BABIERA VS. CATOTAL (2000)
The CA also
G.R. NO. 138493 | 2000-06-1
SUBJECT:
Respondent Presentacion had the Requisite Standing to
Initiate the Present Action; Article 171 of the Family
Code is Not Applicable (Presupposes that the Child was
the Undisputed Offspring of the Mother); The Action
Involved does not Impugn Legitimacy and has not
Prescribed; Presumption of Regularity accorded to an
Official Document has been Negated by Evidence
Presented
FACTS:
Presentacion Catotal questioned with the Regional Trial
Court of Lanao Del Norte the authenticity of the entry of
birth of Teofista Babiera. She asserted that the birth
certificate was void ab initio because the birth was totally
simulated, the signature of informant forged, and
contained false entries, such as: (a) Teofista is the
legitimate child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera and
Hermogena Cariosa, (b) the signature of the mother,
Hermogena, was falsified; (c) Teofista's correct family
name was Guinto and not Babiera; (d) her real mother was
Flora Guinto, and her status was an illegitimate child; (e)
it was clinically and medically impossible for Hermogena
to bore a child at 54 years of age and (f) her last child birth
was the year petitioner was born.
Presentacion asked the trial court to declare Teofista's
certificate of birth void and ineffective, and to order the
City Civil Registrar to cancel the same as it affect the
hereditary rights of Presentacion. Teofista opposed and
argued that she and Presentacion were full-blooded
sisters, as showed therein her certificate of birth,
Certificate of Baptism, and her School Report Card. She
also filed a motion on the grounds that the petition stated
no cause of action, being an attack on her legitimacy as
the child of Hermogena and Eugenio, that Presentacion
had no legal capacity to file the petition pursuant to Art.
171 of the Family Code and that the petition was barred
from prescription in accordance with Art. 170 of the
Family Code.
The trial court declared the certificate of birth of Teofista
Guinto to be null and void. The assailed decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court the
evidence adduced during trial proved that petitioner was
not the biological child of Hermogena.
deemed inapplicable Articles 170 and 171 of the Family
Code, which stated that only the father could impugn the
child's legitimacy, and that the same was not subject to a
collateral attack. It held that said provisions contemplated
a situation wherein the husband or his heirs asserted that
the child of the wife was not his. In the case, the action
involved the cancellation of the child's Birth Certificate.
HELD:
Respondent Presentacion had the Requisite Standing to
Initiate the Present Action
1. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, provides that
a real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit.
2. The interest of respondent in the civil status of
petitioner stems from an action for partition which the
latter filed against the former. The case concerned the
properties inherited by respondent from her parents.
Article 171 of the Family Code is Not Applicable
(Presupposes that the Child was the Undisputed
Offspring of the Mother)
3. A close reading of this provision shows that it applies
to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of
his wife's child. The provision, however, presupposes that
the child was the undisputed offspring of the mother.
4. The present case alleges and shows that Hermogena did
not give birth to petitioner. The prayer herein is not to
declare that petitioner is an illegitimate child of
Hermogena, but to establish that the former is not the
latter's child at all.
The Action Involved does not Impugn Legitimacy and has
not Prescribed
5. Petitioner contended that the action to contest her status
as a child of the late Hermogena Babiera has already
prescribed. She cited Article 170 of the Family Code
which provided the prescriptive period for such action.
6. The Court debunked her argument. The present action
involves the cancellation of petitioner's Birth Certificate;
it does not impugn her legitimacy.
1|P a g e
7. The prescriptive period set forth in Article 170 of the
Family Code does not apply. The action to nullify the
Birth Certificate does not prescribe, because it was
allegedly void ab initio.
Presumption of Regularity accorded to an Official
Document has been Negated by Evidence Presented
8. While it is true that an official document such as
petitioner's Birth Certificate enjoys the presumption of
regularity, the specific facts attendant in the case, as well
as the totality of the evidence presented during trial,
sufficiently negate such presumption.
9. Relying merely on the assumption of validity of the
Birth Certificate, petitioner has presented no other
evidence other than the said document to show that she is
really Hermogena's child. Neither has she provided any
reason why her supposed mother would make a
deposition in another case, stating that the former was not
the latter's child at all.
