RA 9255: Allowing illegitimate children to use the surname of their father, amending Art 176 if the  The person

The person in charge at the hospital refused to put Calasan as the child’s surname. Hence,
FC  Atty. Calasan submitted the birth cert to the LCR for registration 
 LCR denied the registration, citing Circular #4 of the Civil Registrar General, which provides
Rights of illegitimate child that Art 176 of the FC states that illegitimate children born on or after August 3, 1988, shall
 use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother  use the surname of their mother
 be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.   Atty. Calasan filed a petition for mandamus to compel the LCR to register the birth cert of his
 However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father  illegitimate child, Jonathan 
o if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of RTC: denied his petition 
birth appearing in the civil register CA: affirmed RTC’s decision 
o or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is
made by the father.  ISSUE: W/N mandamus lies to compel the LCR to register a certificate of live birth of an illegitimate
o Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to child using the alleged father's surname where the latter admitted paternity
prove non-filiation during his lifetime. 
 The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate RULING: NO  
child  Art 176 provides that "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
Took effect: April 7, 2016  Code." 
 This is the rule regardless of whether or not the father admits paternity . 
Coverage:   Hence, the LCR correctly refused to register the certificate of live birth of petitioner's
 all illegitimate children born during the effectivity of RA 9255 (born on or after March 19, illegitimate child using the surname of the alleged father, even with the latter's consent. 
2004  Although married, Atty. Calasan may legally adopt his own illegitimate child. 
 includes all unregistered births and registered births under the surname of the mother o Only then will the child be entitled to use his surname since he is already considered
 Illegitimate children born on august 3, 1988 to march 18, 2004 may still be acknowledged by legitimate via adoption 
the father   FC has effectively repealed the provisions of Art 366 of the CC, giving a natural child
o through an Affidavit of Admission of paternity  acknowledged by both parents the right to use the surname of the father. 
o or private handwritten instrument  o FC has limited the classification of children to legitimate and illegitimate, thereby
o but cannot use the surname of the father under RA 9255 eliminating the category of acknowledged natural children and natural children by
o However, a petition in court may be filed in order the child can use the surname of legal fiction.
his father  Mandamus will also not lie and compel the LCR, even with Calasan’s consent since it is an act
prohibited by law 

