Facts:
1999 – Dolores Montefalcon filed with RTC- Naga for acknowledgment and support by Ronnie Vasquez of their son Laurence as his illegitimate child
3 summons were delivered to Vasquez all of which remained unanswered
2001 – court, taking Vasquez‘ silence as truth to the allegations, declared Laurence as his illegitimate child and ordered him to support the child. Vasquez resurfaced after this decision and appealed it. Thus the case.
ISSUE: WON Laurence is the illegitimate child of Vasquez
HELD: YES, and is thus entitled to support. FC Article 172, the filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) through record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final order
This is evidenced by Laurence‘ record of live birth which Vasquez signed and supplied the data.
FC Article 195 - parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child.
Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family
RESULT: decision of RTC on legitimacy and support is reinstated.
Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds: (1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:
(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not possible; or
(c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse; (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; or
(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.
DOJ Opinion No. 11 Series of 1990 DOJ Opinion No. 4, Series of 1998 FC 166
Andal v. Macaraig 89 Phil 165
Facts:
- Jan 1941 – Emiliano Andal ,who was married to Maria Duenas, became sick with tuberculosis. His brother Felix went to live with them to help them with the farm.
- Sept 10 1942, Maria eloped with Felix and lived together from 1942-1943
- Jan 1, 1943 Emiliano died. Maria didn‘t attend the funeral
- June 17, 1943 – Maria gave birth to Mariano Andal
- Maria then filed for recovery of land that was originally given to Emiliano by his mother upon his marriage to Maria. Maria said that the land is her son‘s since he is the legitimate heir of Emiliano.
ISSUE: WON Mariano is the legitimate son and can thus inherit the land
HELD: YES
- Art 108 of NCC - Children born after the one hundred and eighty days next following that of the celebration of marriage or within the three hundred days next following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate.
o Emiliano is presumed to be legitimate sine he was born within 300 days following the dissolution of marriage.
- Evidence did not show that Emiliano, even when he was sick of tuberculosis, could not sexually perform so even if Maria was having an affair even before eloping with Felix, it is still presumed that Mariano is Emilianos‘ son. RESULT: son is the legit heir and thus inherits the land of his father
Macadangdang v. CA 100 SCRA 73 - FACTS:
o Mejias is married to Anahaw
o Majias allegedly had intercourse with Macadangdang sometime in March 1967 o Due to the affair, she and her husband
separated in 1967
o October 30, 1967: Mejias gave birthday to a boy (Rolando Macadangdang)
o April 25, 1972: Mejias filed a complaint for recognition and support against
Macadangdang
o Macadangdang opposed claim and prayed for its dismissal
o Court dismissed the complaint
o CA reversed the judgment and declared Rolando to be an illegitimate son of Antonio Macadangdang.
-
- ISSUES:
o Whether or not the child Rolando is
conclusively presumed the legitimate issue of the spouses Elizabeth Mejias and Crispin Anahaw; and
o Whether or not the wife may institute an action that would bastardize her child without giving her husband, the legally presumed father, an opportunity to be heard.
-
- HELD: o YES
The birth of Rolando came more than one hundred eighty 180 days following the
celebration of the said marriage and before 300 days following the alleged separation between aforenamed spouses. Art. 255: Rolando is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of Mejias and Anahaw
Rolando was born on October 30, 1967. Between March, 1967 and October 30, 1967,
the time difference is clearly 7 months. The baby Rolando could have been born prematurely. But such is not the case. Respondent underwent a normal nine-month pregnancy.
Presumption of legitimacy becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there was physical impossibility of access between the spouses in the first 120 days of the 300 which preceded the birth of the child
the fact remains that there was always the possibility of access to each other same province
Physical impossibility: (1) impotence of husband;
inability of the male organ to copulation, to perform its proper function
(2) living separately in such a way that access was impossible; and
(3) serious illness of the husband. o NO.
Art. 256 provides that the child is presumed legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy
Art. 257: adultery on the part of the wife, in itself, cannot destroy the presumption of legitimacy of her child, because it is still possible that the child is that of the husband Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of
a child born to his wife Art. 220
PETITION GRANTED. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Ong vs. Court of Appeals 272 SCRA 725
Concepcion vs. CA G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005 Facts:
Dec 29, 1989 – Gerardo married Ma. Theresa. One year later
Dec 1990 - their son Jose Gerardo was born. December 19, 1991 - Gerardo filed a petition to have his marriage to Ma. Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy since she was still married to Mario Gopiao who she married on Dec 10, 1980 and which was never annulled. This was granted
Ma. Theresa then filed for action to change Jose‘ surname from Gerardo to hers and to disallow Gerardo visitation rights since Jose is now just his illegitimate son. Both TC and CA dismissed her petition.