DE JESUS VS. ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN
GAMBOA DIZON (2001)
G.R. NO. 142877 | 2001-10-02
SUBJECT:
How Filiation of Illegitimate Children is Established;
Authentic Writings are deemed in itself a Voluntary
Recognition; Children Born during the Marriage of their
Parents are Legitimate ; Only the Father or in Exceptional
Case, the Latters Heirs may Impugn the Legitimacy of a
Child Born to his Wife; Declaration of Legitimacy by
Law Cannot be Attacked Collaterally
FACTS:
Danilo de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus got married
in 1964 and during this marriage, petitioners, Jacqueline
de Jesus and Jinkie de Jesus were born. However, in a
notarized document, Juan Dizon acknowledged
Jacqueline and Jinkie de Jesus as being his own
illegitimate children by Carolina. Subsequently, Juan died
intestate leaving behind a considerable amount of assets.
On the strength of the notarized acknowledgment,
petitioners filed a complaint for Partition with Inventory
and Accounting of the Dizon estate.
On the other hand, the respondents, the surviving spouse
and legitimate children of the decedent, including the
corporations of which the deceased was a stockholder,
sought the dismissal of the case. They argued that the
complaint, even while denominated as being one for
partition, would nevertheless call for altering the status of
petitioners from being the legitimate children of the
spouses Danilo and Carolina to instead be the illegitimate
children of Carolina de Jesus and deceased Juan Dizon.
The trial court denied their motion to dismiss as well as
their motion for reconsideration, which prompted the
respondents to elevate the issue before the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court upheld the decision of the
lower court and ordered that case be remanded for further
proceedings.
Years later, the respondents filed an omnibus motion for
the dismissal of the complaint. They contended that the
action instituted was made to compel the recognition of
petitioners as being the illegitimate children of decedent
Juan Dizon and that the partition sought was merely an
ulterior relief once petitioners would have been able to
establish their status as such heirs.
At this instance, the trial court favored with the
respondents and dismissed the complaint of the
petitioners for lack of cause of action and being improper.
The petitioners went before the Supreme Court and
maintained that their recognition as being illegitimate
children of the decedent, embodied in an authentic
writing, was in itself sufficient to establish their status as
such and did not require a separate action for judicial
approval.
HELD:
How Filiation of Illegitimate Children is Established
1. The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate
children, is established by (1) the record of birth
appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2)
an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document
or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned.
2. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1)
the open and continuous possession of the status of a
2|P a g e
legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws.
3. 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
acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action
is required.
Authentic Writings are deemed in itself a Voluntary
Recognition
4. Any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for
compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary
recognition that does not require a separate action for
judicial approval.
5. Where a claim for recognition is predicated on other
evidence merely tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside
of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the
applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to
establish the child's acknowledgment.
Children Born during the Marriage of their Parents are
Legitimate
6. There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly
established and founded on sounder morality and more
convincing reason than the presumption that children
born in wedlock are legitimate.
7. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the
absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of
access between the spouses during the first 120 days of
the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the
child.
8. A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners
were born during the marriage of their parents. The
certificates of live birth would also identify Danilo de
Jesus as being their father.
Only the Father or in Exceptional Case, the Latters Heirs
may Impugn the Legitimacy of a Child Born to his Wife
9. In an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to
the late Juan Dizon, petitioners, in effect, would impugn
their legitimate status as being children of Danilo de Jesus
and Carolina Aves de Jesus.
10. This step cannot be aptly done because the law itself
establishes the legitimacy of children conceived or born
during the marriage of the parents.
11. The presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil status for
the child born in wedlock, and only the father, or in
exceptional instances the latter's heirs, can contest in an
appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his
wife.
12. It is only when the legitimacy of a child has been
successfully impugned that the paternity of the husband
can be rejected.
Declaration of Legitimacy by Law Cannot be Attacked
Collaterally
13. This issue of whether petitioners are indeed the
acknowledged illegitimate offsprings of the decedent,
cannot be aptly adjudicated without an action having been
first been instituted to impugn their legitimacy as being
the children of Danilo and Carolina born in lawful
wedlock.
14. Jurisprudence is strongly settled that the paramount
declaration of legitimacy by law cannot be attacked
collaterally, one that can only be repudiated or contested
in a direct suit specifically brought for that purpose.
3|P a g e