FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS

Atty. Lydia Galas

TITLE VI: PATERNITY AND FILIATION
Chapter 1: Legitimate Children
163- 171- Presumption of Legitimacy if born within a valid marriage
- Status of children conceived thru artificial insemination, requisites
- Status of Children outside of a valid marriage, exceptions
- Grounds, periods to impugn legitimacy of the child, and who may impugn
- Absence of proof- presumption of filiation if marriage is terminated and wife contracts a
subsequent marriage within 300 days from termination
- When may heirs impugn legitimacy of child in lieu father?
a. The physical incapacity of husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
b. The fact that the H & W were living separately in such way that sex was
impossible;
c. Serious illness of H, w/c prevented sexual intercourse
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have
been that of the H, except in the instance provided in ART. 164 (2);
(3) That in case of children conceived thru artificial insemination, the written authorization
or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence,
intimidation or undue influence

Art. 163. The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation may be ART. 167 – The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against
legitimate or illegitimate its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
1. Distinction
2. Classification of Children under FC ART. 168 – If marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300 days
a. Legitimate (Art. 164) after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in ABSENCE OF PROOF to
b. Legitimated (Art. 177 and 178) the contrary:
c. Illegitimate (Art.165) (1) A child born before 180 days after solemnization of subsequent marriage, is
considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born
Art. 164. (1) Children conceived or born during marriage of the parents are legitimate. (2) Status w/in 300 days after termination of former marriage;
of conceived through artificial insemination shall be considered legitimate. (2) A child born after 180 days ff. the celebration of subsequent marriage is considered
*Artificial insemination of wife + sperm of husband or from donor or both = legitimate. to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born wi/in 300 days
1. Legitimate children are those conceived / born: after termination of former marriage
a. During valid marriage
b. To marriage believed in Good Faith (Art. 35 par.2) ART. 169- The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days ff. termination of marriage
c. Prior to decree of nullity (Art. 36) shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy.
d. To marriage, where one spouse failed to liquidate & to deliver presumptive legitimes of a prior
dissolved marriage (Art. 53) ART. 170 – The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within 1 yr. from the
e. To a “provisional” marriage, where absentee spouse reappears (Art. 43)
knowledge of birth or its recording in the civil register. (2) If husband, doesn’t reside at the place of
f. To a voidable marriage. (Art. 45)
g. By means of artificial insemination
birth, the period shall be 2 Years if in the Philippines and 3 years if abroad.

