Case 370: Uyguangco vs CA Topic: Illegitimate Children

FACTS: Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his wife, four legitimate children and properties which they divided among themselves. Graciano Uyguangco filed a complaint for partition against the petitioners, claiming that as the illegitimate son of the deceased and a Anastacia Bacjao, he must not be left out of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate. He also claims that he received support from his father while in high school and was also assigned by his father as storekeeper at the Uyguangco store. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Graciano could not prove his alleged filiation having none of the documents required in Art. 278 of the NCC (i.e. record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing. Neither may he resort to Art. 285 of the NCC because he was already an adult when his alleged dad died.

Graciano insists however, that he is in continuous possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family as is under Art. 283 of the NCC.

ISSUE: WON Graciano may adequately prove filiation.

HELD: NO

RATIO: The Civil Code provisions they invoke have been superseded or at least modified by the corresponding articles n the FC. Since illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence

as legitimate children (Art 175), Graciano may establish his filiation by the means given in Art. 172. Thus while he has no record of birth appearing in the civil registrar or a final judgment or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, he insists that he has nevertheless been in an open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, which is admissible as evidence of filiation under Art. 172.

As proof to this open and continuous possessionhe claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, received support from him, used the name Uyguangco without objection, a special power of attorney executed in his favor by Apolinarios wife, and another one by Suplcio Uyg uangco, shared in the profits of the copra family business of the Uyguangcos and was even given a share in his deceased fathers estate as found in the addendum to the original extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners.

However, since his father has already died, his action is now barred as Art. 172 specifically requires that when the action is based on other proofs of filiation such as open and continuous possession, the action must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.