Constantino vs Mendez

GR 57227 May 14, 1992

J. Bidin
Facts:
Amelita Constantino was a waitress at Tonys restaurant in Sta. Cruz, Manila, and there she met Ivan Mendez
sometime in August !"#. The ne$t day, she was invited %y Ivan to dine with him at &otel 'nrico and courted
her. Ivan %rought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a (romise o) marriage succeeded in having se$ual
intercourse with her. &e later on con)essed that he is a married man. *es(ite this, they re(eated their se$ual
contact in the months o) Se(tem%er and +ovem%er, !"# and as a result, Amelita got (regnant. She as,ed )or
su((ort %ut Ivan re)used to attend to her. Amelita claimed that she had no se$ual relations with any other man
e$ce(t Ivan. As relie), Amelita (rayed )or the recognition o) the un%orn child, the (ayment o) actual, moral
and e$em(lary damages, attorney-s )ees (lus costs. Ivan admitted that he met Amelita at Tony-s restaurant %ut
denied having carnal ,nowledge her. &e (rayed )or the dismissal o) the com(laint )or lac, o) cause o) action.
A)ter giving %irth to Michael, Amelita )iled an amended com(laint.The trial court ruled in )avor o) Amelita
and ordered Mendez to (ay her the damages and to recognize her son Michael as his own illegitimate child.
Issue.s:
/hether or not Michael should %e recognized as Ivans illegitimate child and should Amelita %e entitled to
damages.
&eld:
The %urden o) (roo) is on Amelita to esta%lish her allegations that Ivan is the )ather o) her son. Conse0uently,
in the a%sence o) clear and convincing evidence esta%lishing (aternity or )iliation, the com(laint must %e
dismissed. Amelita-s testimony on cross1e$amination that she had se$ual contact with Ivan in Manila in the
)irst or second wee, o) +ovem%er, !"# is inconsistent with her res(onse that she could not remem%er the date
o) their last se$ual intercourse in +ovem%er, !"#. Se$ual contact o) Ivan and Amelita in the )irst or second
wee, o) +ovem%er, !"# is the crucial (oint that was not even esta%lished on direct e$amination as she merely
testi)ied that she had se$ual intercourse with Ivan in the months o) Se(tem%er, 2cto%er and +ovem%er, !"#.
She also admitted that she was attracted to Ivan and the re(eated se$ual intercourse only indicates that (assion
and not (romise o) marriage was the reason that she allowed to su%mit hersel) to Ivan. There)ore she is not
entitled to damages. The (etition is dismissed )or lac, o) merit.
Concepcion vs CA
GR 123450 A!st 31, 2005
J. Co"ona
Facts:
3etitioner 4erardo 5. Conce(cion and res(ondent Ma. Theresa Almonte were married on *ecem%er 6!, !7!.
A)tewhich, they lived with Theresas (arents in Fairview, 8uezon City. Almost a year late, Theresa gave %irth
to 9ose 4erardo
.
Their relationshi( was shortlived. In !!, 4erardo )iled a (etition to have his marriage to Ma.
Theresa annulled on the ground o) %igamy.&e alleged that Theresa has a su%sisting marriage with one Mario
4o(iao who was still alive. Theresa admitted it %ut she said that the marriage was o%tained through )raud and
she has never lived with Mario. The trial court ruled that Ma. Theresas marriage to Mario was valid and
su%sisting when she married 4erardo and annulled her marriage to the latter )or %eing %igamous. It declared
9ose 4erardo to %e an illegitimate child as a result. The custody o) the child was awarded to Ma. Theresa while
4erardo was granted visitation rights.She )elt %etrayed and humiliated and as,ed to cancel the visitation rights
and change her sons )rom Conce(cion to Almonte. 4erardo o((osed the motion. &e insisted on his visitation
rights and the retention o) :Conce(cion as 9ose 4erardos surname.
