Antonia L De Jesus Et. Al.

vs.
Cesar Syquia
G.R. No. L-39110, November 29, 1933

The case is an action seeking for parental support

Facts: Cesar Syquia is an unmarried scion of a prominent family in Manila, being

possessed of a considerable property in his own right. When Cesar was 23 he met
Antonia Loanco, who was of the same age, and who worked for his brother in law’s
barber shop as a cashier. Cesar began to have amorous relation with Antonia, and soon a
baby boy was born on June 17, 1931. Cesar became a constant visitor of Antonia in the
early months of her pregnancy and in February, 1931, he wrote and placed in her hands a
note directed to the padre who has expected to christen the baby. In the note was
contained his acknowledgement that the baby due in June is his baby and he would
like his name to be given to it. Cesar became supportive of Antonia, and took the baby
to a house in No. 551 Camarines Street Manila where they lived for a year, with Cesar
defraying all the necessary household expenses. In the course of time however,
Cesar’s ardor abated, and when Antonia showed signs of a second pregnancy, the
defendant decamped, and he got married to another woman. Cesar, also had a change of
plans in the christening ceremony of his son and has caused the name of Ismael Loanco
to be given to him instead of Cesar Syquia, Jr. A case was filed by Antonia, seeking for
support for Ismael and Pacita Loanco, citing as evidence, the note Cesar gave the
padre or the priest, with regards to the supposed name to be given to his first born son.
Cesar contends however that the note is insufficient to prove his acknowledgement of
paternity and that it is not what is being contemplated within the meaning of subsection 1
of article 135 of the Civil Code, since the child did not have sufficient personality to
claim.

Issue: Whether an unborn child has juridical capacity.

Held: Yes. It is a universal rule of jurisprudence that a child, upon being conceived,
becomes a bearer of legal rights and capable of being dealt with as a living person. The
fact that it is yet unborn is no impediment to the acquisition of rights. The problem here
presented of the recognition of unborn child is really not different from that presented in
the ordinary case of the recognition of a child already born and bearing a specific name.
Only the means and resources of identification are different. Even a bequest to a living
child requires oral evidence to connect the particular individual intended with the name
used.

Furthermore, according to the NCC.

Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is
inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is
the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. (n

Art. 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for
all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified
in the following article. (29a)

Art. 41. For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus had an intra-uterine
life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours
after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. (30a)
Acknowledgement: Subsection 1 Article 135 – acknowledgement may be made in
more than one document. No. 2 of Article 135 – the child has enjoyed an
uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child.