GAPUSAN-CHUA V.
CA natural daughter of Felisa Gapusan Parcon, instituted judicial
Rule 105 | 15 March 1990 | Narvasa
SUMMARY: Felisa Gapusan-Parcon (Felisa) died intestate, leaving behind
her surviving spouse Prospero Parcon (Prospero). A year and 8 mos later, a
certain Ligaya Gapusan-Chua (Ligaya), claiming to be Felisa’s
acknowledged natural daughter, instituted the settlement proceedings.
Prospero opposed her appointment as administrator allegedly because she
was never an acknowledged natural child of Felisa. To support her claim,
Ligaya presented authentic writings where Felisa recognized Ligaya as her
daughter in her own handwriting, among them, a sworn statement of assets
and liabilities, an application for GSIS insurance, and a GSIS insurance
check where Ligaya was given P500 as her share in Felisa’s death benefits.
The probate court appointed Ligaya as special, and later, regular
administrator. The CA reversed the probate court’s orders, finding that at
best Ligaya’s evidence merely gave basis for judicial recognition, which could
only be brought during the lifetime of the putative parent. The SC resolved in
favor of Ligaya, reinstating the orders of the probate court and affirming that
Ligaya is an acknowledged natural child of Felisa.
DOCTRINE: RULES RE: JUDICIAL APPROVAL IN ART. 278 & 281, NCC
 Judicial approval NOT necessary if recognition is voluntarily made:
o 1) of a person who is of age, only his consent being necessary
 Such consent may be express or implied; or
o 2) of a minor whose acknowledgment is effected in a record of
birth or in a will.
 Judicial approval IS NECESSARY if the recognition of the minor is
made through (a) a statement in a court of record or (b) an authentic
document.
 (NOTE: ART. 281 IS NOT REPRODUCED IN THE FAMILY CODE;
Hence, still applicable)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Parties Petitioner: Ligaya Gapusan-Chua
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Prospero Parcon
 April 6, 1966 – Felisa Gapusan Parcon (FELISA) died intestate and
without legitimate issue on April 6, 1966 in Bacolod City. Neither her
surviving spouse, Prospero Parcon (PROSPERO), nor her other known
relatives — three (3) sisters and a nephew — made any move to settle
her estate judicially.
o About a year and eight months after Felisa's demise, Ligaya
Gapusan-Chua (LIGAYA), claiming to be an acknowledged
proceedings for the settlement of Felisa’s estate
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
CFI of  January 15, 1968 – Ligaya filed a petition for settlement
Negros of the estate. She also sought her designation as
Occidental Special Administratrix pending her appointment as
regular administratrix.
o The next day, by an Order, the CFI appointed
Ligaya Special Administratrix of Felisa Parcon's
estate.
 April 22, 1968 – 3 months later, Prospero Parcon,
Felisa’s surviving husband, filed a motion for
reconsideration. He denied that Ligaya was an
acknowledged natural child of his deceased wife,
and applied for his own appointment as administrator.
 April 16, 1969 – The Probate Court found for Ligaya.
The CFI declared her the acknowledged natural child of
Felisa, and for being the next of kin, she was appointed
regular administratrix.
 The ff. evidence were presented at the hearing:
o LIGAYA:
 a) Felisa’s sworn statement of assets and
liabilities wherein Ligaya is named and
described as her daughter
 b) Felisa’s application for GSIS life
insurance in which Ligaya is set out as her
daughter
 c) GSIS Check No. 44046 (P505.50) paid
to Ligaya as her share in the death benefits
due the heirs of Felisa
 d) A family photograph, showing Ligaya
beside Felisa
o PROSPERO:
 a) Felisa's application for membership in
Negros Occidental Teachers' Federation
(NOTF), merely named Ligaya as her
"adopted daughter;"
 b) in the distribution of death benefits
pursuant to the Felisa’s GSIS insurance
policy, Ligaya was allocated only P500.00
whereas Prospero received P1,000.00;
 c) Leticia Papasin (Felisa's sister) and Vice-
Mayor Solomon Mendoza travelled from
afar to testify that Ligaya was not Felisa’s
daughter. In 1942 an unknown "drifter" had
sold Ligaya, then an infant, to Felisa.

Court of  April 13, 1977 – (1) SET ASIDE the Probate Court's
Appeals previous Orders appointing Ligaya as administratrix
and (2) APPOINTED PROSPERO regular
administrator of his wife's estate.
 In its view, the evidence at best showed merely that
Ligaya had been treated as a daughter by Felisa, but
that this did "not constitute acknowledgment" but "only
a ground to compel recognition;" and that Ligaya had
failed to establish that she had been acknowledged
by Felisa in accordance with Article 2781, NCC
Supreme  Felisa thus appealed to the SC
Court o She contends that the "authentic writings" in
contemplation of Art 278, NCC together with
her treatment as a daughter by Felisa eliminate
all doubt about the juridical verity of her
recognition.