ART. 171 – The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period
Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside of a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless
prescribed in the preceding article only in the ff. cases:
otherwise provided in this code.
Illegitimate children are those conceived/ born-
(1) If the husband should die before expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action;
a. To incestuous marriages (2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint w/o having desisted therefrom;
b. To bigamous marriages (3) If the child was born after the death of husband.
c. To void marriages by reason of public policy (Art. 38)
d. To void marriages under Art. 35, except para 2 CASES:
e. By couples who are not legally married 1. BADUA v. CA 229 S 468 [G.R. 105625 01/24/1994]
f. By minor couples (whether married or not) 2. BABIERA v. CATOTAL 333 S 499 [ G.R. 138493. 06/15/2000]
g. By couples maintaining adulterous relations
3. DE JESUS v. HEIRS OF DIZON 366 S 499 [G.R. 142877. 10/02/2001]
4. LIYAO, JR. v TANHOTI- LIYAO 378 S 563 [G.R. 138961. 03/07/2002]
ART. 166 - Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on ff. grounds: 5. CONCEPCION v. CA 08/31/2005 [G.R. 123450]
(1) That it was physically impossible for husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife 6. ONG v. DIAZ 540 S 480 [G.R. 171713. 12/17/2007]
within 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of child coz of:
By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 1 of 10 as of 10/04/2018
FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
CASES:
CASE ARTICLE FACTS
1. BADUA v. CA 229 S Articles 164, 166, 170 Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian were owners of various
468 [G.R. 105625 and 171 of the Family properties located in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while his husband died
01/24/1994] Code cannot be applied in 1989. Vicente’s sister and nephew filed a complaint for the issuance of
in the case at bar. letters of administration of Vicente’s estate in favor of the nephew,
herein private respondent. The petitioner, Marissa Benitez-Badua, was
raised and cared by the deceased spouses since childhood, though not
related to them by blood, nor legally adopted. The latter to prove that
she is the only legitimate child of the spouses submitted documents such
as her certificate of live birth where the spouses name were reflected as
her parents. She even testified that said spouses continuously treated her
as their legitimate daughter. On the other hand, the relatives of Vicente
declared that said spouses were unable to physically procreate hence the
petitioner cannot be the biological child. Trial court decided in favor of
the petitioner as the legitimate daughter and sole heir of the spouses.
2. BABIERA v. 170, 171 Presentacion questioned the authenticity of the entry of birth of Teofista.
CATOTAL 333 S 499 She asserted that the birth certificate is void ab initio, as it was totally a
[ G.R. 138493. simulated birth, the signature of informant forged, and contained false
06/15/2000] entries, to wit: • That Teofista is the legitimate child of the late spouses
Eugenio Babiera and Hermogena Cariñosa; • Signature of the mother,
Hermogena, is falsified; • Teofista's correct family name is GUINTO, not
Babiera; • Her real mother was Flora Guinto, and her status is an
illegitimate child; • It was clinically and medically impossible for
Hermogena to bore a child at 54 years of age; her last child birth was
when Presentacion was born. Presentacion ask the 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 who inherited the estate. Teofista countered that she and
Presentacion are 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 states no cause of action, being
an attack on her legitimacy as the child of Hermogena and Eugenio; that
Presentacion has 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.
3. DE JESUS v. HEIRS 171; 164,166, 167 Danilo B. de Jesus and Carolina Aves de Jesus got married in August 1964.
OF DIZON 366 S 499 It was during this marriage that Jacqueline A. de Jesus and Jinkie Christie
A. de Jesus, herein petitioners, were born. In a notarized document,
By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 2 of 10
ISSUE
Whether or not Marissa
Benitez-Badua is the legitimate
child and the sole heir of the
late spouses.
--or—
WON petitioner’s certificate of
live birth will suffice to
establish her legitimacy
1. Whether or not Presentacion
has legal capacity to file the
special proceedings pursuant to
Art. 171; 2. Whether or not the
special proceedings is improper
and barred by the statute of
limitation; 3. Whether or not
the public record of Teofista's
birth is superior to the oral
testimony of Presentacion
Can a legitimate child bring an
action to cancel the BC of
another child, who appears to
have been registered as a child
of her mother?
YES. But Art. 171 of FC is not he
law applicable.
Whether or not petitioners are
illegitimate children of
RULING
No. The SC find no merit to the petition.
Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be
applied in the case at bar. The above provisions do not
contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the
biological child of a certain couple.
Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses.
Marissa's Certificate of Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed
of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Isabel by
Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole
heirs of the estate.
Petition is not meritorious. 1. Article 171 is not applicable in
this case. Article 171 of the Family Code shows that it applies
to instances which the father impugns the legitimacy of his
wife's child. The provision, however, presupposes that the
child was the undisputed child of the mother. Present case
alleges and shows that Hermogena did not give birth to
Teofista. The present action does not impugn Teofista's
filiation to Eugenio and Hermogeno, be there is no blood
relation to impugn in the first place. The reason why
Presentacion took interest on Teofista's status is to protect
the former's successional rights. 2. Article 170 of the FC does
not apply. The provision provides a prescriptive period for
action to impugn the legitimacy of the child. The present
action involves the cancellation of Teofista's Birth Certificate,
it does not impugn her legitimacy. The action to nullify the
birth certificate does not prescribe because it was allegedly
declared void ab initio. 3. The specific attendant in the case at
bar and the totality of the evidence presented during trial,
sufficiently negates the presumption of regularity in the
issuance of birth certificate. First, the birth certificate was not
signed by the local civil registrar, and the mother's signature
was different from other signatures. Second, no medical
records or doctor's prescription that provide as evidence of
Hermogena's pregnancy. It was impossible for her to have
given birth at 54 years of age. Third, the disposition of
Hermogena which states that she did not give brith to
Teofista and that the latter was not hers of Eugenio.
No. A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners
were born during the valid marriage of their parents Danilo
and Carolina. The certificates of birth also identified Danilo de
as of 10/04/2018
FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
[G.R. 142877. dated June 7, 1991, Juan G. Dizonacknowledged Jacqueline and Jinkie de
10/02/2001] Jesus as being his own illegitimate children by Carolina Aves de Jesus.
Juan died intestate in March 1992, leaving behind considerableassets
consisting of shares of stock in various corporations and some real
property. It was on the strength of his notarized acknowledgement that
petitioners filed a complaint for “Partition with Inventory and
Accounting” of the Dizon estate with the RTC. Respondent, 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, arguing 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 de Jesus to instead be the illegitimate
children of Carolina de Jesus and deceased Juan Dizon.
4. LIYAO, JR. v 166; 262 of William Liyao Jr., the illegitimate son of the deceased, as represented by
TANHOTI- LIYAO CC her mother (Corazon), filed a petition ordering Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao,
378 S 563 [G.R. Pearl L. Tan, Tita L. Tan and Linda Liyao to recognize and acknowledge the
138961. former as a compulsory heir of the deceased and to be entitled to all
03/07/2002] successional rights. Liyao Jr. was in continuous possession and enjoyment
of the status as the child of the deceased having been recognized and
acknowledged as such child by the decedent during his lifetime. There
were two sides of the story. Corazon G. Garcia is legally married to but
living separately from Ramon M. Yulo for more than ten (10) years at the
time of the institution of the said civil case. Corazon cohabited with the
late William Liyao from 1965 up to the time of William’s untimely demise
on December 2, 1975. They lived together in the company of Corazon’s
two (2) children from her subsisting marriage. On the other hand, one of
the children of the deceased stated that her mom and the deceased were
legally married and that her parents were not separated legally or in fact.
By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 3 of 10
decedent Juan Dizon entitled to
inherit from him
WON the petitioner can
impugn his own legitimacy to
be able to claim from the
estate of the deceased.
Whose child is William?
A: Only father can impugn
legitimacy of the child.
Jesus as their father. There is a presumption in law that
children born in wedlock are legitimate. 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 due to (a) the physical
incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife; (b) the fact the husband and wife are living separately in
such a way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c)
serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents
sexual intercourse. Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of
the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article