Issue.s:
/hether or not 9ose 4erardo is the legitimate son o) Mario or the illegitimate son o) 4erardo.
&eld:
1
The (resum(tion o) legitimacy in )avor o) 9ose 4erardo, as the issue o) the marriage %etween Ma. Theresa and
Mario, stands. All she said was that she never lived with Mario. She never claimed that nothing ever ha((ened
%etween them and )or reasons o) (u%lic decency and morality, a married woman cannot say that she had no
intercourse with her hus%and and that her o))s(ring is illegitimate. The (roscri(tion is in consonance with the
(resum(tion in )avor o) )amily solidarity. It also (romotes the intention o) the law to lean toward the
legitimacy o) children as legitimate status is more )avora%le to the child. Meanwhile the %irth certi)icate o)
9ose 4erardo was not given weight as evidence; a record o) %irth is merely prima facie evidence o) the )acts
contained therein. The court declared that as a legitimate child, 9ose 4erardo shall have the right to %ear the
surnames o) his )ather Mario and mother Ma. Theresa. The (etition is denied.
#ceta vs #ceta
GR 157037 May 20, 2004
J. $na"es%&antia!o
Facts:
3etitioner <osalina 3. =da. *e 'ceta was married to Isaac 'ceta sometime in !6> and had a son, =icente.The
cou(le ac0uired several (ro(erties, among which is the dis(uted (ro(erty located in Cu%ao,8uezon City. Isaac
died in !>" leaving %ehind <osalina and =icente as his com(ulsory heirs. =icente died in !"", %ut he had an
illegitimate child, Ma. Theresa. Thus, his com(ulsory heirs were his mother and Ma. Theresa. In !!, Maria
Theresa )iled a case %e)ore the <egional Trial Court o) 8uezon City )or 3artition and Accounting with
*amages against <osalina alleging that %y virtue o) her )athers death, she %ecame <osalinas co1heir and co1
owner o) the Cu%ao (ro(erty. <osalina alleged that the (ro(erty is (ara(hernal in nature and thus %elonged to
her e$clusively.
Issue.s:
/hether or not Theresa is entitled to %e <osalinas co1owner and co1heir in the dis(uted (ro(erty.
&eld:
Maria Theresa success)ully esta%lished her )iliation with =icente %y (resenting a duly authenticated %irth
certi)icate. =icente himsel) signed Maria Theresas %irth certi)icate there%y ac,nowledging that she is his
daughter.5y this act alone, =icente is deemed to have ac,nowledged his (aternity over Maria Theresa.
<osalina 'ceta also admitted that Ma. Theresa is her granddaughter. There)ore, she is in no dou%t an
illegitimate daughter o) =icente and is entitled to %e a co1owner and co1heir o) <osalina in the (ro(erty.
Jison vs CA
G.R. 'o. 124(53 )e*"a"y 24, 199(
J. +avide J".
Facts:
Monina 9ison )iled a com(laint in the <TC alleging that Francisco had %een married to one ?ilia ?o(ez %ut
im(regnated 's(eranza Amolar, the nanny o) his daughter, and mother o) Monina. And since childhood, she
had en@oyed the continuous and im(lied recognition as an illegitimate child o) Francisco %y his acts. She also
alleged that Francisco has %een giving her su((ort and (rovided )or her education. In view o) Franciscos
re)usal to e$(ressly recognize her, Monina (rayed )or a @udicial declaration o) her illegitimate status and that
Francisco su((ort and treat her as such. Meanwhile, Francisco alleged that he could not have had se$ual
relations with 's(eranza Amolar during the (eriod s(eci)ied in the com(laint %ecause she was not anymore his
em(loyee at the time. Further, he never recognized Monina, e$(ressly or im(liedly, as his illegitimate child.
Francisco contended that Monina had no cause o) action against him and that her action was %arred %y
(rescri(tion. &e (etitioned )or dismissal o) the com(laint and an award o) damages.
