Andal vs Macaraig

GR No. 2474, May 30, 1951

FACTS:

Mariano Andal, a minor, assisted by his mother Maria Duenas, filed a complaint for the recovery of the
ownership and possession of a parcel of land owned by Emiliano Andal and Maria Duenas. Eduvigis
Macaraig, herein defendant, donated the land by virtue of donation propter nuptias in favor of Emiliano.
The latter was suffering from tuberculosis in January 1941. His brother, Felix, then lived with them to
work his house and farm. Emiliano became so weak that he can hardly move and get up from his bed.
Sometime in September 1942, the wife eloped with Felix and lived at the house of Marias father until
1943. Emiliano died in January 1, 1943 where the wife did not attend the funeral. On June 17, 1943,
Maria gave birth to a boy who was, herein petitioner.

ISSUE: WON Mariano Andal is a legitimate child of the deceased.

HELD:

Considering that Mariano was born on June 17, 1943 and Emiliano died on January 1, 1943, the former is
presumed to be a legitimate son of the latter because he was born within 300 days following the
dissolution of the marriage. The fact that the husband was seriously sick is not sufficient to overcome the
presumption of legitimacy. This presumption can only be rebutted by proof that it was physically
impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife during the first 120 days of the 300 days next
preceding the birth of the child. Impossibility of access by husband to wife includes absence during the
initial period of conception, impotence which is patent, and incurable; and imprisonment unless it can be
shown that cohabitation took place through corrupt violation of prison regulations. Marias illicit
intercourse with a man other than the husband during the initial period does not preclude cohabitation
between husband and wife.

Hence, Mariano Andal was considered a legitimate son of the deceased making him the owner of the
parcel land.

Andal vs. Macaraig Case Digest

89 Phil 165

Facts: Mariano Andal, assisted by his mother Maria Dueas, as guardian ad litem, brought an action in the
CIF of Camarines Sur for the recovery of the ownership and possession of a parcel of land situated in
Camarines Sur. The complaint alleges that Mariano Andal is the surviving son of Emiliano Andal and
Maria Dueas and that Emiliano was the owner of the parcel of land in question having acquired it from
his mother Eduvigis Macaraig by virtue of a donation propter nuptias executed by the latter in favor of the
former.

The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (a) declaring Mariano Andal the legitimate
son of Emiliano Andal and such entitled to inherit the land in question; (b) declaring Mariano Andal
owner of said land; and (c) ordering the defendant to pay the costs of suit. Defendant took the case to this
Court upon the plea that only question of law are involved.

Emiliano Andal became sick of tuberculosis. Sometime thereafter, his brother, Felix, went to live in his
house to help him work his house to help him work his farm. His sickness became worse, he became so
weak that he could hardly move and get up from his bed. Maria Dueas, his wife, eloped with Felix, and
both went to live in the house of Maria's father. Felix and Maria had sexual intercourse and treated each
other as husband and wife. Emiliano died without the presence of his wife, who did not even attend his
funeral. Maria Dueas gave birth to a boy, who was given the name of Mariano Andal.

Issue: Whether or not the child is considered as the legitimate son of Emiliano.

Ruling: Mariano is the legitimate son of Emiliano. It is already seen that Emiliano and his wife were
living together, or at least had access one to the other, and Emiliano was not impotent, and the child was
born within 300 days following the dissolution of the marriage. Under these facts no other presumption
can be drawn than that the issue is legitimate. It is also seen that this presumption can only be rebutted by
clear proof that it was physically or naturally impossible for them to indulge in carnal intercourse. And
here there is no such proof.

Page 1 of 1