficking, obscene publications and indecent shows, and other acts of abuse if the acts constituting the same occur in the premises of said establishment under this Act or in violation of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. An enterprise such as a sauna, travel agency, or recruitment agency which: promotes the aforementioned acts as part of a tour for foreign tourists; exhibits children in a lewd or indecent show; provides child masseurs for adults of the same or opposite sex and said services include any lascivious conduct with the customers; or solicits children or activities constituting the aforementioned acts shall be deemed to have committed the acts penalized herein. ARTICLE VIII Working Children Section 12. Employment of Children. Children below fifteen (15) years of age may be employed except:

(1) When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or legal guardian and where only members of the employer's family are employed: Provided, however, That his employment neither endangers his life, safety and health and morals, nor impairs his normal development: Provided, further, That the parent or legal guardian shall provide the said minor child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary education; or (2) When a child's employment or participation in public & entertainment or information through cinema, theater, radio or television is essential: Provided, The employment contract concluded by the child's parent or guardian, with the express agreement of the child concerned, if possible, and the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment: Provided, That the following requirements in all instances are strictly complied with: (a) The employer shall ensure the protection, health, safety and morals of the child; (b) the employer shall institute measures to prevent the child's exploitation or discrimination taking into account the system and level of remuneration, and the duration and arrangement of working time; and; (c) The employer shall formulate and implement, subject to the approval and supervision of competent authorities, a continuing program for training and skill acquisition of the child. In the above exceptional cases where any such child may be employed, the employer shall first secure, before engaging such child, a work permit from the Department of Labor and Employment which shall ensure observance of the above requirement. The Department of Labor Employment shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the effective implementation of this Section. Section 13. Non-formal Education for Working Children. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall promulgate a course design under its non-formal education program aimed at promoting the intellectual, moral and vocational efficiency of working children who have not undergone or finished elementary or secondary education. Such course design shall integrate the learning process deemed most effective under given circumstances. Section 14. Prohibition on the Employment of Children in Certain Advertisements. No person shall employ child models in all commercials or advertisements promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts and violence. Section 15. Duty of Employer. Every employer shall comply with the duties provided for in Articles 108 and 109 of Presidential Decree No. 603.

Section 16. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any provision of this Article shall suffer the penalty of a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000) but not more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) or imprisonment of not less than three (3) months but not more than three (3) years, or both at the discretion of the court; Provided, That, in case of repeated violations of the provisions of this Article, the offender's license to operate shall be revoked. ARTICLE IX Children of Indigenous Cultural Communities Section 17. Survival, Protection and Development. In addition to the rights guaranteed to children under this Act and other existing laws, children of indigenous cultural communities shall be entitled to protection, survival and development consistent with the customs and traditions of their respective communities. Section 18. System of and Access to Education. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall develop and institute an alternative system of education for children of indigenous cultural communities which culture-specific and relevant to the needs of and the existing situation in their communities. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall also accredit and support non-formal but functional indigenous educational programs conducted by non-government organizations in said communities. Section 19. Health and Nutrition. The delivery of basic social services in health and nutrition to children of indigenous cultural communities shall be given priority by all government agencies concerned. Hospitals and other health institution shall ensure that children of indigenous cultural communities are given equal attention. In the provision of health and nutrition services to children of indigenous cultural communities, indigenous health practices shall be respected and recognized. Section 20. Discrimination. Children of indigenous cultural communities shall not be subjected to any and all forms of discrimination. Any person who discriminate against children of indigenous cultural communities shall suffer a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) more than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000). Section 21. Participation. Indigenous cultural communities, through their dulydesignated or appointed representatives shall be involved in planning, decision-making implementation, and evaluation of all government programs affecting children of indigenous cultural communities. Indigenous institution shall also be recognized and respected. ARTICLE X Children in Situations of Armed Conflict

