Scribd
Upload
94 views3 pages

Case Digest Concepcion Vs CA

Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte were married in 1989, though Ma. Theresa had previously been married to Mario Gopiao in 1980 without an annulment. In 1991, Gerardo filed for annulment on grounds of Ma. Theresa's bigamy. The court initially ruled the marriage to Mario was valid, annulling Gerardo's marriage and declaring his son with Ma. Theresa, Jose Gerardo, illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this, declaring Jose Gerardo the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario, removing Gerardo's visitation rights. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed this decision, finding the legitimacy of children is presumed and

Uploaded by

Miguel Joshua Gange Aguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views3 pages

Case Digest Concepcion Vs CA

Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte were married in 1989, though Ma. Theresa had previously been married to Mario Gopiao in 1980 without an annulment. In 1991, Gerardo filed for annulment on grounds of Ma. Theresa's bigamy. The court initially ruled the marriage to Mario was valid, annulling Gerardo's marriage and declaring his son with Ma. Theresa, Jose Gerardo, illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this, declaring Jose Gerardo the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario, removing Gerardo's visitation rights. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed this decision, finding the legitimacy of children is presumed and

Uploaded by

Miguel Joshua Gange Aguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Gerardo  Concepcion  and Ma.  Theresa Almonte were married in 1989. Almost a year later, Ma.

Theresa gave 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. But Theresa moved for a reconsideration

and asked to remove visitation rights as well as the use of her surname, which was subsequently

denied because of the best interest of the child Art. 8 PD 603, principle. They believed that a

child should have a father.

The Court of appeal affirmed the trial court in toto, including the best interest of the child

principle. Also the use of her surname should file a separate proceeding. She moved for a motion

for reconsideration with oral arguments, to better explain her side.


The CA reversed its decision and made jose Gerardo a legitimate child between Ma. Theresa

Almonte and Mario Gopiao. Also the visitation rights and the use of surname were removed.

Both Theresa and Gerardo imputed that it’s their own son. However art. 167 states that a wife

cannot declare against the illegitimacy of a child even if she is an adulteress, not even a birth

certificate can suffice. Gerardo moved for a motion for reconsideration but wa subsequently

denied. Hence the petition.

Art. 164 and 167 is clear. Children born or conceived during the marriage of the parents are

legitimate. The mother cannot declare against the legitimacy of his children, even if she is an

adultress.

Gerardo invokes art 166 (1) (b), first of all he cannot because only the husband can do that and

he has no legal standing being in a void marriage. Second, both Mario and Theresa was living in

quezon city thus there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that Mario and Theresa couldn’t

have physically accessed each other.

So the decision of the Court was


1st, the mere statement of Ma. Theresa that it was their child of Gerardo and not Mario is not

enough to impugn the legitimacy status of Jose Gerardo

2nd the impossibility of physical access was never established beyond reasonable doubt as

evidenced by them living both in Quezon City

3rd Only the father or the husband, in this case Mario Gopiao, can refute the legitimacy of a

child, not the mother, Ma. Theresa

4th The intention of the law is to lean towards the legitimacy of children (as opposed to its

legitimacy.) proof beyond reasonable doubt should be established.

Thus, the CA decision was affirmed. Jose Gerardo is deemed as the legitimate child of the

marriage between Ma. Theresa Almonte and Mario Gopiao, Gerardo has no visitational rights,

and Jose Gerardo should use the surname of his and father and her mother.

If a child is born after the former marriage is terminated and before the 180th day of

solemnization or 300th day from the termination of former marriage, whichever comes first, it

shall be conceived during former marriage

You might also like