Alba Vs CA - 164041 - July 29, 2005 - J

11/8/2016
AlbavsCA:164041:July29,2005:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision:Decision
FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.164041.July29,2005]
ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother and natural guardian, Armi
A. Alba, and ARMI A. ALBA, in her personal capacity, petitioners, vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandROSENDOC.HERRERA,respondents.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
[1]
[2]
Assailed in this petition for certiorari are the February 27, 2004 decision and the May 14,
[3]
2004 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 61883, which dismissed petitioners
[4]
original action for annulment of judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, and
deniedthemotionforreconsideration,respectively.
The antecedent facts show that on October 21, 1996, private respondent Rosendo C. Herrera
[5]
filed a petition for cancellation of the following entries in the birth certificate of Rosendo Alba
Herrera,Jr.,towit:(1)thesurnameHerreraasappendedtothenameofsaidchild(2)thereference
to private respondent as the father of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr. and (3) the alleged marriage of
privaterespondenttothechildsmother,ArmiA.Alba(Armi)onAugust4,1982inMandaluyongCity.
He claimed that the challenged entries are false and that it was only sometime in September 1996
thathelearnedoftheexistenceofsaidbirthcertificate.
Privaterespondentallegedthathemarriedonlyonce,i.e.,onJune28,1965withEzperanzaC.
Santos and never contracted marriage withArmi nor fathered Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr. In support
[6]
thereof,hepresented certificationsfrom the Civil Registrar of MandaluyongCity and the National
[7]
StatisticsOffice, bothstatingthattheyhavenorecordofmarriagebetweenprivaterespondentand
Armi.
[8]
OnNovember12,1996,privaterespondentfiledanamendedpetition, impleadingArmiandall
[9]
thepersonswhohaveorclaimanyinterestinth[e]petition.
OnNovember27,1996,thetrialcourtissuedanOrdersettingthepetitionforhearingonJanuary
24,1997,anddirectedthepublicationandserviceofsaidordertoArmiatheraddressappearingin
thebirthcertificatewhichisNo.418ArquizaSt.,Ermita,Manila,andtotheCivilRegistraroftheCity
ofManilaandtheSolicitorGeneral.Thefulltextoftheorder,reads:
InaverifiedAmendedPetitionforCorrectionofEntry,thePetitionerprays,interalia,thatthefollowingentries
appearinginthesubjectCertificateofLiveBirthbedeleted:
1.Allinformationshavingreferencetohimasthefatherofthechildmentionedtherein
2.ThesurnameHerreraappendedtothechildsname
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/164041.htm
1/8
11/8/2016
3.Hisallegedmarriagewiththenaturalmotherofthechild.
FindingthePetitiontobesufficientinformandsubstance,letthePetitionbesetforhearingonJanuary24,1997
atnineoclockinthemorningbeforethisBranchatRooms447449,FourthFloor,ManilaCityHall.All
interestedpartiesareherebynotifiedofthesaidhearingandareorderedtoshowcausewhythePetitionshould
notbegranted.
LetacopyofthisOrderbepublishedattheexpenseofthePetitioner,onceaweekforthree(3)consecutive
weeks,inanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheCityofManila,andraffledpursuanttoP.D.1079.
FurnishtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralandtheOfficeoftheLocalCivilRegistraroftheCityofManilawith
copiesofthePetitionandofthisOrder.
LetthesamebelikewisefurnishedthePrivateRespondentArmiAlbaHerreraattheaddressindicatedinthe
subjectCertificateofLiveBirth.
[10]
SOORDERED.
On January 13, 1997, before the scheduled January 24, 1997 hearing, the trial court issued an
[11]
AmendedOrder
withsubstantiallythesamecontents,exceptthatthehearingwasrescheduledto
February26,1997.AcopyofsaidAmendedOrderwaspublishedinToday,anewspaperofgeneral
circulationinManilainitsJanuary20,27,andFebruary3,1997issues.Copiesthereofwerealsosent
to Armi at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila, on January 17, 1997, the Local Civil Registrar of
ManilaandtheSolicitorGeneral.
