ACTIONS REGARDING FILIATION

To claim filiation (legitimate/illegitimate)

Santos v. Republic, GR221277 (18March2021)

Short facts: Eduardo filed a petition for correction of entries and cancellation of
annotation in his certificate of live birth (COLB) praying that his records in the civil
registry be corrected to reflect his surname as "Santos" instead of "Cu," his
nationality as "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," his filiation as "illegitimate" instead
of "legitimate", and his mother's civil status as "single" instead of "married."

He was born in Manila on June 10, 1952 to his Chinese father, Nga Cu Lay, and
Filipino mother, Juana Santos, who were not legally married. His father purportedly
had a subsisting marriage to a Chinese woman in China.

RTC ruled in favor of Eduardo. CA partially reversed as the CA held that Eduardo is
hereby DECLARED to be a Filipino citizen, but his surname shall remain "Cu" and he
remains to be a legitimate child of his father, Nga Cu Lay.

Issue: The issue to be resolved in this case is whether Eduardo may impugn his
legitimate status and claim that he is a Filipino citizen through a petition for
correction of entries in his COLB filed under Rule 108 of the Rules.

Doctrine: In this case, Eduardo sought the correction of the following entries in his
COLB to reflect his surname as "Santos" instead of "Cu," his nationality as "Filipino"
instead of "Chinese," his filiation as "illegitimate" instead of "legitimate," and his
mother's civil status as "single" instead of "married." What Eduardo seeks to correct
are not mere clerical errors as the changes sought to be carried out are substantial.
It is not a simple or negligible matter of correcting a single letter in his surname
due to a misspelling. Rather, Eduardo's filiation, status, and citizenship will be
gravely affected. This will affect not only his identity, but his successional rights as
well.

Nevertheless, the dismissal of Eduardo's petition for correction of entries and

cancellation of annotation in his COLB is without prejudice to the filing of another
petition under Rule 108 to modify his surname from "Cu" to "Santos," the last
name of his mother.

The change in Eduardo's surname may be permitted after impleading the civil
registrar and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby”. Eduardo failed to demonstrate to the Court that he exerted earnest
efforts in bringing to court all possible interested parties (Rule 108), including his
siblings, their descendants, and the purported Chinese wife of his father.

Proof of filiation

Hilario v. Miranda, GR196499 (28November2018)

Short facts: Petitioner (Hilario) prayed for her appointment as special

administratrix of the properties of the decedents, and to be issued letters of
administration after notice, publication, and hearing, pursuant to the Rules of Court.

CA reversed RTC’s decision and and declared respondent Irenea Belloc (Irenea) as
sole heir of Antonio Belloc (Antonio) and Dolores Retiza (Dolores). CA said that the
RTC erred in declaring Magdalena and her legal heirs as heirs of the estates of
Antonio and Dolores since Magdalena's right to inherit depends upon "the
acknowledgment or recognition of her continuous enjoyment and possession of
the status of child of her supposed father.

Issue: Petitioner argued that Magdalena's and Dolores' status as illegitimate

children of Antonio and his intestate heirs have already been settled by the final
and executory judgment in Civil Case No. AV-929. Ingrid claims that this judgment
has attained the character of res judicata and can no longer be
challenged. Concomitantly, she insists that under the Family Code, "final judgment"
is a basis for establishing illegitimate filiation.

Doctrine: The Family Code provides that illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
children. The manner in which legitimate children may establish their filiation is laid
down in Article 172 of the Family Code.

Acknowledgment of the putative father is essential and is the basis of an

illegitimate child's right to inherit. If there is no allegation of acknowledgment, the
action filed by the illegitimate child to be given a share in the estate of the putative
father becomes one to compel recognition, which cannot be brought after the death
of the putative father.

Here, following the enumeration in paragraph 1, Article 172 of the Family Code (The
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment), the record is bereft
of any evidence showing that Magdalena had been recognized by Antonio through
a record of birth appearing in the civil registrar, or an admission of legitimate
filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by
Antonio. The CA, too, held that the final judgment rendered by the RTC on
Magdalena's filiation has no basis. On the other hand, Magdalena could no longer
raise as grounds for recognition the evidence enumerated in paragraph 2, Article
172 (An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned), since she could only
have raised them during the lifetime of her father, who is now deceased.

Aquino v. Aquino, GR208912 (7December2021, en banc)

Short Facts: Since her birth, her father’s relatives had continuously recognized her as
Arturo’s natural child. Angela presented her baptismal certificate stating she was
Arturo’s daughter. Rodolfo opposed Angela’s motion claiming that Arturo never
legally recognized Angela as his natural child in his lifetime. (Arturo died before
marrying Angela’s mother).