 Prospero’s defense is that Ligaya’s evidence merely
furnished ground for her to compel recognition by
action which, however, should have been brought
during the lifetime of the putative parent in
accordance with Art 2852, NCC
ISSUES & RATIO:
1. Whether Felisa's "authentic writings" effectively operated as a
recognition of Ligaya as her natural child, even if no action for
judicial recognition was brought by the latter? – YES.
 2 KINDS OF RECOGNITION OF NATURAL FILIATION
1
Art. 278. Recognition shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before
a court of record, or in any authentic writing.
2
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.
o (A) VOLUNTARY3 – purely voluntary act of a parent; form is
prescribed by Art. 278 in the following documents: (1) record of
birth, (2) will, (3) statement before a court of record, or (4) in any
authentic writing
o (B) COMPULSORY (JUDICIAL) - recognition decreed by final
judgment of a competent court; governed by Arts 283 and 284,
and Article 285, NCC providing that generally, the action for
recognition of natural children may be brought only during the
lifetime of the presumed parents.
o Art 2814, NCC provides the rules when judicial approval is
necessary:
 Judicial approval NOT necessary if a recognition is
voluntarily made —
 1) of a person who is of age, only his consent
being necessary; or
 2) of a minor whose acknowledgment is effected
in a record of birth or in a will.
 Judicial approval IS NECESSARY if the recognition of
the minor is made through (a) a statement in a court of
record or (b) an authentic document.
 (NOTE: ART. 281 IS NOT REPRODUCED IN THE
FAMILY CODE; Hence, still applicable)
 What constitutes an “authentic writing” for purposes of voluntary
recognition: (Tolentino)
o (1) a genuine or indubitable writing of the father" (or mother),
including "a public instrument" (one acknowledged before a
notary public or other competent official), or
o (2) a public or official document in accordance with Rule 132
 APPLICATION TO THE CASE:
o Felisa presented “authentic writings” as her evidence. Thus, she
is invoking voluntary recognition. The acknowledgment was
made in authentic writings, and hence judicial approval thereof
was needed if the writings had been executed during
Ligaya's minority.
 In other words, the question of whether or not the
absence of judicial approval negated the effect of the
writings as a mode of recognition of Ligaya is
3
“an admission of the fact of paternity or maternity by the presumed parent … Its
essence lies in the avowal of the parent that the child is his; the formality is added to
make the admission incontestable, in view of its consequences." (Caguioa,
Comments and Cases on the Family Code)
4
Art. 281. A child who is of age cannot be recognized without his consent.
When the recognition of a minor does not take place in a record of birth or in a
will, judicial approval shall be necessary.
A minor can in any case impugn the recognition within four years following the
attainment of his majority.
 dependent upon the latter's age at the time the
writings were made.
o (1) The consent required by Art 281 may be express or
implied. By instituting the settlement proceedings herself when
she was of age, Ligaya EXPRESSLY consented to the
recognition.
 Assuming then that Ligaya was of age at the time of her
voluntary recognition, the evidence shows that she has
in fact consented thereto. Her consent to her recognition
is not only implicit from her failure to impugn it at any
time before her mother's death, but is made clearly
manifest and conclusive by her assertion of that
recognition in the judicial proceeding for the settlement
of her mother's estate as basis for her rights thereto.
 Assuming on the other hand, that she was a minor at the
time of her recognition, and therefore judicial approval of
the recognition was necessary, the absence thereof was
cured by her ratification of that recognition, after having
reached the age of majority, by her initiation of the
proceedings for the settlement of her deceased mother's
estate on the claim precisely that she was the
decedent's acknowledged natural daughter.
o (2) The lack, or insufficiency of such approval is NOT a defect
available to the recognizing parent but one which the minor
may raise or waive. The requirement of judicial approval
imposed by Article 281 is clearly intended for the benefit of the
minor.
 If after reaching majority the minor consents to the
acknowledgment, the lack of judicial approval should
make no difference. Implied consent to the
acknowledgment may be shown by such acts as
keeping, even after reaching the age of majority, the
acknowledgment papers and the use of the parent's
surname.
o (3) Upon the foregoing facts and considerations, Ligaya must be
held to be a voluntarily acknowledged natural child of Felisa.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals (Fourth
Division) dated April 13, 1977 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and
the Orders of the Probate Court dated January 16, 1968 — appointing Ligaya
Gapusan-Chua Special Administratrix — and of April 16, 1969 — declaring
said Ligaya Gapusan-Chua the decedent's acknowledged natural child and
appointing her regular administratrix — are REINSTATED AND HEREBY
AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.