CONCEPCION VS ALMONTE G.R. NO. 123450 Aug.

31, 2005
FACTS:
Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte marry each other and born of a child named Jose
Gerardo. They lived in Fairview, Quezon City. But then Ma. Theresa did not deny the fact that she was
married with one Mario Gopiao who lived at Loyola Heights, Quezon City.
Now Gerardo instituted an action to annul their void marriage. Which the court granted being the first
marriage of Ma. Theresa is valid and subsisting. Then their son was placed under the custody of his
mother Ma. Theresa and Gerardo were granted a visitorial right every Sunday to his son. However Ma.
Theresa rebutted on the said decision of the court. She avers that since they are not legally married
he has no right over the child and that the surname of the same shall be her surname which is
Almonte, since Jose Gerardo was now an illegitimate child. It is but just that he will her surname due
to his status of illegitimacy. The court denied the matter.
Ma. Theresa requested for oral argument and that it reached the CA til SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jose Gerardo is the son of Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa.
HELD:
The law specifically denies the claim of Gerardo that Jose Gerardo is his son with Ma. Theresa. It has
been held however that the child was the legitimate son of the first marriage of Ma. Theresa to Mario.
They lived on the same city and never did she avers in her statements that being husband and wife
they never had sexual intercourse which is presumed.
The law seeks to protect the best interest of the child. It is not the parents who shall declare their
sons or daughters status of legitimacy or illegitimacy. It is the law.
As a legitimate child, Jose Gerardo shall have the right to bear the surnames of his father Mario and
mother Ma. Theresa, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on surnames.50 A persons
surname or family name identifies the family to which he belongs and is passed on from parent to
child. Hence, Gerardo cannot impose his surname on Jose Gerardo who is, in the eyes of the law, not
related to him in any way.

DACASIN VS DACASIN FEBRUARY 05, 2010

This ignores the legislative basis that "[n]o man can sound the deep sorrows of a mother who is
deprived of her child of tender age."