Republic v Gerson Abadilla et al 

Surname  FACTS: 
 Gerson Abadilla and Luzviminda Celestino have been living together as husband and wife
Marissa Mossessgeld v CA and Civil Registrar General  without the benefit of marriage 
FACTS:   During this period, Luz begot 2 children, Emerson and Rafael 
 In Dec 1989, Marissa Mossessgeld (single) gave birth to a baby in a hospital. The presumed  Under their birth certs, they were registered with the surname, Abadilla, and the father’s
father is a certain Atty. Eleazar Siriban Calasan (married)  name was entered as Herson Abadilla. The date and place of their parents’ marriage was also
 Atty. Calasan signed the birth cert of the child as the informant, indicating the child’s first entered as June 19, 1987 at Dinagras, Ilocos Norte
name as Jonathan, middle name as Mossessgeld and last name as Calasan   The family then filed a petition for the correction of their birth certs. 
 Both Marissa and Atty. Calasan accomplished the dorsal side of the cert stating that the o Basically delete the date and place of the wedding 
above information were true and correct. Calasan also executed an affidavit admitting the o Change the from Herson to Gerson
paternity of the child RTC: granted the petition 
OSG intervened, alleging that the RTC committed a reversible error when it didn’t order the change
the children’s surname from Abadilla to Celestino RULING: NO
 As in Art 176 of the FC and in Mossesgeld v CA, illegitimate children SHALL use the mom’s
ISSUE: W/N the RTC committed an error when it didn’t order the change of the children’s surname surname and be under her parental authority REGARDLESS of w/n the father admits
from Abadilla to Celestino  paternity 
 SC also ruled that Art 176 of the FC effectively repealed Title 13, Book 1 of the NCC re: use of
RULING: Yes  Surnames 
 Emerson and Rafael Abadilla are considered as illegitimate children since their parents,  Thus, Art 366 of CC which gives the natural child acknowledged by both parents the right to
Spouses Abadilla are not married to each other  use the surname of the father, repealed by the FC
 During the children’s birth, FC was already the governing law. Under Art 176 of the said o FC has limited the classification of children to legitimate, and illegitimate, thereby
code, it provides that “illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the eliminating the category of acknowledged natural children and natural children by
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this legal fiction
Code. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one half of the legitime of a  Since petitioner was born an illegitimate child after the Family Code took effect, she has no
legitimate child. right to use her father's surname
 Thus, as illegitimate children, Emerson and Rafael should bear the surname of their mother,
Luzviminda Celestino. 
Custody 
Ann Brigitt Leonardo, as represented by her parents, Spouses Fernandez v CA  Grace Grande v Patricio Antonio 
FACTS:  FACTS: 
 Born in 1996, Ann Brigitt Leonardo is the daughter of common-law spouses, Eddie Fernandez  Grace and Patricio had an illicit relationship since Patricio was already married to someone
and Gloria Leonardo  else. 
 In her birth cert, she carried the surname of her mom which is Leonardo  Out of this, two sons were born: Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick
 Spouses Fernandez wanted to change their daughter’s surname into her fathers. Requested  The children were not expressly recognized by Patricio as shown in the Records of Birth of
to the following:  the LCR 
o LCR- LCR denied since Ann is an illegitimate child and as in Art 176 of FC, illegitimate  However, Grace and Patricio’s relationship turned sour and they eventually split up. Grace
children use mom’s surname. Moreover, they can only change entries if there is a decided to go the US, taking the two children with her 
judicial decree   Patricio then filed a petition for judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take Parental
o Civil Registrar General- denied it since they don’t have the power to make Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and for the
administrative changes in the civil registry  Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC, appending a notarized Deed of
o NEDA- refused it since they lack the authority or power to review the decisions of Voluntary Recognition of Paternity of the children
Civil Registrar General  RTC: in favor of Patricio. Gave him custody of the children considering the best interests of the
o Pres’ Office- denied. Must first go to court children 
 Finally, case reached the CA Grace filed an appeal to the CA, praying to reverse the RTC’s decision.
CA: appeal was partly granted 
CA:  Gave Grace the custody over the minor children since she cannot be deprived of her sole
 NCC was not repealed by the FC custody absent compelling reasons 
 However, LCR is not allowed to administratively correct the entry in the Civil Registry of the o Patricio failed to prove that Grace is unfit to raise them
City by deleting and changing petitioner's family name LEONARDO to FERNANDEZ upon the  However, children are compelled to use Antonio’s surname as a result of his willingness to
submission of an affidavit of her father recognizing her.  support them and of his acknowledgement of them 
 Ann Leonardo COULD CHANGE HER SURNAME BY JUDICIAL ACTION  Gave Patricio visitation rights

ISSUE: W/N an illegitimate child born after the effectivity of the FC has the right to use her father’s ISSUE: W/N illegitimate children are compelled to use their father’s name upon his recognition of
surname  their filiation 
  Thus, they want to drop the middle name in Julian’s name since parents feared that he may
RULING: NO  be discriminated against
 GR: an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her mother.  o In SG, maiden or middle names are not carried over 
 XPN (provided by RA 9225): illegitimate children MAY use the father’s surname if his or her o Carulasan sounds funny in Mandarin since they pronounce R as L 
filiation is expressly recognized by the father through o Wang Mei and Julian might wonder why they are siblings since they have different
o record of birth appearing in the civil register surnames 
o or an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by RTC: denied the petition 
the father.   Reason didn’t fall within the grounds prescribed by law 
o In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname of the father.  RTC ruled that names can’t be changed to suit the convenience of its bearers 
 IN THIS CASE, Patricio filed a petition for judicial approval of recognition of the filiation of the  Furthermore, legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of both mother and
two children to change the children’s surname to Antonio  father. There is no reason to take away that right 
o However, he wanted more. Wanted a judicial conferment of parental authority, OSG sided with the RTC 
custody and an official declaration of the children’s surname as Antonio 
 Art 176 of the FC grants parental authority and custody to the mother over the minor ISSUE: W/N Julian Wang can drop his middle name 
children, unless she is shown to be unfit.  
 HOWEVER, the court cannot order the children to change their surname  RULING: No
o Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the  To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or
surname of their father or not.  compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and
o It is not the father or the mother who is granted by law the right to dictate the official name
surname of their illegitimate children.  IN THIS CASE, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is
o The use of the word "may" in the provision readily shows that an acknowledged convenience. 
illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use the surname of his illegitimate o However, how such change of name would make his integration into Singaporean
father.  society easier and convenient is not clearly established. 
o The word "may" is permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the o That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty
illegitimate children does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered
 The yardstick by which policies affecting children are to be measured is their best interest complete name
 Moreover, PH laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children
SC also struck down Rules 7 and 8 in the IRR of RA 9225 since these provisions used the word “shall”, shall principally use the surname of the father. 
indicating the mandatory use by the illegitimate father’s surname  o FC gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the
 Hence, the clear unambiguous, and unequivocal use of "may" in Art. 176 rendering the use mother, while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless
of an illegitimate father's surname discretionary controls, and illegitimate children are given their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the father's
the choice on the surnames by which they will be known surname. 
 In application, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only
Illegitimate child has no middle name; exceptions  a given name and his mother's surname, and does not have a middle name. 
 XPN: It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his
In re Petition for Change of Name of Julian Wang v Cebu City Civil Registrar  parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten
FACTS:  instrument 
 Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born to Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then
not yet married to each other  In the matter of the adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia Honorato Catindig, petitioner 
 When his parents got married in 1998, they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so FACTS: 
his name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang 
 Parents planned to stay in SG and let Julian and his sister, Wang Mei Jasmine study there  
  This was omitted when the FC took effect. In FC, action for recognition should be during the
LIFETIME OF THE PARENT. However, W/N FC retroacts depends on w/n there are vested
Period to prove filiation  rights that stand to be impaired 
Uyguanco v CA - done  Art 285 of the CC is a substantive law , as it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for
recognition within 4 years from attaining majority age. 
Ernestina Bernabe v Carolina Alejo   Therefore, FC cannot impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, because
FACTS:  that right had already vested prior to its enactment
 Late Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary for 23 years, Carolina  illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the FC took effect and whose putative
Alejo. The son was born on Sept 18, 1981 and was named Adrian  parent died during their minority are thus given the right to seek recognition (under Article
 Fiscal Bernabe died on Aug 13, 1993 with his wife, Rosalina dying shortly after on Dec. 3, 285 of the Civil Code) for a period of up to four years from attaining majority age. This vested
1993. Ernestina Bernabe became the sole surviving heir  right was not impaired or taken away by the passage of the Family Code
 Alejo, in behalf of Adrian filed a complaint praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged  SC’s overriding consideration is to protect the vested rights of minors who could not have
illegitimate child of Fiscal Bernabe so that he will be given a share of the Fiscal’s estate  filed suit, on their own, during the lifetime of their putative parents. 
o the State as parens patriae should protect a minor's right. 
RTC: dismissed complaint   Born in 1981, Adrian was only 7 years old when the FC took effect and only 12 when his
 Death of putative father has already barred the action as provided in Art 175 of the FC alleged father died in 1993. The minor must be given his day in court
 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 Alejandro Arado Heirs v Anacleto Alcoran and Elenette Sunjaco
him the opportunity to either affirm or deny the child's filiation FACTS: 
 Raymundo Alcoran was married to Joaquina Arado and they had a son, Nicolas Alcoran. 
CA: reversed RTC’s decision   Nicolas married Florencia Limpahan but they had no children. During their marriage, Nicolas
 Adrian should be allowed to prove that he was the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe  had an affair with Francisca Sarita who then gave birth to Anacleto Alcoran 
 Because the boy was born in 1981, his rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code ,  Anacleto then married Elenette Sunjaco 
which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child has  There were 10 properties in question: 8 lots belonged to Raymundo while 2 belonged to
attained the age of majority.  Joaquina as her paraphernal property 
