Potencialidades generales, apuestas y proyecciones
2.1 Recorrido general sobre el potencial histórico
child of Casimiro Mendoza, under both Article 283 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code. (see guidelines below) 6. The plaintiff lived with her mother and not with the Casimiro
without objection from the latter.
8. Teopista did not use the surname of Casimiro although this is, of course, not decisive of one's status.
But although Teopista has failed to show that she was in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child of Casimiro, we find that she has nevertheless established that status by another method.
IV. "by evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father," according to the Family Code 7. Requisites (see below) for an act or declaration regarding pedigree, in this case has been complied with 8. The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista
9. The declarations referred to the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro, which were the very issues involved 10. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and
Casimiro.
11. Toring Tufiacao has proved that she is the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza a
12. Osh: Basically because a relative of Casimiro testified of the pedigree of Teopista thus the court held in favor of Teopista. Concept:
To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,"it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements.
B. 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.
By evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father," according to the Family Code, such evidence may consist of his 8. baptismal certificate,
9. a judicial admission,
10. a family Bible in which his name has been entered, 11. common reputation respecting his pedigree, 12. admission by silence,
13. the testimonies of witnesses, and
14. other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
The following requisites that have to be complied with before the act or declaration regarding pedigree may be admitted in evidence:
6. The declarant is dead or unable to testify. 7. The pedigree must be in issue.
8. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue. 9. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose.
10. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration.
340. Marquino v. IAC (₳)
1994 – Puno *child dies during pendency of her action for recognition Facts:
3. Bibiana was born out of wedlock on December 2, 1926, of Gregoria Romano and allegedly of Eutiquio Marquino who at that time was single.
4. Bibiana sued for compulsory recognition while Eutiquio was still alive. Sadly, she died on March 17, 1983 before she could present her proof of recognition.
Issue:
3. WON the right of action to compel recognition is intransmissible in character? Held: Yes
4. WON after the death of the putative father the action for recognition of a natural child can be continued against the heirs of the former? Held: No
Ruling: 1st issue
2. Her death tolled the action considering its personal nature and intransmissibility. 2nd Issue
3. In an action for compulsory recognition, the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. 4. Article 285 provides only two (2) exceptions when an action for recognition transcends the death of the putative parent, these
are:
(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.
Neither of these exceptions obtains in the case at bench. Firstly, the death of Eutiquio did not occur during the minority of Bibiana. In fact, she was already forty-five (45) years old when the recognition case was filed on January 10, 1971. Secondly, no document was discovered, before unknown, in which Bibiana was expressly acknowledged as a natural child.
390. Fernandez v., Court of Appeals (¥)
February 16, 1994 – Puno *Alleged father always in the Tennis Court Facts:
1. VIOLETA P. ESGUERRA, single, is the mother and guardian ad litem of the two petitioners, CLARO ANTONIO FERNANDEZ and JOHN PAUL FERNANDEZ, met sometime in 1983, at the Meralco Compound tennis courts.
2. A Meralco employee and a tennis enthusiast, CARLITO FERNANDEZ used to spend his week-ends regularly at said courts, where Violeta's father served as tennis instructor.
3. Violeta pointed to Carlito as the father of her two sons. She claimed that they started their illicit sexual relationship six (6) months after their first meeting.
4. She averred they were married in civil rites in October, 1983. In March, 1985, however, she discovered that the marriage license which they used was spurious.
5. To bolster their case, petitioners presented the following documentary evidence: a. their certificates of live birth, identifying respondent Carlito as their father;
b. the baptismal certificate of petitioner Claro which also states that his father is respondent Carlito; c. photographs of Carlito taken during the baptism of petitioner Claro; and
d. pictures of respondent Carlito and Claro taken at the home of Violeta Esguerra. Defense
6. Carlito denied Violeta's allegations that he sired the two petitioners.
7. He averred he only served as one of the sponsors in the baptism of petitioner Claro.
8. He disputed Violeta's allegation that she and respondent Carlito frequented the said restaurant during their affair.
9. he only learned he was named in the birth certificates of both petitioners as their father after he was sued for support in Civil Case
Issue: Whether or not JOHN PAUL FERNANDEZ and CLARO ANTONIO FERNANDEZ are illegitimate child of Carlito Fernandez Held: No.
Ruling:
1. documentary evidence offered by the petitioners which the respondent court rejected as insufficient to prove their filiation. 2. we hold that petitioners cannot rely on the photographs showing the presence of the private respondent in the baptism of
petitioner
3. the pictures taken in the house of Violeta showing private respondent showering affection to Claro fall short of the evidence required to prove paternity
4. the baptismal certificates of petitioner Claro naming private respondent as his father has scant evidentiary value. There is no showing that private respondent participated in its preparation
5. the certificates of live birth do no show that private respondent had a hand in the preparation of said certificates 6. "a birth certificate no signed by the alleged father therein indicated is not competent evidence of paternity." 7. Testimony of Father Liberato Fernandez who solemnized the baptismal ceremony of petitioner Claro
Not convincing
on cross examination, Father Fernandez admitted that he has to be shown a picture of the private respondent by Violeta Esguerra to recognize the private respondent
no proof that Father Fernandez is a close friend of Violeta Esguerra
392. Eceta vs. Eceta (ɱ) May 20, 2004 – Ynares-Santiago *Recognition of an illegitimate child in any authentic writing is an act of acknowledgement
Facts:
1. Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta in 1926. 2. During their marriage, they begot a son, Vicente.
