Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

1) MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. (G.R. No.

105625 January 24, 1994) FACTS: Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez owned various properties in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while Vicente died in 1989. Vicente died intestate. After Vicentes death, his sister and nephew filed a case for issuance of letters of administration of Vicente's estate. They claim that Isable and Vicente were childless and that one Marissa Benitez-Badua who was raised and cared by them since childhood is not their child and was not legally adopted by them. Marissa opposed the petition and alleged that she is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and capable of administering his estate. She presented Certificate of Live Birth, as one of her evidences to prove her claim. The trial court decided in favor of Marissa and dismissed the petition of Vicentes sister and nephew. The trial court relied on Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code on impugning the legitimacy of the child. The appellate court reversed the trial court ad held that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code are not applicable. ISSUE: Are Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code applicable in this case? HELD: No. Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code 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. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said child. As regards the Birth Certificate which lists Marissa as the child of Isabel and Vicente, the court said that it is highly questionable and suspicions. Under Article 410 of the New Civil Code, is states that, "the books making up the Civil Registry and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." The totality of contrary evidence presented by the sister and nephew of Vicente show that Isabel did not become pregnant as testified to by the witnesses. Also the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Isabel Chipongian executed by Vicente himself and by Isabels brother, stated that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Isabel Chipongian because she died without descendants or ascendants". In executing this Deed, Vicente effectively repudiated the Certificate of Live Birth of Marissa where it appeared that Vicente was Marissas father. Therefore, Marissas petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed.