Petitioner Amadea contends that she be considered as a legitimate child of Arturo

Aquino since she had always been in an open and continuous possession of the status as a
descendant and heir of the decedent Miguel and that Article 992 of the Civil Code cannot serve
to bar her from inheriting from her grandfather as the presumed animosity underlying the
provision is lacking in the instant case.

Hence, the issues that are needed to be resolved are: (1) Whether or not petitioner
Amadea is an illegitimate child of Arturo Aquino; and (2) Whether an illegitimate grandchild can
represent a legitimate child and inherit from her grandfather.

I. Petitioner is not an illegitimate child of Arturo and definitely not a legitimated

child.

On the first issue, petitioner shall not be considered as an illegitimate child of Arturo
since she failed to establish her filiation with him.

In the instant case, the petitioner failed to present any evidences provided under the
first paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code. She points this failure towards the untimely
demise of Arturo before she was even born. Contending that it is “unreasonable, illogical, and
even absurd to require Amadea to produce a public document or private handwritten
instrument "signed by the parent concerned" for a dead man cannot plausibly sign a document
to prove the filiation of his child.”

Consequently, she establishes her filiation through an open and continuous possession
of a legitimate child as provided in the second paragraph of the same provision.

To support this claim, petitioner presented as evidences are that (1) petitioner and her
mother lived in the Aquino ancestral house where she is still presently residing, (2) her father’s
brother, Abdulah, stood as her godfather when she was baptized, (3) her grandfather, Miguel,
paid for her education from kindergarten to college and that on his deathbed, Miguel also
instructed the distribution of the more valuable assets in his estate and specified that the lot in
front of the LTA Building be given to Amada.

Petitioner argues that the respondents nor any from the Aquino clan did not deny these
claims. But the petitioner should have grasped by now that the respondents has been opposing
the claims of petitioner when she filed Motion to be Included in the Distribution and Partition
of Estate.
 Moreover, these evidences should not be considered as conclusive to establish her
filiation with Arturo. As held in the case of Casimiro Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme
Court states that:

“To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an

illegitimate child," it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential
requirements. "Continuous" does not mean that the concession of
status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an
intermittent character while it continues. The possession of such status
means that the father has treated the child as his own, directly and not
through others, spontaneously and without concealment though
without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate). There must be a
showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to
consider the child as his own, by continuous and clear manifestation of
paternal affection and care.” (Emphasis supplied)

But under the present circumstances, it would be implausible for the petitioner to
obtain such recognition directly from Arturo because of his untimely departure before she was
even born. However, this should not prohibit petitioner from obtaining such recognition. As
cited by respondent Abdullah in his comment:

"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 action for recognition."
(Bernabe vs. Alejo)

With that in mind, petitioner should have brought an action within four years from
attaining majority age. But she failed to do so.

II. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner is in fact an illegitimate child of Arturo,
she is still disqualified to inherit from her “grandfather” Miguel

Under Article 992 of the Civil Code, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
 This provision provides barrier between the legitimate family from the illegitimate
family. The rationale for this rule is that it presumes the existence of antagonism between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate relatives of his parents.

Hence, despite her claim that she is an illegitimate child of Arturo, the petitioner is still
barred from inheriting from the intestate estate of her supposed to be grandfather.

This is what the Supreme Court did in the case of Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals where
they held that a great grandson cannot inherit by right of representation if he is illegitimate.

“…even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still he

cannot, by right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the
deceased Francisca Reyes considering that, as found again by the Court of
Appeals, he was born outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he
was born on September 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and mother
were not yet married, and what is more, his alleged father's first marriage
was still subsisting. At most, petitioner would be an illegitimate child who
has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes.”

It should also be noted that this provision is not discriminatory on the part of an
illegitimate child. For example, if we presume that Amadea is an illegitimate child of Arturo and
she died intestate, Rodolfo and Abdullah are also barred from having a claim to her intestate
because of Article 992.

Therefore, what we can only do for now is to apply what the law says. The law may be
harsh but that is the law. Dura lex sex lex.