171,of the Family Code (which took effect on August 3, 1988),
the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer
be legally feasible and the status conferred by the
presumption becomes fixedand unassailable. In an attempt to
establish their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan,
petitioners, in effect, would impugn their legitimate status as
being children of Danilo and Carolinade Jesus. This step
cannot be aptly done because the law itself establishes the
legitimacy of children conceived or born during the marriage
of the parents. 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.
Thus, it is only when the legitimacy of a child has been
successfully impugned that the paternity of the husband can
be rejected.
Under the New Civil Code, a child born and conceived during
a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. The
presumption of legitimacy of children does not only flow out
from a declaration contained in the statute but is based on
the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue
of the mother. The presumption is grounded in a policy to
protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.The
presumption of legitimacy of the child, however, is not
conclusive and consequently, may be overthrown by evidence
to the contrary. Hence, Article 255 of the New Civil Code
provides: Article 255. Children born after one hundred and
eighty days following the celebration of the marriage, and
before three hundred days following its dissolution or the
separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate.
Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other
than that of the physical impossibility of the husband having
access to his wife within the first one hundred and twenty
days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the
child. This physical impossibility may be caused: 1)By the
impotence of the husband; 2) By the fact that husband and
wife were living separately in such a way that access was not
as of 10/04/2018
FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
5. CONCEPCION v. CA 164 Petitioner Gerardo Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa
08/31/2005 [G.R. Almontewere married in 1989. Almost a year later, Ma. Theresa gave
123450] birth to Jose Gerardo. In 1991, however, Gerardo filed a petition to have
his marriage to Ma. Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy. He
alleged that 9 years before he married private respondent, the latter had
married one Mario Gopiao, which marriage was never annulled. The trial
court ruled that Ma. Theresa’s marriage to Mario was valid and subsisting
when she married Gerardo and annulled her marriage to the latter for
being bigamous. It declared Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child as a
result. The custody of the child was awarded to Ma. Theresa while
Gerardo was granted visitation rights. The Court of Appeals reversedthe
decision and held that Jose Gerardo was not the son of Ma. Theresa by
Gerardo but by Mario during his first marriage.
6. ONG v. DIAZ 540 S 169, 170, 171 The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate
480 [G.R. 171713. and Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of
12/17/2007] the minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a decision and declared
the minor to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and
ordering him to support the child until she reaches the age of majority.
Rogelio died during the pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate
filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a
dead person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity
testing, as current jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and
effective method of settling the present paternity dispute."
By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 4 of 10
Whether or not the Court of
Appeals correctly ruled that
Jose Gerardo is a legitimate
child of Mario and not
petitioner Gerardo.
Whether or not DNA analysis
can still be done despite the
death of Rogelio.
possible; 3) By the serious illness of the husband. The fact that
Corazon Garcia had been living separately from her husband,
Ramon Yulo, at the time petitioner was conceived and born is
of no moment. While physical impossibility for the husband to
have sexual intercourse with his wife is one of the grounds for
impugning the legitimacy of the child, it bears emphasis that
the grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child
mentioned in Article 255 of the Civil Code may only be
invoked by the husband, or in proper cases, his heirs under
the conditions set forth under Article 262 of the Civil Code.
Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly personal
right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs for the
simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the
scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces
and he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that
infidelity or expose it in view of the moral and economic
interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs
are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these
cases, none – even his heirs – can impugn legitimacy; that
would amount of an insult to his memory. Furthermore, the
court held that there was no clear, competent and positive ev
Yes. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, a child who is
conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is
legitimate. In the present case, since the marriage between
Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was void ab initio, the marriage
between Mario and Ma. Theresa was still subsisting at the
time Jose Gerardo was conceived, and thus the law presumes
that Jose Gerardo was a legitimate child of private respondent
and Mario. Also, Gerardocannot impugn the legitimacy of the
child because such right is strictly personal to the husband or,
in exceptional cases, his heirs. Since the marriage of Gerardo
and Ma. Theresa was void from the very beginning; he never
became her husband and thus never acquired any right to
impugn the legitimacy of her child. The petition was denied.
Yes. The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the
application of DNA testing for as long as there exist
appropriate biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA
Evidence allows the conduct of DNA testing by using
biological samples--organic material originating from the
person's body, ie., blood, saliva, other body fluids, tissues,
hair, bones, even inorganic materialsthat is susceptible to
DNA testing. In case proof of filiation or paternity would be
unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to
obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained
from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical
residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. (People
vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs Comelec 424 SCRA 277)
as of 10/04/2018
FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
Chapter 2: Proof of FILIATION ART. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname & shall be under the parental authority of their
mother, & shall be entitled to support in conformity w/ this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate
172-176 - Primary and secondary proofs whether legitimate or illegitimate child shall consist of ½ of the legitimate child. Except for this modification, all other provisions of
CIVIL CODE governing successional rights shall remain in force.
ART. 172- The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the ff:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or final judgment; CASES:
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten 1. FERNANDEZ v. CA 230 S 130 [GR 108366] 02/16/1994
instrument & signed by the parent concerned 2. FERNANDEZ v. FERNANDEZ 363 S 811 [GR 143256 08/28/2001]
3. LABAGALA v. SANTIAGO 12/04/2001
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FOREGOING EVIDENCE, the legitimate filiation shall be
4. LOCSIN v. LOCSIN, Jr. 12/10/2001
proved by:
5. BERNABE v. ALEJO 01/21/2002
(1) The open & continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; 6. DE LA ROSA v. VDA. DE DAMIAN 01/27/2006
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court & special laws 7. VERCELES v. POSADA 533 S 518
8. DE LA CRUZ v. GRACIA 594 S 648
ART. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime & 9. NEPOMUCENO v. LOPEZ 03/18/20
shall be transmitted to their heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In 10. AGUILAR v. SIASAT GR#200169 01/28/2015
these cases, the heirs shall have a period of 5 years w/in w/c to institute the action. 11. ARADO v. ALCORAN 762 S 37
12. GERONIMO v. SANTOS GR#197099 09/28/15
13. CALIMAG v. MACAPAZ GR#191936 06/01/2016
ART. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right;
(1) To bear the surnames of the father & mother in conformity w/ the provisions of the
RA 9255 – AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THE FATHER
Civil Code on Surname;
[February 24 2004]
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their
brothers & sis, in conformity w/ provisions of Code on Support;
RA 9255 AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING
(3) To be entitled to the legitimate & other successional rights granted to them by the FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY
Civil Code. CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES"
CHAPTER 3. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN RA 9255: Illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way & on same recognized by the father, either throught:
evidence as legitimate children. (2) The action must be brought same period in Art. 173, except 1. Record of birth in civil register
when the action is based on Art. 172 Para. 2, in w/c case the action may be brought during the 2. Father’s admission in public document
lifetime of the alleged parent. 3. Father’s admission in private handwritten document
The Father under RA 9255 Sec. 1 has the right to file an action to prove non fiiation during his
lifetime.