3. The couple acquired several properties, among which is the disputed property located at Stanford, Cubao,Quezon City. 4. Isaac died in 1967 leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory heirs.
5. In 1977, Vicente died.
6. During his lifetime, however, he sired Maria Theresa, an illegitimate daughter.
7. Thus at the time of his death, his compulsory heirs were his mother, Rosalina, and illegitimate child, Maria Theresa. 8. In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her father’s death, she became Rosalinas co-heir
and co-owner of the Cubao property.
9. In her answer, Rosalina alleged that the property is paraphernal in nature and thus belonged to her exclusively.
10. During the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts wherein they both admitted their relationship to one another, i.e., that Rosalina is Maria Theresa’s grandmother.
11. The court ruled that both are co-heirs and co-owners of the lands, and that Maria Theresa is entitled to ¼ of the property. 12. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, but Maria Theresa’s share was reduced to 1/8.
13. With Maria Theresa still having a share, Rosalina appealed.
Issue: 1. Is the certified xerox copy from a xerox copy of the certificate of live birth a competent proof of the filiation? 2. Is the admission made by Rosalina that Maria Theresais her granddaughter, enough to prove filiation? Ruling:
4. What was filed and tried before the trial court and the Court of Appeals is one for partition and accounting with damages only. The filiation, or compulsory recognition by Vicente Eceta of Maria Theresa, was never put in issue. In fact, both parties have already agreed that Maria Theresa is Rosalina’s granddaughter.
5. Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. Vicente himself signed Maria Theresas birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter. Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his paternity over Maria Theresa.
6. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action is required.
393. Heirs of Gabatan vs CA (€) March 13, 2009 – Leonardo-De Castro *Wanting haciendera fails to prove filiation of Mother Facts:
1. Lourdes Evero Pacana allege that she is the sole owner of 1.1062 hectare parcel of land, having inherited the same from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero.
2. Hermogena, is the only child of Juan Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito. Upon the death of Juan Gabatan, the lot was entrusted to his brother, Teofilo Gabatan (Teofilo), and Teofilo’s wife, Rita Gabatan, for administration.
3. On the other hand, petitioners denied that respondent’s mother Hermogena was the daughter of Juan Gabatan with Laureana Clarito and that Hermogena or respondent is the rightful heir of Juan Gabatan. Petitioners maintained that Juan Gabatan died single in 1934 and without any issue and that Juan was survived by one brother and two sisters, namely: Teofilo (petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest), Macaria and Justa. These siblings and/or their heirs, inherited the subject land from Juan Gabatan and have been in actual, physical, open, public, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof in the concept of owners for more than fifty (50) years.
4. The RTC and CA ruled that Lourdes was able to prove her filiation with Juan Gabatan and gave weight to the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Macaria Gabatan de Abrogar, Teofilo, Hermogena and heirs of Justa Gabatan, wherein Hermogena was identified as an heir of Juan Gabatan.
Issue: Did Lourdes prove that she is the legitimate heir of the land?
Held: No. Because she failed to provide proof of her mother’s filiation to her father. Ruling:
1. The civil code provides various means to prove filiation one of them is Art. 265: The filiation of a legitimate children is proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or by an authentic document or a final judgment.
2. The birth certificate on its face is insufficient to prove respondent’s filiation to her alleged grandfather, Juan Gabatan. All that Exhibit A (Lourdes’ evidence), if it had been credible and authentic, would have proven was that respondent’s mother was a certain "Hermogena Clarito Gabatan." It does not prove that same "Hermogena Clarito Gabatan" is the daughter of Juan Gabatan.
3. The trial court’s view is not sustained that since the entries in Exhibit 1 (Heirs’ evidence) were handwritten, Exhibit 1 was the one of dubious credibility. Verily, the certified true copies of the handwritten birth certificate of respondent were duly
authenticated by two competent witnesses; namely, Rosita Vidal (Ms. Vidal), Assistant Registration Officer of the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Cagayan de Oro City and Maribeth E. Cacho (Ms. Cacho), Archivist of the National Statistics Office (NSO), Sta. Mesa, Manila. Ms. Vidal likewise categorically testified that no other copy of respondent’s birth certificate exists in their records except the handwritten birth certificate. Ms. Cacho, in turn, testified that the original of respondent’s handwritten birth
their office by the Local Civil Registry Office of Cagayan de Oro.