Section 22. Children as Zones of Peace. Children are hereby declared as Zones of Peace. It shall be the responsibility of the State and all other sectors concerned to resolve armed conflicts in order to promote the goal of children as zones of peace. To attain this objective, the following policies shall be observed. (a) Children shall not be the object of attack and shall be entitled to special respect. They shall be protected from any form of threat, assault, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; (b) Children shall not be recruited to become members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines of its civilian units or other armed groups, nor be allowed to take part in the fighting, or used as guides, couriers, or spies; (c) Delivery of basic social services such as education, primary health and emergency relief services shall be kept unhampered; (d) The safety and protection of those who provide services including those involved in fact-finding missions from both government and non-government institutions shall be ensured. They shall not be subjected to undue harassment in the performance of their work; (e) Public infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and rural health units shall not be utilized for military purposes such as command posts, barracks, detachments, and supply depots; and (f) All appropriate steps shall be taken to facilitate the reunion of families temporarily separated due to armed conflict. Section 23. Evacuation of Children During Armed Conflict. Children shall be given priority during evacuation as a result of armed conflict. Existing community organizations shall be tapped to look after the safety and well-being of children during evacuation operations. Measures shall be taken to ensure that children evacuated are accompanied by persons responsible for their safety and well-being. Section 24. Family Life and Temporary Shelter. Whenever possible, members of the same family shall be housed in the same premises and given separate accommodation from other evacuees and provided with facilities to lead a normal family life. In places of temporary shelter, expectant and nursing mothers and children shall be given additional food in proportion to their physiological needs. Whenever feasible, children shall be given opportunities for physical exercise, sports and outdoor games. Section 25. Rights of Children Arrested for Reasons Related to Armed Conflict. Any child who has been arrested for reasons related to armed conflict, either as combatant, courier, guide or spy is entitled to the following rights;

(a) Separate detention from adults except where families are accommodated as family units; (b) Immediate free legal assistance; (c) Immediate notice of such arrest to the parents or guardians of the child; and (d) Release of the child on recognizance within twenty-four (24) hours to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or any responsible member of the community as determined by the court. If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings the court should find that the aforesaid child committed the acts charged against him, the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such child to the custody or care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or to any training institution operated by the Government, or duly-licensed agencies or any other responsible person, until he has had reached eighteen (18) years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or the agency or responsible individual under whose care he has been committed. The aforesaid child shall subject to visitation and supervision by a representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or any duly-licensed agency or such other officer as the court may designate subject to such conditions as it may prescribe. The aforesaid child whose sentence is suspended can appeal from the order of the court in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases. Section 26. Monitoring and Reporting of Children in Situations of Armed Conflict . The chairman of the barangay affected by the armed conflict shall submit the names of children residing in said barangay to the municipal social welfare and development officer within twenty-four (24) hours from the occurrence of the armed conflict. ARTICLE XI Remedial Procedures Section 27. Who May File a Complaint. Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed against the children as enumerated herein may be filed by the following: (a) Offended party;

(b) Parents or guardians; (c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;1awphi1@ITC (d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution; (e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development; (f) Barangay chairman; or (g) At least three (3) concerned responsible citizens where the violation occurred. Section 28. Protective Custody of the Child. The offended party shall be immediately placed under the protective custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development pursuant to Executive Order No. 56, series of 1986. In the regular performance of this function, the officer of the Department of Social Welfare and Development shall be free from any administrative, civil or criminal liability. Custody proceedings shall be in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 603. Section 29. Confidentiality. At the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case. It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio broadcasting, producer and director of the film in case of the movie industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of the offended party.Lawphi1@alf Section 30. Special Court Proceedings. Cases involving violations of this Act shall be heard in the chambers of the judge of the Regional Trial Court duly designated as Juvenile and Domestic Court. Any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding and with the exception of habeas corpus, election cases, and cases involving detention prisoners and persons covered by Republic Act No. 4908, all courts shall give preference to the hearing or disposition of cases involving violations of this Act. ARTICLE XII Common Penal Provisions

Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. (a) The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in its maximum period if the offender has been previously convicted under this Act; (b) When the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officer or employee thereof who is responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the penalty imposed in its maximum period; (c) The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked; (d) When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported immediately after service of sentence and forever barred from entry to the country; (e) The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its maximum period if the offender is a public officer or employee: Provided, however, That if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal, then the penalty of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification shall also be imposed: Provided, finally, That if the penalty imposed is prision correccional or arresto mayor, the penalty of suspension shall also be imposed; and (f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense. ARTICLE XIII Final Provisions Section 32. Rules and Regulations. Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the Department of Justice, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development, shall promulgate rules and regulations of the effective implementation of this Act. Such rules and regulations shall take effect upon their publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Section 33. Appropriations. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act is hereby authorized to be appropriated in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law and thereafter.