At the scheduled hearing on February 26, 1997, the counsel from the Office of the Solicitor
Generalappearedbutfilednooppositiontothepetition.Armi,ontheotherhandwasnotpresent.The
returnofthenoticesenttoherhadthefollowingnotation:
ThisistocertifythatonJanuary17,1997,theundersigned[processserver]personallyservedacopyofthe
AmendedOrderinSp.Proc.No.9680512datedJanuary13,1997totheprivaterespondent,ArmiAlbaHerrera
at418ArquizaSt.,Ermita,Manila,butfailedandunavailingforreasonthat(sic),privaterespondentisno
[12]
longerresidingatsaidgivenaddress.
OnApril1,1997,thecourtaquorenderedadecisionwhichbecamefinalandexecutoryonJune
[13]
2,1997.
Thedispositiveportionthereof,states:
ACCORDINGLY,andpursuanttoRule108oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,judgmentisherebyrendered
orderingthecorrectionoftheentriesintheCertificateofLiveBirthofRosendoAlbaHerrera,Jr.,insuchaway
thattheentryunderthenameofthechild,thesurnameHerrera,Jr.[,]isordereddeleted,andthechildshallbe
knownasROSENDOALBAandthattheentryunderthedateandplaceofmarriage,thedateAugust4,1982,
Mandaluyong,MMislikewiseordereddeletedorcancelled.
LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheLocalCivilRegistrarofManilaforpropercorrectionandentry.
[14]
SOORDERED.
[15]
Private respondent filed a motion
for amendment of the decretal portion of the decision to
include the cancellation of all entries having reference to him as the father of petitioner minor. This
wasgrantedintheAugust11,1997orderofthetrialcourtasfollows:
2/8
11/8/2016
ACCORDINGLY,andpursuanttoRule108oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,judgmentisherebyrendered
orderingthecorrectionoftheentriesintheCertificateofLiveBirthofRosendoAlbaHerrera,Jr.,insuchaway
thattheentriesunderthenameofthechild,thesurnameHerrera,Jr.,andthenameofthefatherRosendo
CaparasHerreraareordereddeleted,andthechildshallbeknownasROSENDOALBAandtheentryunderthe
dateandplaceofmarriage,thedateAugust4,1982,Mandaluyong,MMislikewiseordereddeletedor
cancelled.
[16]
SOORDERED.
On November 24, 2000, Armi and petitioner minor filed a petition for annulment of judgment
beforetheCourtofAppealsonthegroundsofextrinsicfraudandlackofjurisdictionovertheirperson.
She allegedly came to know of the decision of the trial court only on February 26, 1998, when San
Beda College, where her son was enrolled as a high school student, was furnished by private
respondent with a copy of a court order directing the change of petitioner minors surname from
HerreratoAlba.
Armi averred that private respondent was aware that her address is at Unit 302 Plaza Towers
Condominium,1175LorenzoGuerreroSt.,Ermita,Manila,becausesuchwasherresidencewhenshe
and private respondent cohabited as husband and wife from 1982 to 1988 and her abode when
petitionerminorwasbornonMarch8,1985.Evenaftertheirseparation,privaterespondentcontinued
togivesupporttotheirsonuntil1998andthatUnit302wasconveyedtoherbyprivaterespondent
onJune14,1991aspartofhissupporttopetitionerminor.AccordingtoArmi,heraddressi.e.,No.
418ArquizaSt.,Ermita,Manila,asappearinginthebirthcertificateoftheirson,wasenteredinsaid
certificatethroughtheerroneousinformationgivenbyhersister,CorazonEspiritu.Shestressedthat
privaterespondentknewallalongthatNo.418ArquizaSt.,istheresidenceofhersisterandthathe
deliberatelycausedtheserviceofnoticethereintopreventherfromopposingthepetition.
In his answer, private respondent denied paternity of petitioner minor and his purported
cohabitation with Armi. He branded the allegations of the latter as false statements coming from a
[17]
pollutedsource.