4. To prove the relationship of respondent’s mother to Juan Gabatan, our laws dictate that the best evidence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or an authentic document or a final judgment. In the absence of these, respondent should have presented proof that her mother enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. 5. Respondent’s mother’s (Hermogena’s) birth certificate, which would have been the best evidence of Hermogena’s relationship
to Juan Gabatan, was never offered as evidence at the RTC. Neither did respondent present any authentic document or final judgment categorically evidencing Hermogena’s relationship to Juan Gabatan.
6. Also the admission of this Deed of Absolute Sale, including its contents and the signatures therein, as competent evidence was vigorously and repeatedly objected to by petitioners’ counsel for being a mere photocopy and not being properly authenticated was declared not admissible by the Courts.
Concepts:
civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. 343. Dela Cruz vs. Gracia (₵)
July 31, 2009—Carpio Facts:
1. Jenie and Dominique lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. 2. Sep 4, 2005- Dominique died.
3. Jenie continued to live with his parents and gave birth to Christian, who is her co-petitioner. 4. Jenie applied for the registration of the child’s birth using Dominique’s surname.
5. She submitted:
a. Christian’s birth certificate.
b. Affidavit to use the surname of his father.
c. a document entitled “AUTOBIOGRAPHY” written by her husband before he died [the pertinent portion reads: “my wife is pregnant and we live together in our house.”
d. Testimony of Dominque’s father. e. Testimony of Dominque’s brother.
6. Respondents cannot allow the child to use the desired name.
7. Respondent basically says that the child cannot use the surname of his father because he was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunately died before his birth and has no more capacity to acknowledge his son.
8. Respondent also says: although illegitimate children may use the surname of their natural father (article 176) it may be proven trough a private hand-written instrument that MUST BE SIGNED by the father. It was not signed in this case.
Issue: Does the Autobiography pass as necessary evidence to prove he is Dominque’s child? Held: Yes
Ruling:
1. Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation.
2. In this case, Jenie’s testimony is corroborated by the Affidavit of Acknowledgement of Dominque’s father and testimony of his brother, whose hereditary rights could be affected by the registration of the questioned recognition of the child.
3. Alone, the Autobiography would not have prospered.
394. Joselito Musni Puno v Puno Enterprises (₱)
September 11, 2009 – Nachura “Mr. Muno wants to inspect the corporate records” Facts:
1. Carlos Puno died on June25, 1963. Joselito filed a case for specific performance against the respondent company, claiming that he is the son of Carlos with the latter’s common-law wife, Amelia. He prayed that he be allowed to inspect the files and corporate book of Puno Enterprises.
2. The respondent company countered by arguing that Joselito’s birth certificate actually showed “Joselito Musni Muno” instead of Puno.
3. Joselito acquired a corrected certificate from the Civil Registrar and presented it to court. The trial court agreed with him and gave him what he wanted.
4. The respondent company again countered, this time saying that the certificate was acquired without Carlos’ knowledge (he’s dead). Moreover, Joselito is not a stockholder and is merely claiming rights as an heir. Finally, it argued that the proper action for Joselito would be to prove first that he really IS the heir of Carlos Puno.
Issue: Was Joselito able to prove that he is an illegitimate child of Carlos? Held: The decision was AFFIRMED.
Ruling:
1. The putative father has to have a hand in the preparation of the certificate of live birth for it to serve as proof of filiation. In this case, only Joselito’s mother was able to do this.
2. The baptismal certificate has been disposed of in cases before. It is only a testament that the baptism actually happened. 3. Even if Joselito really was an heir, he couldn’t have been able to exercise the rights that he claimed to have over his father’s
stocks right away. The stock would have to be distributed first to the heirs estate proceedings, then the transfer would be recorded in the company’s books.
Concept:
Strict rules are applied in cases where a child wants to prove his filiation, whether it’s for a legitimate status or otherwise. 395. Ben-Hur NEPOMUCENO v. Arhbencel Ann LOPEZ, represented by her mother ARACELI LOPEZ (₳)
2010 – Morales *father’s handwritten note doesn’t say anything about child recognition Facts:
1. Arhbencel Ann Lopez (Arhbencel), represented by her mother Araceli Lopez (Araceli), filed a Complaint recognition and support against Ben-Hur Nepomuceno
2. Born on June 8, 1999, Arhbencel claimed to have been begotten out of an extramarital affair of petitioner with Araceli; that petitioner refused to affix his signature on her Certificate of Birth; and that, by a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner nevertheless obligated himself to give her financial support.
3. Arguing that her filiation to petitioner was established by the handwritten note, Arhbencel prayed that petitioner be ordered to: (1) recognize her as his child, (2) give her support pendente lite, and (3) give her adequate monthly financial support until she reaches the age of majority.
4. Petitioner Benhur countered that Araceli had not proven that he was the father of Arhbencel; and that he was only forced to execute the handwritten note on account of threats coming from the National People’s Army; that nowhere in the
documentary evidence presented by Araceli is an explicit statement made by him that he is the father of Arhbencel; and that absent recognition or acknowledgment, illegitimate children are not entitled to support from the putative parent;