Issue.s:
/hether or not Monina had esta%lished evidence to (rove that she is an illegitimate child o) Francisco.
&eld:
2
The (ositive testimonies o) Monina and her witnesses all %earing on Franciscos acts and.or conduct showing
that he had continuously ac,nowledged Monina as his illegitimate daughter have not %een success)ully
re)uted. Franciscos vague denial is grossly inade0uate to overcome the (ro%ative weight o) Moninas
testimonial evidence. The Certi)ications o) the ?ocal Civil <egistrar o) *ingle well as the 5a(tismal
Certi)icates which the trial court admitted in evidence as (art o) Moninas testimony, may serve as
circumstantial evidence to )urther rein)orce her claim as an illegitimate daughter o) Francisco %y 's(eranza
Amolar. Also, i) Monina was not truly the illegitimate daughter, it would have %een unnecessary )or him to
have gone to such great lengths in order that Monina denounce her )iliation. Francisco merely consists o)
denials and )ailed to (resent su))icient evidence, thus, his (etition is denied.
Be"na*e vs A,e-o
G.R. 'o. 140500 Jana"y 21, 2002
J. .an!ani*an
Facts:
The late Fiscal 'rnesto 5erna%e allegedly )athered a son with his secretary Carolina Ale@o and was named
Adrian 5erna%e who was %orn on Se(tem%er 7, !7. /hen 'rnesto 5erna%e and his legal wi)e <osalina,
died, the only heir le)t is 'restina. Carolina, in %ehal) o) Adrian, )iled a com(laint (raying that Adrian %e
declared an ac,nowledged illegitimate son o) Fiscal 5erna%e and %e given a share o) his )athers estate. The
<egional Trial Court dismissed the com(laint. The trial court declared that since the (utative )ather had not
ac,nowledged or recognized Adrian 5erna%e in writing, the action )or recognition should have %een )iled
during the li)etime o) the alleged )ather to give him the o((ortunity to either a))irm or deny the childs )iliation.
Issue:
/hether or not Adrian 5erna%e may %e declared and ac,nowledged illegitimate son.
&eld:
According to the new law, an action )or the recognition o) an illegitimate child must %e %rought within the
li)etime o) the alleged (arent. The Family Code ma,es no distinction on whether the )ormer was still a minor
when the latter died. Thus, the (utative (arent is given %y the new code a chance to dis(ute the claim,
considering that Aillegitimate childrenB are usually %egotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate
)amily %eing aware o) their e$istence. The (etition is here%y denied.
Conde vs A*aya
GR 4275 Ma"c/ 23, 1909
CJ A"e,,ano
Facts:
Casiano A%aya died unmarried in A(ril 7!!. <oman A%aya, his %rother and administrator o) his estate
a((ealed on the decision o) the Court o) First Instance, giving 3aula Conde sole hereditary rights to the
inheritance o) his %rother. 3aula Conde is the mother o) Casianos natural children, 9ose and Teo(ista. In re(ly
to the )oregoing motion o) <oman A%aya, Conde )iled a (etition wherein she stated that she ac,nowledged the
relationshi( alleged %y <oman A%aya, %ut that she considered that her right was su(erior to his and moved )or
a hearing o) the matter, and, in conse0uence o) the evidence that she intended to (resent she (rayed that she %e
declared to have (re)erential rights to the (ro(erty le)t %y Casiano A%aya, and that the same %e ad@udicated to
her together with the corres(onding (roducts thereo). She would li,e to en)orce the ac,nowledgment o) her
deceased child under the old Civil Code.
Issues:
/hether Conde, as the mother o) the (resumed natural child, a)ter his.her death may %ring an action to
ac,nowledge the deceased child as a natural child.