CASE ARTICLE FACTS ISSUE RULING

1. FERNANDEZ v. CA While baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can
230 S 130 [GR only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates
108366] February so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of
16, 1994 entries therein with respect to the child's paternity.
Facts:
Petitioners filed an action for recognition and support against
private respondent Carlito. Violeta, the mother of the two petitioners
pointed Carlito as the father of her two sons. She averred they were
married in civil rites and discovered that the marriage license which they
used was spurious. To bolster their case, petitioners presented the
Whether or not proof relied Yes. Firstly, petitioners cannot rely on the photographs
upon by the RTC is inadequate showing the presence of the private respondent in the baptism
to prove the private of petitioner Claro. These photographs are far from proofs that
respondent's paternity and private respondent is the father of petitioner Claro. As
filiation of petitioners. explained by the private respondent, he was in the baptism as
one of the sponsors of petitioner Claro. His testimony was
corroborated by Rodante Pagtakhan.
Secondly, the pictures taken in the house of Violeta
showing private respondent showering affection to Claro fall
short of the evidence required to prove paternity.

By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 5 of 10 as of 10/04/2018

FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
following documentary evidence: their certificates of live birth, identifying
respondent Carlito as their father; the baptismal certificate of petitioner
Claro which also states that his father is respondent Carlito; photographs
of Carlito taken during the baptism of petitioner Claro; and pictures of
respondent Carlito and Claro taken at the home of Violeta Esguerra.
Respondent Carlito, however, denied Violeta's allegations that he sired the
two petitioners. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial
court ruled in favor of petitioners. On appeal, the CA found that the "proof
relied upon by the RTC is inadequate to prove the private respondent's
paternity and filiation of petitioners."
2. FERNANDEZ v. Succession; Art. 1001, Dr. Jose Fernandez died intestate in 1982. An Extra- Judicial Partition of his
FERNANDEZ 363 S NCC properties was executed by his wife Generosa and their son, Rodolfo,
811 [GR 143256 herein petitioner. A Deed of Sale of some properties of Generosa was also
08/298/2001] executed by her in favor of petitioner Eddie Fernandez before she died.
Respondents, Dr. Jose’s nephews and nieces, filed an action for the
declaration of absolute nullity of the 2 deeds.
3. LABAGALA v.
SANTIAGO
12/04/2001
By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 6 of 10
Thirdly, 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. In Macandang vs. Court of
Appeals, 100 SCRA 73 (1980), we ruled that while baptismal
certificates may be considered public documents, they can
only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments
on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent
evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the
child's paternity.
Fourth, the certificates of live of the petitioners
identifying private respondent as their father are not also
competent evidence on the issue of their paternity. Again, the
records do no show that private respondent had a hand in the
preparation of said certificates.
HELD: Since the lower courts found Rodolfo not a child by
nature of the spouses Fernandez and not a legal heir of Dr.
Jose, the deed of extra- judicial settlement of Dr. Jose’s estate
between him and Generosa is null and void insofar as Rodolfo
is concerned pursuant to Article 1105, NCC. However, since the
property in question is conjugal, the respondents are entitled
to inherit the 1/4 share of the estate while the 3/4 share of the
conjugal property still belong to Generosa. Respondents can
not thus possess nor demand reconveyance of the said
property since they are not related by consanguinity to
Generosa. Being the owner of the realty, Generosa can thus
sell it as she did in favor of petitioner.
as of 10/04/2018
FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
Section 4. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of national circulation.
CHAPTER 4: LEGITIMATED CHILDREN
*This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 5279 and Senate Bill No. 3111 was finally passed by the
House of Representatives and the Senate on October 13, 2009.
177- 182 – Who may be legitimated? Effectivity of legitimation
- Effects of Legitimation, rights of legitimated children
- Impugning legitimation, grounds and period to file action Approved: DEC 20, 2009

GLORIA MACAPAGAL–ARROYO
ART.177- Only children conceived & born outside of wedlock of parents who, at time of conception President of the Philippines
of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.
ART. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The TITLE VII: ADOPTION
annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.
LAWS ON ADOPTION 1. FAMILY CODE- most provisions of the Family Code on adoption are
ART. 179. Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate children. repealed by RA 8552 except Article 190 of said Code.
1. RA 8043- INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995
ART. 180. The effects of legitimation shall retroact to the time of the child’s birth. 2. RA 8552- DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998
CASES:
ART. 181. The Legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit 1. TAMARGO v. CA 209 S 518
their descendants. 2. LAHOM v. SIBULO 07/14/2003
3. LANDINGIN v. REPUBLIC 06/27/2006
4. IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE AND MICHAEL JUDE LIM 588 S 98
ART. 182. Legitimation may be impugned only by those who are prejudiced in their rights, w/in 5
5. CASTRO v. GREGORIO 738 S 415
years from the time of their cause of action accrues. 6. BARTOLOME v. SSS 740 S 78

RA 9858- AN ACT PROVIDING FOR LEGITINATION OF CHILDREN BORN TO PARENTS BELOW ART. 183. A person of age & in possession of full civil capacity & legal rights may adopt, provided he
MARRYING AGE is in the position to support and care for his children, legitimate or illegitimate, in keeping with the
RA 9858 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN BORN TO PARENTS BELOW
means of the family.
MARRYING AGE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED
Section 1. Article 177 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Only minors may be adopted, except in the cases when the adoption of a person of majority age is
Philippines", as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: allowed in this Title.
"Art. 177. Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the
former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or were so disqualified only because
either or both of them were below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimated." 1. RA 8043- INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995
"Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043
voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation."
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RULES TO GOVERN INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION OF FILIPINO
Section 2. Implementing Rules. – The civil Registrar General shall, in consultation with the chairpersons of CHILDREN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
the Committee on Revision of Laws of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Youth, Women
and Family Relations of the Senate, the Council for the Welfare of Children, the Department of Justice (DOJ), ARTICLE I
the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the office of the Supreme Court Administrator, the Philippine GENERAL PROVISIONS
Association of Civil Registrars (PACR) and the UP Law Center, issue the necessary rules/regulations for the Section 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of
effective implementation of this Act not later than one (1) month from its effectivity. 1995.”
INTER COUNTRY ADOPTION refers to the socio-legal process of adopting a FIL child by a
Section 3. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations and/or foreigner or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad where the petition is filed, the
administrative regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby amended, supervised trial custody is undertaken, and the decree of adoption is issued outside the
modified, superseded or repealed accordingly. Philippines.
WHO MAY BE ADOPTED:

By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 7 of 10 as of 10/04/2018

FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
Only legally free child may be the subject of inter-country adoption
- NO child shall be matched to a foreign adoptive family unless It is
satisfactorily shown that the child cannot be adopted locally.

