Camelo Cabatania vs CA

FACTS:

 Controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and support filed by Florencio
Regodos in behalf of her minor son, Camelo Regodos (respondent)
 Florencia testified that
o she was Camelo’s mother who was born on 1982 and that she was the one
supporting the child
o Her husband left her in early 1981 and she went to Negros Occidental to look for
work. Cabatania eventually hired her as household help
o Jan 2, 1982: Cabatania brought her to Bacolod City where they checked in at the
Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. Cabatania promised to support her if
she got pregnant
o Florencio then discovered she was pregnant 27 days after their sexual encounter.
They had sex again in March 1982 and she was sent home by Cabatania’s wife
o Cabatania brought her to Bacolod and rented a house for her. This is where she
gave birth.
 Cabatania’s version was different
o Claimed that Florencia often went home to her husband in the afternoon and
return to work the following morning. His wife sent her home
o Florencia asked permission to go home. cabatania met her on the Ceres bus bound
for San Carlos City and invited her to dinner
o One thing led to the other and they had sex. While doing it, he felt something
jerking and asked her. Florencia replied that she was pregnant with her husband’s
child
o Florencia went back to Cabatania’s household, hoping to be rehired which the
family did. However, when C’s wife inquired about the pregnancy, Florencia said
that the baby was by her husband. She was again sent home
o BASICALLY DENIED EVERYTHING FLORENCIA SAID
RTC: in favor of Florencia (even though F misrepresented herself as a widow)
CA: affirm RTC decision

ISSUE: W/N the child’s father is Cabatania

RULING: No

 RTC’s finding of a paternal relationship between Cabatania and Camelo was based on the
testimony of child’s mother and the “personal appearance of child”
  SC already previously ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity
and filiation. Order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or
may be an irritant to the family or lives of the parties so paternity or filiation is established
by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
 Apply articles 172 and 175 of the CC
o Art 172: record of birth, admission of legitimate filiation in a public doc or private
handwritten instrument and signed by parent concerned
o In absence: 1) open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child; 2)
any other means allowed by Rules of Court and special laws
o Art 175: illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same
way and on the same evidence as legitimate children
 Camelo presented a copy of BIRTH and BAPTISMAL CERTS, the preparation of which was
w/o knowledge or consent of Cabatania
o Birth cert- not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that
father had a hand in the preparation
o Baptismal- evidence of the administration of the sacrament but not the child’s
paternity
o Hence, both are inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation
 Florencia also misrepresented herself as a widow. The fact that she has a living husband
and there is a valid and subsisting marriage between them gives rise to the presumption
that a child born within the marriage is legitimate even though the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress
 Presumption based on broad principles of natural justice and supposed virtue of mother.
Ground on the policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy

Gerardo Concepcion vs CA
FACTS:

 Concepcion and Almonte were married and had a son, Jose Gerardo
 Concepcion then filed a petition to annul his marriage on the ground of bigamy. He
alleged that 9 years before they got married, Almonte had married Gopiao which
marriage was never annulled. Gopiao was still alive and living in QC
 Almonte didn’t deny 1st marriage but alleged that the marriage was a sham and that she
never lived with Gopiao at all.
RTC: ruled in favor of Concepcion. Jose = illegitimate. Full custody to Almonte while Concepcion
had visitation rights
  Almonte moved for reconsideration of the RTC decision, arguing that “there was nothing
in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child”.
Also prayed that Jose’s surname be changed to hers.
 Concepcion opposed motion, insisting on visitation rights and use of his surname.
RTC: denied motion
CA: affirmed RTC decision but then later reversed it

 CA ruled that Jose was Gopiao’s son during the 1st marriage. Jose was never Concepcion’s
son since their marriage was void ab initio and Gopiao and Almonte’s marriage is
subsisting
ISSUE: W/N Jose is Concepcion’s son
RULING: NO

