Case 370: Uyguangco vs CA

Topic: Illegitimate Children

FACTS: Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his wife, four legitimate children and properties which they
divided among themselves. Graciano Uyguangco filed a complaint for partition against the petitioners, claiming that as
the illegitimate son of the deceased and a Anastacia Bacjao, he must not be left out of the extrajudicial settlement of
the estate. He also claims that he received support from his father while in high school and was also assigned by his
father as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Graciano could not prove his alleged filiation having none of
the documents required in Art. 278 of the NCC (i.e. record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or in any
authentic writing. Neither may he resort to Art. 285 of the NCC because he was already an adult when his alleged dad
died.

Graciano insists however, that he is ―in continuous possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by the direct
acts of the latter or of his family‖ as is under Art. 283 of the NCC.

ISSUE: WON Graciano may adequately prove filiation.

HELD: NO

RATIO: The Civil Code provisions they invoke have been superseded or at least modified by the corresponding articles n
the FC. Since illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence
as legitimate children (Art 175), Graciano may establish his filiation by the means given in Art. 172. Thus while he has no
record of birth appearing in the civil registrar or a final judgment or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, he insists that he has nevertheless
been ―in an open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,‖ which is admissible as evidence of
filiation under Art. 172.

As proof to this open and continuous possession—he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, received
support from him, used the name Uyguangco without objection, a special power of attorney executed in his favor by
Apolinario‘s wife, and another one by Suplcio Uyguangco, shared in the profits of the copra family business of the
Uyguangco‘s and was even given a share in his deceased father‘s estate as found in the addendum to the original
extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners.

However, since his father has already died, his action is now barred as Art. 172 specifically requires that when the
action is based on other proofs of filiation such as open and continuous possession, the action must be brought during
the lifetime of the alleged parent.