Issue:

Doctrine: A child whose parents did not marry each other can inherit from their
grandparent by their right of representation, regardless of the grandparent's marital
status at the birth of the child's parent.

Under the new law [Family Code], an action for the recognition of an illegitimate
child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code
makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died.
Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute the claim,
considering that "illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and
without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. . . . The putative parent
should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child's filiation, and this,
he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead."

Reason for SC remanding the case to the RTC: Resolving several factual matters
raised in the parties' pleadings and during the oral arguments requires receiving
additional evidence, which this Court is not equipped to do. Documents may need to
be presented and authenticated; witnesses' testimonies received and examined; and
DNA testing ordered and conducted, to determine the truth or falsity of the
allegations raised by the parties before this Court. This Court finds it prudent to
remand these cases to their court of origin for reception of evidence, in conformity
with the legal principles articulated here.

!!!!! A child whose parents did not marry each other can inherit from their
grandparent by their right of representation, regardless of the grandparent’s
marital status at the birth of the child’s parent. The Court abandoned the
presumption that non-marital children are products of illicit relationships or that
they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital
family. The Court is not duty bound to uncritically parrot archaic prejudices and
cruelties, to mirror and amplify oppressive and regressive ideas about the status of
children and family life. The best interest of the child should prevail.

The Court adopts a construction of Art. 992 of the Civil Code that makes children,
regardless of the circumstances of their births, qualified to inherit from their direct
ascendants-such as their grandparent-by their right of representation. Both marital
and nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood
relatives of their parents and other ascendants.

Here, Angela claims to be a non-marital child of Arturo, who was a marital child of
Miguel Aquino, Angela’s grandparent. Angela seeks to inherit from the estate of
Miguel through her right of representation, hence, Article 982 of the Civil Code—
which does not make any distinctions or qualifications as to the birth status of the
“grandchildren and other descendants”—shall apply. However, the application of
Article 982 does not automatically give Angela the right to inherit from Miguel’s
estate. Angela must still prove her filiation.

!!!!!! Hence, Angela, who was not yet born when the Family Code took effect, has
the right to prove that she was her father’s daughter under Article 285 of the Civil
Code within four years from attaining the age of majority. Under Article 402 of the
Civil Code, the age of majority is 21 years old. Angela attained majority on October
9, 1999. She had until October 9, 2003 to assert her right to prove her filiation with
Arturo. Thus, when she moved to be included in the distribution and partition of
Miguel’s estate on July 17, 2003, she was not yet barred from claiming her
filiation.

To impugn filiation

Ordoña v. LCR Pasig, GR215370 (9November2021, en banc)

Short Facts: She (Petitioner) and Allan engaged in an intimate relationship which
resulted in petitioner's pregnancy with Allan as the purported father. Petitioner has
not yet filed a petition for annulment of her marriage to Ariel. The child was given
the name "Alrich Paul Ordoña Fulgueras” with "Allan Demen Fulgueras" as the
purported father.

The RTC declared that under Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Family
Code), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 9255, illegitimate children shall use the
surname and be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled
to support in conformity with the Family Code; however, illegitimate children may
use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the
father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an
admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the
father. The RTC noted that the Certificate of Live Birth of Alrich Paul shows that his
alleged father, Allan, expressly recognized him as his illegitimate child when he
affixed his signature in the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity. The
RTC further noted that petitioner presented Michael to prove that it was physically
impossible for Allan to sign the Certificate of Live Birth because he was abroad.

CA pointed out that Article 167 of the Family Code mandates that "the child shall
be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress." Thus, contrary to what
the RTC declared, it ruled that Alrich Paul cannot be deemed the illegitimate child
of petitioner and Allan based solely on petitioner's admission; that the law requires
that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy; and that the
status and filiation of the child cannot be compromised.

Issue: W/N to grant the petition for correction of entries in the COLB.

Doctrine: The legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in

a petition for correction of entries in the certificate of live birth, the action filed in
that case.

Alrich Paul is presumed to be a legitimate child of petitioner and Ariel. However,

looking at the Rule 108 petition in this case, petitioner, mother of Alrich Paul, in
effect declared against her child's legitimacy when she alleged that Alrich Paul was
the child of Allan. Article 167 provides that “the child shall be considered legitimate
although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been
sentenced as an adulteress."

Still, the rule is that the mother is barred from impugning or declaring against the
legitimacy of her child, and only the father (Ariel), or in exceptional instances, his
heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his
wife based on any of the grounds enumerated under Article 166 of the Family Code.