&eld:
The (etition )or ac,nowledgment will not (ros(er on the ground that the right o) action which devolves u(on
the child to claim his legitimacy may %e transmitted to his heirs only in the event that the child dies during
3
minority or in a state o) insanity. The actions )or the ac,nowledgment o) natural children can %e instituted only
during the li)e o) the (resumed (arents, e$ce(t in cases where the )ather or mother died during the minority o)
the child, in which case the latter may institute the action %e)ore the e$(iration o) the )irst )our years o) its
ma@ority. And i), a)ter the death o) the )ather or mother, some instrument, %e)ore un,nown, should %e
discovered in which the child is e$(ressly ac,nowledged. The case at %ar did not 0uali)y, not even as
e$ce(tion. There)ore, the right o) action )or the ac,nowledgment o) a natural child is, in (rinci(le and without
e$ce(tion, e$tinguished %y his death, and cannot %e transmitted as a (ortion o) the inheritance o) the deceased
child.
0eotico vs +e, 1a,
GR 1(753 Ma"c/ 22, 1925
J. An!e,o Batista
Facts:
Maria Mortera y 5alsalo%re =da. de Aguirre died in Manila leaving (ro(erties worth 3>CC,CCC.CC. She le)t a
will written in S(anish where she a))i$ed her signature on every (age. The said will was ac,nowledged %e)ore
a notary (u%lic %y the testatri$ and her witnesses. Among the many legacies and devises made in the will was
one o) 36C,CCC.CC to <ene A. Teotico, hus%and o) her niece 9ose)ina. To said s(ouses the testatri$ le)t the
usu)ruct o) her interest in the Calvo %uilding, while the na,ed ownershi( thereo) she le)t in e0ual (arts to her
grandchildren who are the legitimate children o) said s(ouses. The testatri$ also instituted 9ose)ina Mortera as
her sole and universal heir to all the remainder o) her (ro(erties not otherwise dis(osed o) in the will. =icente
5. Teotico )iled a (etition )or the (ro%ate o) the will in the CFI o) Manila. Ana del =al Chan, claiming to %e an
ado(ted child o) the deceased sister o) the testatri$, as well as an ac,nowledged natural child o) a deceased
%rother o) the same testatri$, )iled an o((osition to the (ro%ate o) the will alleging the )ollowing grounds: DE
said will was not e$ecuted as re0uired %y law; D6E the testatri$ was (hysically and mentally inca(a%le to
e$ecute the will at the time o) its e$ecution; and DFE the will was e$ecuted under duress, threat or in)luence o)
)ear. =icente 5. Teotico, )iled a motion to dismiss the o((osition alleging that the o((ositor had no legal
(ersonality to intervene. The (ro%ate court, a)ter due hearing, allowed the o((ositor to intervene.
Issue.s:
/hether or not the o((ositor *el =al has a legal (ersonality to intervene in a (ro%ate (roceeding.
&eld:
It is a well1settled rule that in order that a (erson may %e allowed to intervene in a (ro%ate (roceeding he must
have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the (ro(erty to %e a))ected %y it either as e$ecutor or as a
claimant o) the estate. Gnder the terms o) the will, o((ositor has no right to intervene %ecause she has no
interest in the estate either as heir, e$ecutor, or administrator, nor does she have any claim to any (ro(erty
a))ected %y the will, %ecause it nowhere a((ears therein any (rovision designating her as heir, legatee or
devisee o) any (ortion o) the estate. In the su((osition that, the will is denied (ro%ate, she would ac0uire such
right only i) she were a legal heir o) the deceased, %ut she is not under our Civil Code. The o((ositor cannot
also derive com)ort )rom the )act that she is an ado(ted child o) Francisca Mortera %ecause under our law the
relationshi( esta%lished %y ado(tion is limited solely to the ado(ter and the ado(ted and does not e$tend to the
relatives o) the ado(ting (arents or o) the ado(ted child e$ce(t only as e$(ressly (rovided )or %y law. The case
is remanded to the court a 0uo )or )urther (roceedings.
3n Re4 .etition 5o" Adoption o5 Mic/e,,e 6i7, et a,.
