453 Macadangdang v CA

Persons – Grounds: Physical Impossibility of Access

Court Supreme Court
Citation G.R. No. L-49542
Date 12 September 1980
Petitioner Antonio Macadangdang
Respondents The Honorable Court of Appeals & Elizabeth Mejias
Ponente Makasiar, J.
Relevant Topic Action to impugn legitimacy of a child (Articles 255 and 257 of the New Civil Code)
Prepared by Santos, Kriz

Case Summary
Mejias was a married woman. She alleged that she had an affair with Macadangdang and this was why she and her
husband separated. Seven months after the illicit encounter, she gave birth to a baby named Rolando. She wanted
Macadangdang to recognize and support Rolando. CA approved but SC reversed the decision because the testimony of
Mejias regarding the separation was self-serving. According to Article 255 of the New Civil Code, Rolando was
conclusively presumed to be the son of Mejias and her husband. To overthrow the presumption of legitimacy, it must be
shown beyond reasonable doubt that physical access between the husband and the wife was impossible because they
resided in different countries or provinces, etc. Mejias failed to overthrow this presumption.

FACTS (relevant only)

 Mejias was married to Anahaw. She had sex with Macadangdang in March 1967. This caused Anahaw and
Mejias to separate. On 30 October 1967 or seven months after the illicit encounter, Mejias gave birth to a baby
boy who was named Rolando Macadangdang.
 On 25 April 1972, Mejias filed a complaint for recognition and support against Macadangdang with the CFI of
Davao. The lower court dismissed the complaint.
 Mejias appealed before the CA. The CA reversed the ruling of the lower court. CA held that Rolando was the
illegitimate son of Macadangdang.

ISSUE (relevant only) HELD / RATIO

W/N Rolando is conclusively presumed the legitimate child of spouses Mejias and Anahaw. YES.
Rolando is presumed to be the legitimate child of the spouses, in accordance with Article 255 of the New Civil
Code. He was born seven months after Mejias and Macadangdang had sex. However, Rolando came out as a
normal full-term baby. Hence, said child is not of petitioner.

Moreover, to overthrow this presumption, there must be physical impossibility of access between the spouses in
the first 120 days of the 300 which preceded the birth of the child (period of conception). This physical impossibility
of access may be caused by:
1. Impotence of the husband;
2. Living separately in such a way that access was impossible; and
3. Serious illness of the husband.

Sexual access is impossible when spouses reside in different countries or provinces or the husband may be in
prison during the period of conception (unless sexual intercourse occurred through corrupt violation or allowed
by prison regulations).

Presumption of legitimacy also includes children born after the separation.

According to Article 257 of the New Civil Code, adultery on the part of the wife cannot destroy the presumption
of legitimacy of her child because it is still possible for the husband to be the father of the child. Also, in adultery
cases, only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. Because he is the one
directly confronted with the scandal produced by his wife’s infidelity, he has the right to decide whether to expose
the infidelity or conceal it. Hence, the mother has no right to disavow a child because maternity is always certain;
she can only contest the identity of the child.

RULING
CA decisions were reversed and set aside.