MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE C. TABILIRAN,JR.,respondent.

A.M. No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995

Facts:
An administrative case was filed by Abadilla (a clerk of court) alleging that Judge Tabiliran
had scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla Baybayan (with whom he begot 3 children) during
the existence of his legitimate marriage with Teresita Banzuela-Tabiliran. The respondent and Baybayan
were married on May 23, 1986. It was further alleged that Judge Tabiliran falsely represented himself as
single in the marriage contract and that Mrs. Tabiliran also filed a complaint against the respondent for
abandoning the family home and living with LeonoraPillarion, with whom he begot a son. the judge was
also alleged to have committed corruption and bribery.
In his defense, Judge Tabiliran claimed that he was not liable for bigamy because he cohabited and married
Baybayan after Mrs. Tabiliran left and abandoned him and their family in 1966. Since then, he had not
heard any news about his wife. He also alleged that Abadilla was filing this case
in retribution and resentment. The RTC said that the marriage between Tabiliran and Baybayan is valid
until the reappearance of his first wife.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in recognizing the second marriage valid.
Ruling:
The Court found that Judge Tabiliran started cohabiting with Baybayan as early as 1970, prove by the birth
of their children in 1970, 1971 and 1975 respectively. Hence, the cohabitation occurred while the first
marriage was valid and subsisting and contrary to Sec 3 of the Rules of Court and Art 390 of the Civil Code
which states that a spouse is presumed to be dead after 7 years of absence. In this case, Mrs. Tabiliran was
absent only for 4 years when respondent and Baybayan cohabited. Therefore, Judge Tabiliran was found
guilty of gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption.

Abadilla vs. Tabiliran

AM No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995

FACTS:
Ma. Blyth Abadilla, a Clerk of Court, filed a complaint against Judge Tabiliran on the grounds of gross
immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption unbecoming of a judge. With respect to the charge on gross
immorality, she contended that the judge scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla Baybayan
during subsistence of his marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Tabiliran and Priscilla got married in May
1986. On the other hand, with respect to the charge on deceitful conduct, petitioner claims that the judge
caused his 3 illegitimate children with Priscilla be registered as legitimate by falsely executing separate
affidavits stating the delayed registration was due to inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight
when in fact, he knew these children cannot be legally registered as legitimate. The judge averred that 25
years had already elapsed since the disappearance of her wife in 1966 when he married Priscilla hence the
cohabitation was neither bigamous nor immoral. However, as early as 1970, based on the record, Priscilla
had begotten her 3 children (1970, 1971 and 1975).

ISSUE: WON the 3 children can be considered legitimate.

HELD:
The 3 children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since the time they were
born, there was an existing valid marriage between Tabiliran and Teresita. Only natural children can be
legitimated. Children born outside of 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.

Under Article 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents
who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each
other may be legitimated. Reasons for this limitation:
1) The rationale of legitimation would be destroyed;
2) It would be unfair to the legitimate children in terms of successional rights;
3) There will be the problem of public scandal, unless social mores change;
4) It is too violent to grant the privilege of legitimation to adulterous children as it will destroy the
sanctity of marriage;
5) It will be very scandalous, especially if the parents marry many years after the birth of the child.

Page 1 of 1