SUPPORT:
2. RA 8552- DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998
194-208- Concept and its characteristics
Republic Act No. 8552 February 25, 1998
- Persons obliged to support each other, amount
- Order of preference
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RULES AND POLICIES ON THE DOMESTIC ADOPTION
- When is SUPPORT demandable
OF FILIPINO CHILDREN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
- Options of person/s obliged to give support
SUPPORT:
Approved: February 25, 1998
Consists of everything indispensable for:
WHO MAY ADOPT: Any person provided he is: 1. Sustenance
1. FILIPINO CITIZEN 2. Dwelling
a. Of legal age 3. Clothing
b. In possession of full capacity and legal rights 4. Medical attendance
c. Of good moral character 5. Education- includes schooling or training for some profession, trade or
d. Has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, vocation, even beyond the age of majority
emotionally & psychologically capable of caring for the children 6. Transportation- includes expenses going to and from school, or to and
e. At least 16 years older than the person to be adopted, unless: from place of work.
e.1. The adopter is the natural parent of the child to be
Note: Amount of support shall be in proportion to the means of the giver and to the
adopted or,
need of the recipient.
e.2. The adopter is the spouse of the illegitimate parent of the
PERSONS OBLIGED TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER TO THE WHOLE EXTENT:
person to be adopted.
1. Spouses
f. In possession of full civil capacity & legal rights
2. Legitimate ascendants & descendants
g. In a position to support & care for his legitimate & illegitimate
3. Parents & their legitimate children & the children of the latter (leg or
children. In keeping with the means of the family
illegitimate)
2. ALIEN
4. Parents & their illegitimate children and the children of the latter (L or I)
a. Possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino
5. Legitimate brothers & sisters whether full or half-blood
nationals
ORDER OF LIABILITY IF 2 or MORE ARE OBLIGED TO SUPPORT:
b. His/her country has diplomatic relations with the Philippines
1. Spouse
c. He/she has been living in the Philippines for at least 3 continuous
2. Descendants in nearest degree
years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and
3. Ascendants in nearest degree
maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered
4. Brothers & sisters
EXCEPT when:
OPTIONS OF THE PERSON GIVING SUPPORT:
i.a former FIL citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the 4th
1. To give a fixed monthly allowance; or
degree of consanguinity or affinity;or
2. To receive & maintain the recipient in the giver’s home or family
ii.one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his/her Filipino
dwelling
spouse; or
EXCEPTION: when there is a legal or moral obstacle thereto.
iii.one who is married to a FIL citizen & seeks to adopt jointly with
his/her spouse a relative w/in 4th degree of consanguinity or
affinity of the FIL spouse;
CASES:
3. GUARDIAN- with respect to the ward after the termination of the
1. DE ASIS v CA 303 S 176
guardianship & clearance of his/her financial accountabilities. 2. GAN v REYES 05/28/2002
3. MANGONON v CA 494 S1

