PATERNITY AND FILIATION

FILIATION
This is the civil status of the child in relation to his father or mother. It can either be paternity or maternity.

FILIATION
Paternity This is the civil status of the father with respect to the child begotten by him. Maternity This is the civil status of the mother with respect to the child begotten by her.

TYPES OF FILIATION
By nature When it is established by blood relationship By adoption When it is done through a judicial act whereby the same rights and obligations arising out of filiation by blood are established for the adoptive parent and adopted child.

TYPES OF FILIATION
By assisted procreation When a single individual or spouses decide to have a child by using the genetic material of another individual. Artificial insemination using the sperm of a donor other than the husband. It is also subsumed as natural filiation.

STATUS OF CHILDREN
Legitimate Illegitimate Legitimated Adopted

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN
Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents Children conceived of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm, either of the husband or donor, or both, provided that both the spouses authorized or ratified such in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child, which is recorded in the civil registry with the birth certificate of the child.

 Children conceived or born in a voidable marriage Children of marriages which are declared void under Articles 36 and 53.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
Children conceived and born outside of a valid marriage Children of void marriages (Articles 35, 37, 38, 40, and 53)

LEGITIMATED CHILDREN
Those conceived of parents who at the time of conception were not disqualified by any legal impediment to marry each other and who are later considered legitimate by reason of the subsequent marriage of their parents.

ADOPTED CHILDREN
Those who whether related by blood or not to the adopter, by fiction of law, are made legitimate children of the latter

Presumption of Legitimacy
A child conceived or born during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate.

300 days
Average duration of Pregnancy = 9 months and a few days 300 days(10 months) = longest allowance for a tardy birth First 120 days(4 months) of the 300 days = period of conception

How to Rebut Presumption

1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of the following:

How to Rebut Presumption

a. The physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; or b. The fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not possible; or c. Serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse.

How to Rebut Presumption

2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the husband, except in the instance of artificial insemination e.g. Blood testing, DNA testing

How to Rebut Presumption

3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.

Who May Impugn

1) Husband

Who May Impugn

2) The Heirs, only in the ff cases: a. If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; b. If the husband should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom; c. If the child was born after the death of the husband.

Presumption Applies
Presumption of legitimacy applies although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.

When there is doubtful paternity

1. The first marriage is terminated; 2. The mother contracted a subsequent marriage; 3. The subsequent marriage was contracted within the 300 days after the termination of the previous marriage; 4. A child was born; 5. There is no evidence to prove that the child is that of the first or second marriage.

Rules Governing Doubtful Paternity

If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

Rules Governing Doubtful Paternity

1) The child is presumed to have been conceived in the former marriage if it is born within 180 days (6 months) after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage, provided it be born within 300 days (10 months) after the termination of the former marriage.

Rules Governing Doubtful Paternity

2) The child is presumed to have been conceived during the subsequent marriage if it is born after 180 days (6 months) after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage, even though it be born within 300 days (10 months) after the termination of the former marriage.

Status of Children Born After 300 days Following Termination of Marriage

The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days following the termination of the marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such legitimacy or illegitimacy.

Prescriptive Period for Filing Action

1) If the husband or in cases under Article 171, any of his heirs resides in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded, within 1 year a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or b. From the date of the recording in the civil register

Prescriptive Period for Filing Action

2) If the husband or in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of the birth or where it was recorded, and they reside in the Philippines, within 2 years a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or b. From the date of the recording in the civil register

Prescriptive Period for Filing Action

3) If the husband or in his default, all of his heirs reside abroad, within 3 years a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or b. From the date of the recording in the civil register

Prescriptive Period for Filing Action

4) If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted a. From knowledge of the birth of the child; or b. From knowledge of the fact of registration of said birth -Whichever is earlier.

CONCEPCION VS CA
FACTS: Gerardo Concepcion Ma. Theresa Almonte were married on December 29, 1989. They lived in Fairview and begotten Jose Gerardo on December 8, 1990. On December 1991, the husband filed a petition to have his marriage annulled on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that the wife married Mario Gopiao sometime in December 1980, who was still alive and living in Loyola Heights, QC.