On February 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition holding, among others, that
petitionerfailedtoprovethatprivaterespondentemployedfraudandpurposelydeprivedthemoftheir
dayincourt.Itfurtherheldthatasanillegitimatechild,petitionerminorshouldbearthesurnameofhis
[18]
mother.
Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutwasdenied.
Hence,theinstantpetition.
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, judgments may be
[19]
annulledonthegroundsoflackofjurisdictionandextrinsicfraud.
Whetherornotthetrialcourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonofpetitionerandherminorchild
dependsonthenatureofprivaterespondentsaction,thatis,inpersonam,inremorquasiinrem.An
actioninpersonamislodgedagainstapersonbasedonpersonalliabilityanactioninremisdirected
against the thing itself instead of the person while an action quasi in rem names a person as
defendant, but its object is to subject that persons interest in a property to a corresponding lien or
[20]
obligation.
[21]
Hence, petitions directed against the thing itself or the res,
which concerns the status of a
[22]
[23]
[24]
person,
likeapetitionforadoption,
annulment of marriage,
or correction of entries in the
[25]
birthcertificate,
asintheinstantcase,areactionsinrem.
3/8
11/8/2016
Inanactioninpersonam,jurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendantisnecessaryforthecourt
tovalidlytryanddecidethecase.Inaproceedinginremorquasiinrem,jurisdictionovertheperson
of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has
jurisdictionovertheres.Jurisdictionovertheresisacquiredeither(a)bytheseizureoftheproperty
under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law or (b) as a result of the
[26]
institutionoflegalproceedings,inwhichthepowerofthecourtisrecognizedandmadeeffective.
The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with
[27]
jurisdictionbutmerelyforsatisfyingthedueprocessrequirements.
In the case at bar, the filing with the trial court of the petition for cancellation vested the latter
jurisdiction over the res. Substantial corrections or cancellations of entries in civil registry records
affectingthestatusorlegitimacyofapersonmaybeeffectedthroughtheinstitutionofapetitionunder
[28]
Rule108oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,withtheproperRegionalTrialCourt.
Beingaproceeding
inrem,acquisitionofjurisdictionoverthepersonofpetitioneristhereforenotrequiredinthepresent
case.Itisenoughthatthetrialcourtisvestedwithjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.
The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and the publication thereof in a
newspaperofgeneralcirculationinManila,sufficientlycompliedwiththerequirementofdueprocess,
theessenceofwhichisanopportunitytobeheard.Saidaddressappearedinthebirthcertificateof
petitionerminorastheresidenceofArmi.ConsideringthattheCertificateofBirthbearshersignature,
the entries appearing therein are presumed to have been entered with her approval. Moreover, the
publication of the order is a notice to all indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor,
which binds the whole world to the judgment that may be rendered in the petition. An in rem
[29]
proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
The absence of personal service of the
order to Armi was therefore cured by the trial courts compliance with Section 4, Rule 108, which
requiresnoticebypublication,thus:
SEC.4.Noticeandpublication.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall,byanorder,fixthetimeand
placeforthehearingofthesame,andcausereasonablenoticethereoftobegiventothepersonsnamedinthe
petition.Thecourtshallalsocausetheordertobepublishedonceaweekforthree(3)consecutiveweeksina
newspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovince.