 The subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away that right   Raymundo, Joaquina, Nicolas and Florencia died. 
o Florencia had 3 siblings
ISSUE: W/N Adrian's right to an action for recognition, which was granted by Article 285 of the Civil o Joaquina had 4 siblings, one of which had 6 children who begot their own children.
Code, had already vested prior to the enactment of the FC  When said sibling died, his heirs subbed him 
 Joaquina’s siblings and grandchildren filed a recovery of property and damages against
RULING: YES  Anacelto and Elenette 
 Article 285 of the Civil Code provides the period for filing an action for recognition as follows:
o “The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the Petitioner’s Arguments: 
lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:  When Raymundo died in 1939, his properties were inherited by Nicolas 
o (1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the o Reason: in CC, spouse could not inherit but only a share of the usufruct which was
latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of extinguished upon the death of the usufructuary 
his majority;  When Nicolas died, half of his properties were inherited by Florencia and mom Joaquina
o (2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of  However, Nicolas had an affair with Francisca and bore Anacleto. There is NO proof that
which nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the Nicolas acknowledged Anacleto during his lifetime. 
child.  Thus, being an illegitimate child, thus, he could not inherit from Nicolas 
o In this case, the action must be commenced within four years from the finding of  Joaquina’s will which Anacleto claism
the document."
Legitimated Children (Requisites) 
 o Child conceived or born out of a void marriage = illegitimate (it is the law that will
Maria Rosario De Santos v Hon. Adoracion Angeles and Conchita De Santos accord him of his rights) 
FACTS:  o Illegitimate child becomes legitimated when the parents got married, provided that
 Dr. Antonio de Santos married Sofia Bona and had a daughter, Maria Rosario de Santos  there were no legal impediments. Thus, they now enjoy the status of legitimate
 However, their relationship eventually turned sour. Dr. Santos fell in love with his fellow children 
doctor, Dr. Conchita Talag.   Legitimate and legitimated children are all entitled to the 3 rights: succession, surname and
 Dr. Santos sought a formal dissolution of his 1st marriage. He obtained a divorce decree in support. 
Nevada in 1949  However, a natural child by legal fiction CANNOT RISE BEYOND that to which an
 Dr. Santos and Dr. Talag then went to Tokyo where they got married. Both of them then acknowledged natural child is entitled 
cohabited since then and had 11 children   THUS, IT IS ERRONEOUS to conclude that the half-siblings can rise to the legitimate child’s
 Sofia then died in Guatemala on March 30, 1967. Less than a month later, both doctors went status by the fact of being legitimized for 2 reasons: 
to Tagaytay to get married under Ph laws.  o Are not natural children as contemplated by Art 269 of the CC
 On 1981, Dr. Antonio died intestate, leaving a sizeable estate. Conchita asked for the o Natural children by legal fiction CANNOT demand that they be legitimized simply
issuance of administrative letters in her favor re: husband’s estate. She alleged that the because it is one of the rights enjoyed by acknowledged natural children 
husband was survived by 12 heirs, herself and their children. RTC granted it  If natural children by legal fiction can be legitimated, it gives them the same status, rights
 Maria de Santos then intervened amid intestate proceedings. She alleged that Conchita’s and obligations given to legitimate children 
children were all illegitimate. Conchita later admitted that all of her children were born prior o This is prejudicial to the acknowledged natural children in terms of their rights
Sofia’s death  o IN THIS CASE, Maria’s shares to the estate will be reduced as the half-siblings are
RTC: ruled in favor of Conchita. Conchita’s children were all legitimated. Thus, Antonio’s heirs now considered 
consisted of Maria, Conchita and the other children  o Art 269 of the CC was done to discourage illicit relations 
 LEGITIMATION IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE that is awarded to natural children proper
ISSUE: W/N natural children by legal fiction can be legitimized  as defined in Art 269 of the CC
 THUS, MARIA DE SANTOS IS THE SOLE LEGITIMATE HEIR of Dr. Antonio 
RULING: NO
 Decided under the provisions of the CC since children were born prior to the FC  Ma. Blyth Abadilla v Judge Jose Tabiliran (admin case) 
 Art 269 of the CC provides that “only natural children can be legitimized. Children born FACTS: 
outside wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not  Abadilla charged Judge Tabiliran for gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are natural." unbecoming of a judge
o In other words, a child's parents should not have been disqualified to marry each  Judge allegedly cohabited and contracted marriage with Priscilla Baybayan during the
other at the time of conception for him to qualify as a "natural child. subsistence of his marriage with Teresita Banzuela. 
 However, Conchita’s children were conceived and born during the subsistence of Sofia and  Judge also misrepresented himself as single in the marriage contract and dispensed with the
Dr. Antonio’s marriage. Hence, another name was coined by the SC to classify these children. marriage contract by stating that he cohabited with Baybayan for 5 years 
SC called them “natural children by legal fiction”  Out of their union, there were 3 children. Said children are illegitimate; however, Judge
o Different to natural children proper (Art 269)  registered them as legitimate, reasoning that the delayed registration was due to the
o But vested the same right inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight 
o SC now decides if these rights include the right to be legitimated   Judge was also corrupt since he overcharged his rates, accepted bribes and prepared an
affidavit for a case filed in his sala 
ON RIGHTS 
 CC puts much emphasis on the classification of children vis-a-vis their parents as this RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
determines the rights they are entitled to under the law   Cohabitation with Baybayan was neither bigamous or immoral since he started living with
 Children’s status of legitimacy depends on the marriage between the parents  her AFTER 1st wife abandoned family home in 1996
o Child born within valid marriage = legitimate  Since then, Judge hasn’t heard from her and doesn’t know where she is 
o Child born outside of wedlock = illegitimate   Wife had disappeared for 25 years already when he married Baybayan 
  Invoked Jones v Horitguela wherein SC ruled that it is not necessary to have a former  Children were all born prior to their marriage in 1986. Hence, they are illegitimate.
spouses judicially declared as an absentee for purposes of civil  marriage  Despite their subsequent marriage, children CANNOT BE LEGITIMATED nor in any way be
 Baybayan also knew he was previously married  considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage
 Denied corruption charged  between Judge and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran
 Alleges that Abadilla only filed the complaint motivated by revenge and resentment since  As provided by both the CC and FC, legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot
Judge filed a case against her  include those born out of adulterous relationships 