By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 8 of 10 as of 10/04/2018

FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
4. LIM v LIM 604 S 691 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE,
5. DOLINA v VALLECERA GR#182367 12/15/2010 EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
6. LIM-LUA v LUHA GR#175279-80 06/05/2013 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
7. BBB v AAA 750 S 188 ARTICLE I
Title, Policy, Principles and Definitions of Terms
PARENTAL AUTHORITY Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act."
209-227- Who exercises parental authority:
a. If both parents are alive;
b. In cases of annulment or legal separation
EMANCIPATION
c. In cases of remarriage;
234 and 236 as amended by RA 6809
d. In cases of absence or unsuitability
Republic Act No. 6809 December 13, 1989
• Who shall exercise SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL AUTHORITY
AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY FROM TWENTY-ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS, AMENDING
o CARAVAN TRAVEL TOURS v ABEJAR 783 S 368 (LEONEN)
FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED NINE, AND FOR OTHER
• Concept of the FILIAL PRIVELGE RULE, its exceptions
PURPOSES
• Who exercises SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
o SCHOOL OF HOLY SPIRIT OF QC v TAGUIAM 558 s 223
assembled::
• Liability of persons exercising parental and special parental authority for the tort or
Section 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby
act/ omission committed by a child
amended to read as follows:
CASES:
"Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided,
1. ESPIRITU v CA 242 S 362
2. SANTOS SR. v CA 242 S 407 majority commences at the age of eighteen years."
3. ESLAO v CA 266 S 317 Section 2. Articles 235 and 237 of the same Code are hereby repealed
4. LAXAMANA v LAXAMANA 09/03/2002
5. GUALBERTO v GUALBERTO v 461 S 451
6. SALIENTES v ABANILLA 08/29/2006
7. GAMBOA- HIRSCH v CA 527 S 380 TITLE XI
8. DACASIN v DACASIN 02/05/2010
238- 256 – PROCEDURE RE. SUMMARY PROCEDDINGS in the Family Code
- Rights and duties of parents to their unemancipated children
CASES:
- Guardian/ administrator over the property of unemancipated child, requirements?
1. REPUBLIC v. CA 05/06/2005
- When shall ART 225 of the Family Code apply and when shall ordinary rules on
2. REPUBLIC v. LORINO 01/09/2005
guardianship given application? 3. REPUBLIC v. TANGO GR#161062 07/31/2009
- Default standard on child custody proceedings
- Principles of “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD”; “TENDER AGE PRESUMPTION”
NEW CIVIL CODE
TERMINATION/ SUSPENSION/ DEPRIVATION OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY
228- 233- Grounds – permanent termination
SURNAMES
-Other grounds for termination but may be revived
364-380 CASES:
-Suspension
1. REPUBLIC v CA and VICENCIO 300 S 138
-Permanent deprivation
2. IN RE: PETITION OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG 454 S 2155
RA7610- CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION
3. IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA 03/31/2005
4. REPUBLIC v CAPOTE 514 S 76
TORRES v PEOPLE LEONEN 814 S 547
5. REMO v SECRETARY OF DFA 03/05/2010
6. GRANDE v ANTONIO 716 S 698
Republic Act No. 7610 June 17, 1992

By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 9 of 10 as of 10/04/2018

FINAL COVERAGE- PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Atty. Lydia Galas
UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE: Purpose Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, Otherwise Known as the "Family Code
1. RULE 103- SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE GIVEN NAME OR SURNAME of the Philippines")
2. RULE 108- CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS
CASES: As mandated by Republic Act No. 10625, the Civil Registrar General promulgates the
1. GAN V REPUBLIC (REYES) 803 S 204 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 based on the
2. REPUBLIC v SALI (PERALTA) 822 S 239 Supreme Court Ruling in the case of "Grande vs . Antonio ", G.R. 206248 dated February
3. BARCELOTE v. REPUBLIC (CARPIO) GR#222095 08/07/17 18, 2014.
4. CHUA v REPUBLOC (VELASCO) GR#231998 11/20/17
5. REPUBLIC v GALLO GR#207074 January 17,2018
RELATED LAWS:
1. RA 9048
2. RA 10172
3. RA 9255
1. RA 9048 March 22, 2001
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE
CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN
ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL
REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

2. Republic Act No. 10172

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1, SERIES OF 2012
AN ACT FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE
CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE DAY AND
MONTH IN THE DATE OF BIRTH OR SEX OF A PERSON APPEARING IN THE CIVIL REGISTER
WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED NINETY FORTY-EIGHT

3. Republic Act No. 9255

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1
Series of 2016

REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255 (An Act
Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of Their Father, Amending for the

By: H. Matavia, L. Hugo, S. Deiparine & A. de Leon, 2018Estrellado@gmail.com 10 of 10 as of 10/04/2018