InBarcov.CourtofAppeals,thetrialcourtgrantedapetitionforcorrection/changeofentriesina
minors birth certificate to reflect the name of the minors real father as well as to effect the
corresponding change of her surname. In seeking to annul said decision, the other children of the
alleged father claimed that they are indispensable parties to the petition for correction, hence, the
failure to implead them is a ground to annul the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals
deniedthepetitionwhichwassustainedbythisCourtontheground,interalia,thatwhilepetitioneris
indeedanindispensableparty,thefailuretoimpleadherwascuredbythepublicationoftheorderof
hearing.Thus
Undoubtedly,BarcoisamongthepartiesreferredtoinSection3ofRule108.Herinterestwasaffectedbythe
petitionforcorrection,asanyjudicialdeterminationthatJunewasthedaughterofArmandowouldaffecther
wardsshareintheestateofherfather.ItcannotbeestablishedwhetherNadinaknewofMaryJoysexistenceat
thetimeshefiledthepetitionforcorrection.Indeed,doubtmayalwaysbecastastowhetherapetitionerunder
Rule108wouldknowofallthepartieswhoseinterestsmaybeaffectedbythegrantingofapetition.For
example,apetitionercannotbepresumedtobeawareofallthelegitimateorillegitimateoffspringsofhis/her
spouseorparamour.ThefactthatNadinaamendedherpetitiontoimpleadFranciscoandGustiloindicates
earnesteffortonherparttocomplywithSection3asquotedabove.
Yet,eventhoughBarcowasnotimpleadedinthepetition,theCourtofAppealscorrectlypointedoutthatthe
defectwascuredbycompliancewithSection4,Rule108,whichrequiresnoticebypublication,thus:
4/8
11/8/2016
Section4.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall,byorder,fixthetimeandplaceforthehearingofthe
same,andcausereasonablenoticethereoftobegiventothepersonsnamedinthepetition.Thecourtshallalso
causetheordertobepublishedonceaweekforthree(3)consecutiveweeksinanewspaperofgeneral
circulationintheprovince.
ThepurposepreciselyofSection4,Rule108istobindthewholeworldtothesubsequentjudgmentonthe
petition.Thesweepofthedecisionwouldcoverevenpartieswhoshouldhavebeenimpleadedunder
Section3,Rule108,butwereinadvertentlyleftout.TheCourtofAppealscorrectlynoted:
Thepublicationbeingorderedwasincompliancewith,andborneoutbytheOrderofJanuary7,1985.The
actualpublicationoftheSeptember22,1983Order,conferredjurisdictionupontherespondentcourttotryand
decidethecase.WhilenobodyappearedtoopposetheinstantpetitionduringtheDecember6,1984hearing,that
didnotdivestthecourtfromitsjurisdictionoverthecaseandofitsauthoritytocontinuetryingthecase.For,the
ruleiswellsettled,thatjurisdiction,onceacquiredcontinuesuntilterminationofthecase.
Verily,apetitionforcorrectionisanactioninrem,anactionagainstathingandnotagainstaperson.The
decisiononthepetitionbindsnotonlythepartiestheretobutthewholeworld.Aninremproceedingisvalidated
essentiallythroughpublication.Publicationisnoticetothewholeworldthattheproceedinghasforitsobjectto
barindefinitelyallwhomightbemindedtomakeanobjectionofanysortagainsttherightsoughttobe
established.Itisthepublicationofsuchnoticethatbringsinthewholeworldasapartyinthecaseandveststhe
courtwithjurisdictiontohearanddecideit.
[30]
Furthermore, extrinsic fraud, which was private respondents alleged concealment of Armis
presentaddress,wasnotproven.Extrinsicfraudexistswhenthereisafraudulentactcommittedby
the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.
Here, Armi contended that private respondent is aware of her present address because they lived
together as husband and wife in the condominium unit from 1982 to 1988 and because private
respondent continued to give support to their son until 1998. To prove her claim, she presented (1)
private respondents title over the condominium unit (2) receipts allegedly issued to private
respondentforpaymentofhomeownersorassociationdues(2)aphotocopyofaJanuary14,1991
deed of sale of the subject unit in favor of Armi and (3) the subsequent title issued to the latter.
However,thesedocumentsonlytendtoproveprivaterespondentspreviousownershipoftheunitand
thesubsequenttransferthereoftoArmi,butnottheclaimedliveinrelationshipoftheparties.Neither
does the sale prove that the conveyance of the unit was part of private respondents support to
petitioner minor. Indeed, intimate relationships and family relations cannot be inferred from what
appearstobeanordinarybusinesstransaction.