Section 34. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall continue in full force and effect. Section 35. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, or rules inconsistent with the provisions of this Acts are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 36. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect upon completion of its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Emancipation and Age of Majority Republic Act No. 6809 December 13, 1989

AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY FROM TWENTY-ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED NINE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen years." Section 2. Articles 235 and 237 of the same Code are hereby repealed. Section 3. Article 236 of the same Code is also hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases. "Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of twentyone. "Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-

one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code." Section 4. Upon the effectivity of this Act, existing wills, bequests, donations, grants, insurance policies and similar instruments containing references and provisions favorable to minors will not retroact to their prejudice. Section 5. This Act shall take effect upon completion of its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Use of Surnames EN BANC [G.R. No. L-18008. October 30, 1962.] ELISEA LAPERAL, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor. Martin B. Laurea and Associates, for petitioner. Solicitor General for oppositor.

1958, in Civil Case No. 356 of this Court, entitled 'Enrique B. Santamaria vs. Elisea L. Santamaria,' Mr. Enrique Santamaria was given a decree of legal separation from her; that the said partial decision is now final; "3.That during her marriage to Enrique B. Santamaria, she naturally used, instead of her maiden name, that of Elisea L. Santamaria; that aside from her legal separation from Enrique R. Santamaria, she has also ceased to live with him for many years now; "4.That in view of the fact that she has been legally separated from Mr. Enrique R. Santamaria and has likewise ceased to live with him for many years, it is desirable that she be allowed to change her name and/or be permitted to resume using her maiden name, to wit: ELISEA LAPERAL. "WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prayed that after the necessary proceedings are had, she be allowed to resume using her maiden name of Elisea Laperal." The petition was opposed by the City Attorney of Baguio on the ground that the same violates the provisions of Article 370 (should be 372) of the Civil Code, and that it is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. In its decision of October 31, 1960, the court denied the petition for the reason that Article 372 of the Civil Code requires the wife, even after she is decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using the name and surname she employed before the legal separation. Upon petitioner's motion, however, the court, treating the petition as one for change of name, reconsidered its decision and granted the petition on the ground that to allow petitioner, who is a businesswoman decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. Hence, this appeal by the State. The contention of the Republic finds support in the provisions of Article 372 of the New Civil Code which reads:. "ART. 372.When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation". (Emphasis supplied) Note that the language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has been decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. This is so because her married status is unaffected by

SYLLABUS 1.CHANGE OF NAME; LEGAL SEPARATION ALONE NOT GROUND FOR WIFE'S CHANGE OF NAME; MANDATORY LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 372, NEW CIVIL CODE. A woman's married status is not affected by a decree of legal separation, there being no severance of the vinculum, and under Article 372 of the New Civil Code, she must continue using the name and surname employed by her before the separation. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICABILITY OF RULE 103, RULES OF COURT, DOUBTFUL. It is doubtful whether Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which refers to change of name in general, may prevail over the specific provisions of Article 372 of the New Civil Code with regard to married women legally separated from their husbands. Even, however, applying Rule 103, the fact of legal separation alone is not sufficient ground to justify a change of name, because to hold otherwise, would be to provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of said Article 372.

DECISION

BARRERA, J p: On May 10, 1960, Elisea Laperal filed in the Court of First Instance of Baguio (Sp. Proc. No. 433) a petition which reads: "1.That petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the City of Baguio for the last three years prior to the date of the filing of this petition; "2.That petitioner's maiden name is ELISEA LAPERAL; that on March 24, 1939, she married Mr. Enrique B. Santamaria; that in a partial decision entered on this Honorable Court on January 18,