GR12(992%93 May 21, 2009
J. Ca"pio
Facts:
3etitioner, an o(tometrist, married 3rimo ?im %ut they were childless. ?ucia Ayu%an entrusted them minor
children whom they registered to ma,e it a((ear that they are the (arents. The children were named Michelle
and Michael 9ude. They too, care o) the children and sent them to e$clusive schools. They used the surname
A?imB in all their school records and documents. /hen 3rimo ?im died, the (etitioner married Angel 2lario,
4
an American citizen. Therea)ter, (etitioner decided to ado(t the children. At the time o) the )iling o) the
(etitions )or ado(tion, Michelle was 6H years old and already married, while Michael was 7 years and seven
months old. Michelle and her hus%and gave their consent to the ado(tion as evidenced %y their A))idavits o)
Consent and so with Michael. 2lario li,ewise e$ecuted the same. In the Certi)ication issued %y the *e(artment
o) Social /el)are and *evelo(ment D*S/*E, Michelle was considered as an a%andoned child and the
wherea%outs o) her natural (arents were un,nown. The *S/* issued a similar Certi)ication )or Michael. The
trial court dismissed the (etitions.
Issue.s:
/hether or not (etitioner, who has remarried, can singly ado(t.
&eld:
3etitioner, having remarried at the time the (etitions )or ado(tion were )iled, must @ointly ado(t In Section ",
Article III o) <A 7HH6, the use o) the word AshallB means that @oint ado(tion %y the hus%and and the wi)e is
mandatory. This is in consonance with the conce(t o) @oint (arental authority over the child which is the ideal
situation. As the child to %e ado(ted is elevated to the level o) a legitimate child, it is %ut natural to re0uire the
s(ouses to ado(t @ointly. The rule also insures harmony %etween the s(ouses. There are certain re0uirements
that 2lario must com(ly %eing an American citizen, mere giving o) consent is not su))icient. Also, (etitioner
does (etitioner )all under any o) the three e$ce(tions enumerated in Section ". The (etition is dismissed.
Javie" vs 6ce"o
G" 6%2702 Ma"c/ 29, 1954
J. Ben!zon
Facts:
3lainti)) Salud Arca was married to Al)redo 9avier in Manila; they have a son, Al)redo 9avier 9r. Al)redo went
to the Gnited States to @oin the GS +avy. Salud was le)t to live with Al)redos (arents %ut she moved to Cavite
due to incom(ati%ility. /hen the s(ouses relationshi( %ecame strained, Al)redo )iled )or a divorce decree in
the Circuit Court o) Ala%ama. In her answer, Salud contended that her hus%and is not a resident o) the said
state and that the same does not su((ort her and their son. +evertheless, the court decreed dissolution. ?ater
on, Al)redo married American citizen Thelma Francis and %ought a house in +ew Ior, City %ut they also
divorced. &e returned to the 3hili((ines and married Maria 2dvina. Salud Arca )iled a case o) %igamy against
Al)redo. The res(ondent @udge D?uceroE as,ed him to give his wi)e and son a monthly allowance o) >C (esos.
Al)redo contended that Arca is not anymore his wi)e and their son is already over 6 years old to %e su((orted.
3etitioner )iled a Motion )or <econsideration o) the decision %ut the motion was denied
Issue.s:
/hether or not res(ondent @udge ordered issue with grave a%use o) discretion.
&eld:
The court declared that while it is true that Al)redo 9avier 9r. has reached the age o) ma@ority, su((ort may still
%e given su((ort in order to ena%le him to com(lete his education )or same trade or (ro)ession. <egarding with
the su((ort )or the wi)e, she would only lose her (rivilege i) her accusation is )ound to %e )alse. In this case, it
was (roven that the hus%and committed %igamy )or contracting a third marriage without having the )irst
dissolved. &e was only ac0uitted )or lac, o) criminal intent. The (etitioner has )ailed to demonstrate the
grievous mista,e o) the res(ondent @udge.
5