[31]
AlthoughtheJanuary14,1991deedofsale
statedthatArmiresidesat1175L.GuerreroSt.,
Ermita, Manila, the same is not sufficient to prove that private respondent has knowledge of Armis
[32]
address because the former objected to the offer of the deed for being a mere photocopy.
The
counsel for petitioners even admitted that they do not have the original of the deed and that per
certificationoftheClerkofCourt,theNotaryPublicwhonotarizedthedeedofsaledidnotsubmita
[33]
copy of the notarized document as required by the rules.
The deed cannot thus be the basis of
ascribingknowledgeofArmisaddresstoprivaterespondentinasmuchastheauthenticitythereofwas
neitheradmittedbyprivaterespondentnorprovenbypetitioners.
While Armi presented the alleged love letters/notes from private respondent, they were only
attachedasannexestothepetitionandnotformallyofferedasevidencebeforetheCourtofAppeals.
Moreimportantly,saidletters/notesdonothaveprobativevaluebecausetheyweremerephotocopies
[34]
andneverproventobeanauthenticwritingofprivaterespondent.Inthesamevein,theaffidavits
of Armi and her sister, Corazon Espiritu, are of no evidentiary weight. The basic rule of evidence is
5/8
11/8/2016
thatunlesstheaffiantsthemselvesareplacedonthewitnessstandtotestifyontheiraffidavits,such
affidavitsmustberejectedforbeinghearsay.Stateddifferently,thedeclarantsofwrittenstatements
[35]
pertaining to disputed facts must be presented at the trial for crossexamination.
Inasmuch as
Armi and her sister were not presented before the Court of Appeals to affirm the veracity of their
affidavits,thesameareconsideredhearsayandwithoutprobativevalue.
[36]
Eiincumbitprobotioquidicit,nonquinegat.Hewhoasserts,nothewhodenies,mustprove.
Armisclaimthatprivaterespondentisawareofherpresentaddressisanchoredontheassertionofa
liveinrelationshipandsupporttoherson.SincetheevidencepresentedbyArmiisnotsufficientto
provethepurportedcohabitationandsupport,itfollowsthatprivaterespondentsknowledgeofArmis
address was likewise not proven. Thus, private respondent could not have deliberately concealed
fromthecourtthatwhichwasnotshowntobeknowntohim.TheCourtofAppealsthereforecorrectly
dismissedthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentonthegroundoffailuretoestablishextrinsicfraud.
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals in an action to
annulajudgmentofaRegionalTrialCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe
RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure,whereonlyquestionsoflawmayberaised.Theresortofpetitioner
totheinstantcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65isthereforeerroneous.Thespecialcivilactionof
certiorariwillnotbeallowedasasubstituteforfailuretotimelyfileapetitionforreviewunderRule45,
[37]
whichshouldbeinstitutedwithin15days
fromreceiptoftheassaileddecisionorresolution.The
[38]
wrongchoiceofremedythusprovidesanotherreasontodismissthispetition.
Finally,petitionerfailedtoestablishthemeritsofherpetitiontoannulthetrialcourtsdecision.In
an action for annulment of judgment, the petitioner must convince the court that something may
[39]
[40]
indeedbeachievedshouldtheassaileddecisionbeannulled.
UnderArticle176
oftheFamily
CodeasamendedbyRepublicAct(RA)No.9255,whichtookeffectonMarch19,2004,illegitimate
childrenshalluse the surname of their mother, unless their father recognizestheirfiliation,inwhich
[41]
case they may bear the fathers surname. In Wang v. Cebu Civil Registrar,
it was held that an
illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father, bears only a given name and his
motherssurname.Thenameoftheunrecognizedillegitimatechildidentifieshimassuch.Itisonly
when said child is recognized that he may use his fathers surname, reflecting his status as an
acknowledgedillegitimatechild.
Inthepresentcase,itisclearfromtheallegationsofArmithatpetitionerminorisanillegitimate
child because she was never married to private respondent. Considering that the latter strongly
assertsthatheisnotthefatherofpetitionerminor,thelatteristhereforeanunrecognizedillegitimate
child.Assuch,hemustbearthesurnameofhismother.