CONCEPCION VS CA
Trial court ruled that the son was an illegitimate child and the custody was awarded to the wife while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. Theresa argued that there was nothing in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child. She further wanted to have the surname of the son changed from Concepcion to Almonte, her maiden name, since an illegitimate child should use his mothers surname.

CONCEPCION VS CA
The trial court then reversed the ruling and held that Jose was not the son of Ma. Theresa by Gerardo but by Mario during her first marriage. Hence, the child was a legitimate child of Theresa and Mario.

CONCEPCION VS CA
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose Gerardo can be considered the legitimate child of Theresa and Mario.

CONCEPCION VS CA
HELD: YES. Jose Gerardo is the legitimate child of Theresa and Mario. 1. Theresa was legitimately married with Mario Gopiao when she entered her subsequent marriage with Gerardo. Therefore, her marriage with Gerardo is void ab initio.

CONCEPCION VS CA
It follows that: a. The child Jose was born inside the valid marriage of Ma. Theresa and Mario. Art 164 of the Family Code provides that Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. Therefore, under the law, the child Jose is the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao.

CONCEPCION VS CA
The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from sexual union in marriage. To overthrow this, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child. In the case at bar, while Gerardo and Ma. Theresa were living together in Fairview, Quezon City, Mario was living in Loyola Heights which is also in Quezon City. Fairview and Loyola Heights are only four kilometers apart.

CONCEPCION VS CA
b. Gerardo never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy the child.

CONCEPCION VS CA
2. Theresas contention was to have his son be declared as not the legitimate child of her and Mario but her illegitimate child with Gerardo. However, the mother is not permitted by law to question the sons legitimacy because maternity is never uncertain. Article 167 of the Family Code provides that The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.

CONCEPCION VS CA
The court upheld Jose Gerardos legitimacy. He shall bear the surnames of his father Mario Gopiao and mother Ma. Theresa.

BENITEZ-BADUA VS CA
FACTS: Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian were owners of various properties located in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while his husband died in 1989. Vicentes sister and nephew filed a complaint for the issuance of letters of administration of Vicentes estate in favor of the nephew, herein private respondent.

 Petitioner Marissa Benitez-Badua, was raised and cared by the deceased spouses since childhood, though not related to them by blood, nor legally adopted. To prove that she is the only legitimate child of the spouses, she submitted documents such as her certificate of live birth where the spouses name were reflected as her parents and 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 their biological child.

 Trial court decided in favor of the petitioner as the legitimate daughter and sole heir of the spouses. CA reversed trial courts decision and declared that appellee Marissa Benitez is not the biological daughter or child by nature of the spouse Vicente O. Benitez and Isabel Chipongian and, therefore, not a legal heir of the deceased Vicente O. Benitez.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners birth certificate sufficed to establish her legitimacy

HELD: No. The mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption. It does not confer upon the child the status of an adopted child and her legal rights. Such act amounts to simulation of the child's birth or falsification of his or her birth certificate, which is a public document.

 Petitioners contention that the CA committed error of law and misapprehension of facts when it failed to apply provisions Arts. 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code in this case is of no merit. A careful reading of the above articles will show that they do not contemplate a situation, like in the instant case, where a child is alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain couple.

 Moreover, Vicente and brother of the deceased wife executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the latter. In the notarized document, they stated that they were the sole heirs of the deceased because she died without descendants and ascendants. In executing such deed, Vicente effectively repudiated the Certificate of Live Birth of the petitioner where it appeared thathe was the petitioners father.

ANDAL VS MACARAIG
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.

 Emiliano became sick of 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. Since May, 1942, Felix and Maria had sexual intercourse and treated each other as husband and wife.

 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, Mariano Andal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mariano Andal can be considered the legitimate child of Emiliano Andal

HELD: Yes. Art 168 of the Family Code states that: Children born after the one hundred and eighty days next following that of the celebration of marriage or within the three hundred days next following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. This presumption may be rebutted only by proof that it was physically impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife during the first one hundred and twenty days of the three hundred next preceding the birth of the child.

 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.

 In the case at bar, Emiliano was suffering from tuberculosis but it does not prevent carnal intercourse. 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.