 Status and filiation of child can’t be compromised. Art 164 of FC is clear as it provides that
a child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is legitimate
 Art 167 of FC protects child’s legitimacy and rules in favor of the child, providing that the
“child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress”
 Hence, there is a PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF LEGITIMACY
 Concepcion has no standing in the law to dispute the status of Jose. Only Gopiao or his
heirs can contest the child’s legitimacy
 impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly personal right of the husband or his heirs
 since Concepcion and Almonte’s marriage was void ab initio, he never became her
husband and thus, did not acquire any right to impugn legitimacy of her child, Jose
 presumption of legitimacy can only be rebutted if it is shown beyond reasonable doubt
that there was NO ACCESS THAT COULD HAVE ENABLED THE HUSBAND TO FATHER THE
CHILD
 However, this was not the case. Gopiao only lived in QC which was only 4 km apart from
Concepcion’s home. no evidence was presented to disprove personal access between
them
 Jose’s birth cert has no evidentiary value since it was not offered in evidence in the RTC.
Beside, birth cert is merely prima facie evidence and not conclusive.
 Thus, jose is the legitimate child of Gopiao and Almonte and has the right to bear their
surnames. Concepcion cannot impose his surname on Jose since he is not related to him
in any way. Also have no visitation rights since there is no parent-child relationship
between Concepcion and Jose
 Estate of Rogelio Ong vs Joanne Rodjin Diaz
FACTS:

 Rogelio and Jinky Diaz got into a relationship while she was still married to a Japanese
national, Katsuo
 Rogelio and Diaz lived and cohabited together. Diaz got pregnant and gave birth to Joanne
Rodjin Diaz
 Rogelio was the one who took Jinky to the hospital and took Joanne and Jinky home after
delivery. also paid all the hospital bills and baptismal expenses and provided for all
Joanne’s needs- recognizing the child as his
 1988: Rogelio abandoned Joanne and Jinky and stopped supporting them, alleging that
he is not the child’s father
 Jinky filed action in court for support, in behalf of minor child
RTC: ruled in favor of Jinky. Joanne is Rogelio and Jinky’s illegitimate child

 Rogelio filed MR which was denied. Case was elevated to the CA. during the pendency,
Rogelio died.
CA reversed RTC’s decision and remanded case to RTC for DNA analysis
ISSUE: W/N DNA testing is allowed even if putative father died
RULING: YES

 Petition calls for the determination of filiation of Joanne for purposes of support
 There is a presumption of validity as provided in Art 167 wherein children shall be
considered legitimate although the mother may declared against it or may have been
sentenced as an adulteress
 However, presumption is not conclusive and may be overthrown
 DNA testing can very well determine with certainty w/n Rogelio is Joanne’s biological
father
 Rogelio’s death does not ipso facto negate application of DNA testing as long as there are
appropriate biological samples of his DNA
o Biological sample: any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if
found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. Includes blood,
saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones
 Jinky did not show the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample
 As held in jurisprudence (People v Umanito, citing Tecson v COMELEC):
 i]n 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
who can impugn legitimacy?
De Jesus vs Estate of Decedent Dizon
FACTS:

 involves the case of 2 illegitimate children, born in lawful wedlock, claim to be the
illegitimate scions of decedent to enforce their shares in the estate
 Spouses De Jesus got married and gave birth to 2 daughter, Jacqueline and Jinkie
(petitioners)
 In a notarized doc, Juan Dizon (decedent) acknowledged Jackie and Jinkie as his
illegitimate children by Caroline de Jesus.
 Dizon died intestate and left a considerable estate. Children filed for partition with
inventory and accounting with the RTC
 Respondent, Dizon’s spouse and legitimate children sought for the dismissal of the case,
arguing that the complaint would call for the altering of the children’s status from being
children of Spouses de Jesus to be the illegitimate children of De Jesus and Dizon
ISSUE: W/N petitioners are the decedent’s illegitimate children
RULING:

 Filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children is established by:

o Birth cert or admission of legitimate filiation in public/private doc signed by the
parent concerned
o In absence, 1) open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child; 2)
any other means allowed by Rules of Court and other special laws
 Scrutiny of records show that petitioners were born during the marriage of their parents.
Birth certs also show that Danilo de Jesus is their father
 Presumption of legitimacy wherein children born in wedlock are legitimate.
o Presumption becomes conclusive in absence of proof that there is physical
impossibility of access between the spouses during first 120 days of the 300 days
which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to
o (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
o (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such a way that
sexual intercourse is not possible;
o or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse
 Upon the ratification of the said periods, the action to impugn child’s legitimacy is no
longer legally feasible and status conferred by presumption becomes fixed and
unassailable
 In an attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation to Dizon, petitioners would impugn
their legitimate status as children of Spouses de Jesus.
 o Cannot be done since law establishes presumption of legitimacy
o This presumption fixes a civil status for the child born in wedlock, and only the
father or his heirs can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife
o Only when legitimacy of child has been successfully impugned that the paternity
of the husband be rejected
 Thus, petitioners cannot validly establish their illegitimate status without an action having
been first instituted to impugn their legitimacy as the children of Spouses de Jesus born
in lawful wedlock