In sum, the substantive and procedural aspects of the instant controversy do not warrant the
annulmentofthetrialcourtsdecision.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED.TheFebruary27,2004decisionandtheMay14,2004
resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.61883areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Quisumbing,Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
[1]
[2]
UnderRule65ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCivilProcedure.
PennedbynowAssociateJusticeoftheSupremeCourt,JusticeCancioC.GarciawithAssociateJusticesRenatoC.
DacudaoandDaniloB.Pine,concurring.(Rollo,pp.4367).
6/8
11/8/2016
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Rollo,pp.8889.
PennedbyJudgeVicenteA.Hidalgo,Rollo,pp.122125.
Rollo,pp.97103.
DatedOctober7,1996,CARollo,p.375.
DatedOctober16,1996,CARollo,p.376.
CARollo,p.365372.
Id.at365.
[10]
[11]
Rollo,pp.189190.
Id.at104106.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
Id.at191,dorsalside(emphasissupplied).
Id.at129.
Id.at125.
FiledonJuly8,1997,Rollo,pp.130133.
Rollo,p.134.
CARollo,p.119.
Thedecretalportionthereof,provides:
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyDENIEDandisaccordinglyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.(CARollo,p.674)
[19]
SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment.The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
petitionforrelief.(n)
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Ramosv.Ramos,G.R.No.144294,11March2003,399SCRA43,4748.
Valmontev.CA,322Phil.96,106(1996).
Republicv.Elepano,G.R.No.92542,15October1991,202SCRA748,751.
IntheMatteroftheAdoptionofStephanieNathyAstorgaGarcia,G.R.No.148311,31March2005.
RomualdezLicarosv.Licaros,449Phil.824,835(2003).
Barcov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.120587,20January2004,420SCRA162,173.
Macahiligv.HeirsofGraceM.Magalit,G.R.No.141423,15November2000,344SCRA838,851.
Gomezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.127692,10March2004,425SCRA98,104.
Barcov.CourtofAppeals,supraat174175177178.
7/8
11/8/2016
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
Id.,p.173.
Supra,note25at172174(emphasissupplied).
CA Rollo, pp. 5253. The photocopy marked as Exhibit C cannot be found in the CA Rollo. At any rate, petitioners
admittedthatthedeedofsaletheyofferedwasnotaduplicateoriginalorcertifiedtruecopybutamerephotocopy
(TSN,7November2001,CARollo,pp.526527).
CommentonFormalOfferofExhibits,CARollo,p.316.
TSN,20November2001,CARollo,pp.555557.
CARollo,pp.1081093742.
DelaTorrev.CourtofAppeals,381Phil.819,829(2000).
Sps.Boyboyv.Atty.Yabut,Jr.,449Phil.664,666(2003).
Sec.2ofRule45states:
SEC. 2. Time for filing extension.The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioners motion for new trial or
reconsiderationfiledinduetimeafternoticeofthejudgment.Onmotiondulyfiledandserved,withfullpaymentof
the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the
SupremeCourtmayforjustifiablereasonsgrantanextensionofthirty(30)daysonlywithinwhichtofilethepetition.
(1a,5a)
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
Linzagv.CA,353Phil.506,524(1998).
Regalado,RemedialLawCompendium,Vol.I,SixthRevisedEdition,p.560.
Article176.Illegitimatechildrenshallusethesurnameandshallbeundertheparentalauthorityoftheirmother,andshall
be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their
fatheriftheirfiliationhasbeenexpresslyrecognizedbythefatherthrough the record of birth appearing in
thecivilregister,orwhenanadmissioninapublicdocumentorprivatehandwritteninstrumentismadeby
thefather.Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove nonfiliation
during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of onehalf of the legitime of a legitimate
child.
Wangv.CebuCivilRegistrar,G.R.No.159966,30March2005.
8/8

Alba Vs CA - 164041 - July 29, 2005 - J

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Alba Vs CA - 164041 - July 29, 2005 - J

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

11/8/2016

Potrebbero piacerti anche