the separation, there being no severance of the vinculum. It seems to be the policy of the law that the wife should continue to use the name indicative of her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned. The appellee contends, however, that the petition is substantially for change of her name from Elisea L. Santamaria, the one she has been using, since her marriage, to Elisea Laperal, her maiden name, giving as reason or cause therefor her being legally separated from the husband, Enrique R. Santamaria, and the fact that they have ceased to live together for many years. There seems to be no dispute that in the institution of these proceedings, the procedure prescribed in Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for change of name has been observed. But from the petition quoted in full at the beginning of this opinion, the only reason relied upon for the change of name is the fact that petitioner is legally separated from her husband and has, in fact, ceased to live with him for many years. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Rule 103 which refers to change of name in general, may prevail over the specific provisions of Article 372 of the New Civil Code with regards to married women legally separated from their husbands. Even, however, applying Rule 103 to this case, the fact of legal separation alone which is the only basis for the petition at bar is, in our opinion, not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of herein petitioner, for to hold otherwise would be to provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of the said Article 372. It is true that in the second decision which reconsidered the first it is stated that as petitioner owns extensive business interests, the continued use of her husband's surname may cause undue confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. This finding is however without basis. In the first place, these were not the causes upon which the petition was based; hence, obviously no evidence to this effect had been adduced. Secondly, with the issuance of the decree of legal separation in 1958, the conjugal partnership between petitioner and her husband had automatically been dissolved and liquidated. (Art. 106[2], Civil Code.) Consequently, there could be no more occasion for an eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court of December 1, 1960, granting the petition, is hereby set aside and the petition dismissed. Without costs. So ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. L-32054. May 15, 1974.] TERESITA LLANETA (known also as TERESITA LLANETA FERRER and TERESITA FERRER), petitioner, vs. The Honorable CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, respondent. Pascual G. Mier for petitioner. Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor General Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Trial Attorney Quirino B. Maglente, Jr. for respondent. DECISION CASTRO, J p: From the denial by the respondent Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, in its special proceeding H-00237, of her petition for change of name, Teresita Llaneta has come to this Court on appeal by certiorari. Teresita's mother, one Atanacia Llaneta, was once married to Serafin Ferrer with whom she had but one child named Victoriano Ferrer. In 1942 Serafin Ferrer died, and about four years later Atanacia had relations with another man out of which Teresita was born. Shortly after Teresita's birth, Atanacia brought her and Victoriano to Manila where all of them lived with Atanacia's mother-in-law, Victoria vda. de Ferrer. Teresita was raised in the household of the Ferrers, using the surname of Ferrer in all her dealings and throughout her schooling. When she was about twenty years old, she applied for a copy of her birth certificate in Irosin, Sorsogon, where she was born, as she was required to present it in connection with a scholarship granted to her by the Catholic Charities. It was then that she discovered that her registered surname is Llaneta not Ferrer and that she is the illegitimate child of Atanacia and an unknown father. On the ground that her use thenceforth of the surname Llaneta, instead of Ferrer which she had been using since she acquired reason, would cause untold difficulties and confusion, Teresita petitioned the court below on March 18, 1969 for change of her name from Teresita Llaneta to Teresita Llaneta Ferrer. After trial duly had, the respondent judge denied her petition; hence the present recourse. The petitioner has established that she has been using the surname Ferrer for as long as she can remember; that all her records, in school and elsewhere, put her name down as Teresita Ferrer; that her friends and associates know her only as Teresita Ferrer; and that even the late Serafin Ferrer's nearest of kin (who apparently have kept Teresita's illegitimacy a secret from her) have tolerated and still approve of her use of the surname Ferrer. Indeed, a sudden shift at this time by the petitioner to the name Teresita Llaneta (in order to conform to that appearing in her birth certificate) would result in confusion among the persons and entities she deals with and entail endless and vexatious explanations of the circumstances of her new surname. 1 In her official

dealings, this would likewise mean a lifelong fending with the necessary affidavits. Moreover, it is a salutary law that would allow Teresita, inspite of her illegitimate birth, to carry on in society without her unfortunate status being bandied about at every turn. 2 The respondent court places reliance on the doctrine, expounded in three decisions of this Court, 3 that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship. The principle remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in general. In the case at bar, however, the late Serafin Ferrer's widowed mother, Victoria, and his two remaining brothers, Nehemias and Ruben, have come forward in earnest support of the petition. Adequate publication of the proceeding has not elicited the slightest opposition from the relatives and friends of the late Serafin Ferrer. Clearances from various Government agencies show that Teresita has a spotless record. And the State (represented by the Solicitor General's Office), which has an interest in the name borne by every citizen within its realm for purposes of identification, interposed no opposition at the trial after a searching cross-examination, of Teresita and her witnesses. Whether the late Serafin Ferrer, who died some five years before Teresita was born, would have consented or objected to her use of his surname is open to speculation. One thing, however, is beyond cavil: those living who possess the right of action to prevent the surname Ferrer from being smeared are proud to share it with her. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and the petition of Teresita Llaneta for change of her name to Teresita Llaneta Ferrer is hereby granted. Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the civil registrar of Irosin, Sorsogon, for his information and proper action. No costs. Makalintal, C.J., Teehankee, Esguerra and Muoz Palma, JJ., concur. Makasiar, J., is on leave.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 166676. September 12, 2008.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, respondent.