1. First, the mother who was in a valid and subsisting marriage at the time of
conception or giving birth to her child is prohibited under Article 167 of the Family
Code from impugning the legitimacy of her child. The proscription remains even if
the mother is an estranged wife.
2. Second, the child who was conceived or born during a valid and existing
marriage has no right to impugn his own legitimacy under the Family Code. He
cannot choose his own filiation.
3. Third, it is only the father, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, who may
impugn the child's legitimacy on grounds provided under Article 166 of the Family
Code within the periods provided under Article 170 in relation to Article 171 of the
Family Code. Upon the expiration of the periods, the status conferred by the
presumption becomes fixed and can no longer be questioned.
Yap v. Yap, GR222259 (17October2022)

Short Facts: Children who enjoy the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of
the Family Code may impugn this presumption through any of the grounds
provided under Article 166 of the same Code.

Accordingly, petitioner is presumed to be the marital daughter of Lusterio and

Lumahang.

As explained by plaintiff Lowella Yap, which has been unrefuted, her mother Matilde
Lusterio and Bernardo Lumahang had separated albeit they eventually reconciled
and that during said separation Matilde Lusterio and Diosdao Yap, Sr had a
relationship that resulted in the birth of plaintiff Lowella Yap. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals remanded the case and directed the Regional Trial Court to .issue an order
for the conduct of DNA testing.
Petitioner denies the allegations of respondents. She claims that while her mother
was married to Lumahang at the time of her birth, respondents submitted no
documentary evidence to prove that she is Lumahang and Lusterio's marital child

Aquino v. Aquino acknowledged the viability of DNA testing for purposes of

establishing petitioner's filiation. The cases were then remanded to the court of
origin for the purpose of among others resolving "Amadea Angela K. Aquino's
filiation — including the reception of DNA evidence[.]

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lowella Yap has sufficiently established her status
as Diosdado Yap, Sr.'s nonmarital child

Doctrine:
Children who enjoy the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the Family
Code may impugn this presumption through any of the grounds provided under
Article 166 of the same Code.

Presumption of legitimacy may be refuted and overthrown by substantial and

credible evidence to the contrary. Article 166 paragraph 2 “That it is proved that for
biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the
husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164”

In this day and age, the theory that only the father is affected by the infidelity of
the wife no longer holds true. The circumstances under which these children are
conceived and born have an impact on their rights and privileges. Filiation
proceedings are instituted not only for the purpose of determining paternity. These
proceedings are also filed "to secure a legal right associated with paternity, such as
citizenship, support . . . or inheritance[,]" as with petitioner in this case.

It would be antithetical to the best interests of the child should the Petition be
denied based merely on the archaic view that only the husband is "directly
confronted with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife
produces." The best interest of the child is to allow petitioner to prove and
establish her true filiation.

Before petitioner may establish her filiation with the decedent, it is imperative that
she first overthrow the presumption that she is Lusterio and Lumahang's marital
daughter. Once the presumption of legitimacy "has been successfully impugned. . .
[only then can] the paternity of the husband. . . be rejected.

Lee v. Lee, GR180802 (1August2022)

Short Facts: Emma's birth certificate listed "Tek Sheng T. Lee," as her father, and
"Shiok Cheng T. Keh," as her mother. It also indicated that she was born in Caloocan.

In any case, even granting that their Rule 108 Petition can proceed, the Court of
Appeals and the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan correctly found that DNA testing
cannot be allowed as petitioners have, as yet, failed to adduce prima
facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of respondent Emma's filiation
with Tiu.

Petition's ultimate objective is, in the words of its own prayer, the "cancellation and
correction of the false and erroneous entries in all pertinent record/s of birth of
private respondent.

Issue:

Doctrine: The legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in

a petition for correction of entries in the certificate of live birth. A petition for
correction whose commanding intent is to impugn a child's filiation with a parent
identified in birth records — and not merely to harmonize those records with self-
evident facts — will be disallowed for being such a collateral attack. Moreover, a
petition for correction cannot proceed to allow the impugning party to gather the
evidence denying filiation which that party lacks and hopes to have only by taking
advantage of those proceedings. Nevertheless, the mere validity and viability of
DNA testing does not make it a readily available means which parties can obtain with
judicial fiat at their convenience and mere instance.

The cause of action to impugn respondent Emma's filiation then, belongs to Tek
Sheng, and not to petitioners. While petitioners, being Tek Sheng's marital children,
are his inchoate heirs, they nevertheless do not have the right inhering solely on that
basis to call respondent Emma's legitimacy into question.
Republic v. Boquiren, GR250199 (13February2023)

Short Facts: Respondents Oliver and Roselyn were born out of wedlock to Oscar D.
Boquiren (Oscar) and Rosalinda B. Macaraeg (Rosalinda). Averring that the marriage
of their parents was void for being bigamous and that they are illegitimate children,
respondents sought the cancellation of the annotation in their respective COLBs.