William Liyao v Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao

FACTS:

 Corazon Garcia is legally married to but living separately from Ramon Yulo for more than
10 yrs at the time of the case
 Garcia cohabited with late William Liyao from 1965 up to his death. Lived together with
Garcia’s 2 other children from subsisting marriage: Enrique and Bernadette.
 William’s legitimate children from his subsisting marriage with Juanita Liyao knew of the
affair. W’s children were employed at Far East Realty Investment to which Corazon and
William are VP and Pres respectively
 Garcia bought a lot which required Yulo’s signature to show his consent to the sale. Failed
to secure it and never got in touch with Yulo. William advised her to place the sale under
the Valle Verde Subdivision which was registered under Far East Realty Investment’s
name
 Garcia gave birth to William Jr (Billy). William often visited and stayed with her and their
soon. paid for all the medical, hospital, food and clothing expenses. Asked Mrs Rodriguez
to secure Billly’s birth cert and advised Corazon to open a bank account for Billy.
 William also often bring Billy to office, introduce him as his son and had their pics taken
together
 Corazon submitted to court as evidence the pictures taken to prove that the was usually
accompanied by William while attending gathering and important meetings.
 During William’s last bday, he expressly acknowledged Billy as his son with a declaration
 Since birth, Billy had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of a
recognized and/or acknowledge child of William Liyao by his direct and overt acts
 Corazon also presented witness to corroborate her claim
 After William’s death, Corazon provided sole support to Billy.

Respondents presented a diff story

  Children testified that William and Juanita Liyao were legally married and that they were
not separated legally or in fact
 Linda, daughter, stated that she knew Corazon is married to Ramon Yulo and that she is
not legally separated from her husband nor were they annulled
 Even saw Yulo pick Corazon up at the company garage
 Corazon also allegedly took out docs, clothes and several pics of Liyao from the office.
Linda was about to reprimand her were it not for her sister
 Tita Rose, daughter, corroborated sister’s story.
 Last witness: Ramon Pineda, driver and bodyguard of William Liyao
 Stated that Corazon was legally married to Yulo and that Yulo would even sometimes go
to the garage and fetch her
RTC: ruled in favor of Corazon. William Jr =illegitimate child due to the preponderance of
evidence
CA: reversed the decision. Law favors presumption of legitimacy rather than illegitimacy
ISSUE: W/N petitioner can impugn his own legitimacy to be able to claim from the estate of his
supposed father, William Liyao
RULING: NO

 Under New Civil Code, child born or conceived during a valid marriage is presumed to be
illegitimate. Presumption based on principles of natural justice and supposed virtue of
mother and on policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy
 Presumption is not conclusive and can be overthrown
 The fact that Corazon had been living separately from Yulo is immaterial.
 The grounds of impugning legitimacy of child MAY ONLY BE INVOKED BY HUSBAND or by
HIS HEIRS
o Strictly personal right of the husband or heirs for the simple reason that he is the
one directly confronted with the scandal and infidelity which his wife produce and
he should be the one to decide whether to conceal it or expose it
 Thus, SAID PETITION CANNOT PROSPER
 Child himself CANNOT CHOOSE OWN FILIATION.
o If the husband, presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the
child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the
child of his mother's alleged paramour.
o On the other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is overthrown, the child
cannot elect the paternity of the husband who successfully defeated the
presumption
 the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that
purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law
 Considering the foregoing, we find no reason to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence
presented by both parties on the petitioner's claim of alleged filiation with the late
William Liyao. In any event, there is no clear, competent and positive evidence presented
by the petitioner that his alleged father had admitted or recognized his paternity