Ma. Theresa then filed for a motion for reconsideration where she said that Jose was not actually the illegitimate son of Gerardo but the legitimate son of Mario. CA thus reversed its ruling and declared Mario to be the father of Jose. Thus the case filed by Gerardo.
ISSUE: WON Jose is the legitimate child of Mario
HELD: YES
Article 164 of the Family Code is clear. A child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is legitimate.
It is clear that Ma. Theresa and Mario were married when she gave birth to Jose. , Article 167 of the Family Code provides:
Article 167. The child shall be considered legitimate althouh the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
Thus even if it is clear that she also married Gerardo, this does not negate the legitimacy of Jose as son of Mario.
Article 166 (1)(b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child
No evidence to show that there was no way that they could have had contact within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child since they only lived four kilometres apart, she in Fairview QC and he in Loyola Heights QC
Assertion of Ma. Theresa that Jose is the son of Gerardo can‘t be used since law is clear that an assertion by the mother against the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a valid marriage.
Birth certificate carries no weight since proof of filiation is necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being questioned, or when the status of a child born after 300 days following the termination of marriage is sought to be established. In this case, legitimacy is certain. RESULT: declared son of Mario Gopiao after 15 years.
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (RULE ON DNA Evidence) effective October 15, 2007 Jao v. CA
152 SCRA 359 People v. Tumimpad
235 SCRA 483 Facts:
Victim is Sandra Salcedo, a 15 yo Mongoloid with the mental capacity of a 5 year old, and daughter of Lt. Teofisto and Pastora Salcedo August 7, 1989 – Sandra complains of constipation, the following day she points at Tumimpad and says ―Mama patayin mo yan, bastos!‖
Due to repeated vomiting, lack of appetite, and mood swings, Sandra is brought to a doctor where she it is discovered that she is pregnant - January 11, 1990 – Sandra gives birth to a boy,
Jacob.
- Pastora (mother) files complaint alleging that Sandra was raped by Constable Tumimpad and Constable Prieto sometime between March and April 1989. Hence, trial ensued - During trial:
o Sandra is able to single out Tumimpad and Prieto as the perpetrators when she was shown pictures and during a police line-up
o A blood test was also done – and it showed Jacob – O, Sandro – B, Tumimpad – O, Prieto - A
- Court convicts Tumimpad of rape, Prieto is acquitted
Issue: W/n the lower court erred in convicting the Tumimpad on rape based on a blood grouping test, and not on a paternal tests known as chromosomes or HLA test
Held: No. Decision affirmed.
- The victim was able to identify Tumimpad as the perpetrator on more than one occasion, she is even able to detail how the rape took place
- Usually blood test results are used to prove the presumption of non-paternity where results show the impossibility of alleged paternity. In this case however, the blood test is used as evidence to merely show the possibility of Tumimpad being the father and results come out as positive of that possibility, that taken
with the testimonies and identifications made by Sandra are enough to prove Tumimpad‘s
guilt.
TIJING (supra) Herrera vs. Alba (supra)
AGUSTIN (supra)
Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz G.R. No. 171713, Dec. 17, 2007 Facts:
- Nov 1993 – Rogelio and Jinky got acquainted, and the friendship blossomed into love. - Jinky however, was already married to
Hasegawa Katsuo, a Japanese national, in spite of this, the lovers lived together out of which Joanne Diaz was born on Feb 25, 1998 - Rogelio initially recognized Joanne as his, only
to abandon the family on Sept 1998, Jinky thereafter files a complaint
- Judgment rendered in favor of Jinky , Rogelio files a new motion and is granted
- RTC again rules for Jinky given the Rogelio‘s admission that he was the one who shouldered hospital bills during Joanne‘s birth and that on some instances he continued visiting Jinky after the birth of Joanne
- Rogelio goes to the Court of Appeals, during the pendency of the trial, however he dies, and is substituted by the Estate of Rogelio Ong. - CA remands the case to the RTC for DNA
analysis to finally determine the paternity of Joanne, hence the petition
Issue: W/n the court erred in remanding the case for DNA analysis despite the fact that said
analysis is no longer feasible given that Rogelio Ong is dead
Held: No, decision of the appellate court is affirmed.
- Case discusses DNA testing again, see Herrera vs Alba.
- The new rules on DNA testing allows for the application of DNA testing for as long as biological samples of Rogelio Ong is present o Biological samples – any organic material
originating from the person‘s body, even if found on inanimate objects
- Thus, even if Rogelio is dead, biological samples may be available and used for DNA testing
- As held in Tecson vs Comelec: ―Any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to‖
Presently, DNA testing has evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering, the Court therefore reiterates its stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity
People v. Quitoriano