The RTC ratiocinated that respondents could not be legitimated because, at the time
they were born, Oscar had a subsisting marriage with another woman. CA held that
even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts
established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. Under Article 182 of the
Family Code, respondents are the proper parties to question the correctness and
veracity of the infonnation recorded in the civil registry anent their filiation-that
they are the illegitimate, not legitimated, children of their parents whose void
marriage could not have elevated their status to "legitimated."

Issue: Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming the RTC's grant
of the petition for correction of entries in the COLBs of respondents Oliver and
Roselyn. SC grants the petition.

Doctrine: The RTC has no jurisdiction in a Rule 108 petition to determine the
legitimacy and filiation of children. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs the
proceedings for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, not the
correction of substantial errors.

Unlike in Kho, herein respondents' parents were in fact married. In other words,
following Kho, a Rule 108 proceeding can be used to correct the annotation on a
birth certificate pertaining to the parents' marriage only when it is certain that
there really was no marriage in the first place. In light of the Court's
pronouncements in the aforecited cases, respondents' collateral attack on their
legitimacy cannot be allowed in a Rule 108 proceeding. On this ground alone, the
RTC should have dismissed the instant Rule 108 petition outright.

In the present controversy, although the action below does not involve a father's
impugnation of his child's legitimacy or filiation, the correction sought by
respondents will have the effect of collaterally attacking their "legitimated" status
which has already been recorded based on the subsequent marriage of their
parents Oscar and Rosalinda. This cannot be done in a petition for correction of
entries in the civil register under Rule 108. Hence, The legitimation of children
cannot be collaterally attacked; it can be impugned only on a direct proceeding for
that purpose. Respondents are not proper parties to impugn their own
legitimation, it is only the husband who has the right to do so.

Article 182 of the Family Code provides that, "Legitimation may be impugned only
by those who are prejudiced in their rights, within five years from the time their
cause of action accrues. Respondents cannot claim to be prejudiced parties of their
own legitimation consequent to the subsequent marriage of their parents,
considering that the legal effect of legitimation is to improve their rights from
those accorded to illegitimate children to those accorded to the legitimate children
of their parents (in this case it is in the opposite).

Rights of Legitimate/Legitimated/Illegitimate children

De Santos v. Angeles, GR 105619, 12 December 1995

Short Facts: After six years of protracted intestate proceedings, however, petitioner
decided to intervene. Thus, in a motion she filed sometime in November 1987, she
argued inter alia that private respondent's children were illegitimate. This was
challenged by private respondent although the latter admitted during the hearing
that all her children were born prior to Sofia's death in 1967
All the children born to private respondent and deceased Antonio de Santos were
conceived and born when the latter's valid marriage to petitioner's mother was still
subsisting.

Issue: Petitioner contends that since only natural children can be legitimized, the
trial court mistakenly declared as legitimated her half brothers and sisters.

Doctrine: Art. 269. Only natural children can be legitimated. Children born outside
wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are natural.

A child conceived or born of a marriage which is void ab initio or one which is

declared a nullity is illegitimate since there is no marriage to speak of, but it is the
law which accords him the rights of an acknowledged natural child.

In other words, a child's parents should not have been disqualified to marry each
other at the time of conception for him to qualify as a "natural child."

Recognized illegitimate children other than natural, or spurious issues, are, in their
minority, under the parental authority of their mothers and, naturally, take the
latter's surname. The only support which they are entitled to is from the
recognizing parent, and their legitime, also to be taken from the free portion,
consists of four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child or two-fifths
that of each legitimate child.

A legal fiction had to be resorted to, that device contrived by law to simulate a fact
or condition which, strictly and technically speaking, is not what it purports to be.
Natural children by legal fiction cannot be deprived of their legitime equivalent to
one-half of that pertaining to each of the legitimate children or descendants of the
recognizing parent, to be taken from the free disposable portion of the latter's
estate

!!!! It is thus incongruous to conclude, as private respondent maintains, that

petitioner's half siblings can rise to her level by the fact of being legitimized, for
two reasons: First, they failed to meet the most important requisite of legitimation,
that is, that they be natural children within the meaning of Article 269 ; second,
natural children by legal fiction cannot demand that they be legitimized simply
because it is one of the rights enjoyed by acknowledged natural children.

Tecson v. COMELEC, GR 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277

Short Facts:

Issue:

Doctrine:

Mangonon v. CA, 125041, 30 June 2006

Short Facts:

Issue:

Doctrine:

Salientes v. Abanilla, GR 162734, 29 August 2006

Short Facts:

Issue:

Doctrine:

Aquino v. Aquino, GR208912 (7December2021, en banc)