RTC (?):   Judge was dismissed from service 

 Case was given to Judge Angeles who found Judge Tabiliran guilty of the corruption charge
 Marriage between him and Baybayan is VALID under Art 83 (2) of the Civil Code which,
although bigamous, remains valid until automatically terminated by the recording of the BBB v AAA 
affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse
 Not a misrepresentation since they submitted the joint affidavit to the solemnizing officer
 As to his children, their births happened before Judge Tabiliran and Baybayan got married.
This info was also disclosed in the joint affidavit 
 Moreover, Abadilla submission of an affidavit of Lydia Zanoria, the midwife during the
children’s births, cannot be considered as evidence since it was submitted after the
investigation. Abadilla also didn’t present Zanoria as witness, so no opportunity to cross-
examine her
 Basically, DID NOT PROVE that Judge Tabiliran acted with gross immorality and misconduct.
Only suspended for 3 months for the corruption 

ISSUE: W/N Judge Tabiliran should be removed from service 

RULING: YES
On validity of 2nd marriage 
 Judge had been cohabiting with Baybayan as early as 1970 as shown by the birth certs of his
children. Eldest Buenasol was born in 1970; Saturn in 1971 and Venus in 1975. 
 Judge admitted that 1st wife left in 1966. From that time until his cohabitation with
Baybayan in 1970, only 4 YEARS HAS PASSED. Art 390 of CC provides that the spouse should
be absent for 7 YEARS 
 Thus, Judge had been scandalously living with Baybayan even if 1st MARRIAGE WAS VALID
AND SUBSISTING. Judge clearly acted with gross immoral conduct as he made a mockery out
of marriage 
 As for their subsequent marriage in 1986, SC ruled that it is valid 
 Moreover, Judge lied when he said 1st wife disappeared and he has not heard from her since
then 
o There was a case between them in 1969 wherein the wife sued him for
abandonment of the family home and for living with another woman 
o Here, Judge only declared he had 2 children who are his children from the 1st
marriage. 

On the status of his children