DECISION

General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondent's condition is known as CAH. He explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs female and male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondent's uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that respondent's condition is permanent and recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her. The RTC granted respondent's petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005 which reads: The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the Court very clear and convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically proven that petitioner's body produces male hormones, and first his body as well as his action and feelings are that of a male. He has chosen to be male. He is a normal person and wants to be acknowledged and identified as a male. DHSEcI WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is hereby ordered to make the following corrections in the birth [c]ertificate of Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees: a) By changing the name from Jennifer Cagandahan to JEFF CAGANDAHAN; and b) By changing the gender from female to MALE. It is likewise ordered that petitioner's school records, voter's registry, baptismal certificate, and other pertinent records are hereby amended to conform with the foregoing corrected data. SO ORDERED. 3 Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling. The issues raised by petitioner are:

QUISUMBING, J p: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely questions of law and seeking a reversal of the Decision 1 dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which granted the Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate filed by Jennifer B. Cagandahan and ordered the following changes of entries in Cagandahan's birth certificate: (1) the name "Jennifer Cagandahan" changed to "Jeff Cagandahan" and (2) gender from "female" to "male". The facts are as follows. On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate 2 before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna. In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. cHaCAS The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the court. The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to appear in his behalf. To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION CONSIDERING THAT: I. THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 103 AND 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND, II. CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108 DOES NOT ALLOW CHANGE OF "SEX" OR "GENDER" IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHILE RESPONDENT'S MEDICAL CONDITION, i.e., CONGENITAL ADRENAL HYPERPLASIA DOES NOT MAKE HER A "MALE". 4 Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff", under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. DHECac The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the local civil registrar is an indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, respondent's petition before the court a quo did not implead the local civil registrar. 5 The OSG further contends respondent's petition is fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fideresident of the province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing as mandated under Section 2 (b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 6 The OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and respondent's claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male. 7 On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil, Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for Correction of Birth Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the Petition, the Order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings, 8 respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be corrected to reflect his true sex/gender, 9change of sex or gender is allowed under Rule 108, 10 and respondent substantially complied with the requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. 11 ICTacD Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:

Rule 103 CHANGE OF NAME SEC. 1. Venue. A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court]. SEC. 2. Contents of petition. A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth: (a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing; (b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought; (c) The name asked for. Sec. 3. Order for hearing. If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice. SEC. 4. Hearing. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic. SEC. 5. Judgment. Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition. AcISTE

SEC. 6. Service of judgment. Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register. Rule 108 CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY SEC. 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. TcHEaI SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. AaHTIE SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. The court in which the proceedings is brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. SEC. 7. Order. After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record. The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondent's petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceedings. Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had. 12 Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the rules. 13 The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the civil registrar and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby. 14 Respondent, however, invokes Section 6, 15 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it. We agree that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar. The determination of a person's sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. Together with Article 376 16 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic Act No. 9048 17 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 18 DAEIHT

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of

Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. 19 The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code: ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name. The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth. 20 Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or "inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces too much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal structures of the female reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH. DcIHSa CAH is one of many conditions 21 that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female. 22 The term is now of widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes." Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female gender role. 23 Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically

modified to resemble either male or female genitals. 24 More commonly, an intersex individual is considered as suffering from a "disorder" which is almost always recommended to be treated, whether by surgery and/or by taking lifetime medication in order to mold the individual as neatly as possible into the category of either male or female. In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. "It has been suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a 'no-man's land' for those individuals who are neither truly 'male' nor truly 'female'." 25 The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subject's birth certificate entry is in order. IaSAHC Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondent's body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male. Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, 26 to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent's development to reveal more fully his male characteristics. TCacIE In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one's sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency

due to CAH. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an "incompetent" 27 and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent's position and his personal judgment of being a male.

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondent's congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case. As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. 28 The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male. WHEREFORE, the Republic's petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. TcSHaD SO ORDERED. Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.