Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
When the case was filed with the RTC, the RTC ordered the NBI
for a group blood testing. The group blood testing result showed
that Janice could not have been the possible offspring of Jao and
Arlene.
Issue:
Whether or not group blood testing could be conclusive
evidence to impugn the legitimacy of Janice.
Ruling:
Yes, group blood testing could be admitted as conclusive
evidence to impugn the legitimacy of Janice. For the past three
decades, the use of blood typing in cases of disputed parentage
has already become an important legal procedure. There is now
almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests
are conclusive as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to
paternity that is, the fact that the blood type of the child is a
possible product of the mother and alleged father does not
conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if
the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when
the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are cross
matched, then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged
father.
Medical science has shown that there are four types of
blood in man which can be transmitted through heredity.
Although the presence of the same type of blood in two persons
does not indicate that one was begotten by the other, yet the fact
that they are of different types will indicate the impossibility of
one being the child of the other. Thus, when the supposed father
and the alleged child are not in the same blood group, they
cannot be father and child by consanguinity.
COMPULSARY RECOGNITION
TAYAG vs. TAYAG-GALLOR
GR. No. 174680
March 24, 2008
Facts:
On January 15, 2001, respondent, Felicidad A. TayagGallor, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
over the estate of Ismael Tayag. The respondent alleged that she
is one of the illegitimate children of the late Ismael Tayag and
Ester Angeles.
On September 7, 2000, Ismael Tayag died intestate,
leaving behind two real properties both of which are in the
possession of petitioner, and a motor vehicle which the latter sold
on 10 October 2000 preparatory to the settlement of the
decedents estate.
Petitioner allegedly promised to give
respondent and her brothers P100, 000.00 each as their share in
the proceeds of the sale. However, petitioner only gave each of
them half the amount she promised.
In a Motion dated August 31, 2001, petitioner reiterated
her sole ownership of the properties and presented the transfer
certificates of title thereof in her name. She also averred that it is
necessary to allege that respondent was acknowledged and
recognized by Ismael Tayag as his illegitimate child. There being
no such allegation, the action becomes one to compel recognition
which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father.
To prevent further encroachment upon the courts time,
petitioner moved for a hearing on her affirmative defenses.
The motion was denied.
Issue:
Facts:
FACTS:
This controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and
support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son,
private respondent Camelo Regodos.
During the trial, Florencia testified that she was the mother of
private respondent who was born on September 9, 1982 and that
she was the one supporting the child. She recounted that after her
husband left her in the early part of 1981, she went to Escalante,
Negros Occidental to look for work and was eventually hired as
petitioners household help. It was while working there as a maid
that, petitioner brought her to Bacolod City where they checked
in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. Petitioner
promised to support her if she got pregnant.
Florencia claimed she discovered she was carrying petitioners
child 27 days after their sexual encounter. The sexual intercourse
was repeated in March 1982 in San Carlos City. Later, on
suspicion that Florencia was pregnant, petitioners wife sent her
home. But petitioner instead brought her to Singcang, Bacolod
City where he rented a house for her. On September 9, 1982,
assisted by a hilot in her aunts house in Tiglawigan, Cadiz City,
she gave birth to her child, private respondent Camelo Regodos.
Petitioner Camelo Cabatanias version was different. He testified
that he was a sugar planter and a businessman. Sometime in
December, 1981, he hired Florencia as a servant at home. During
the course of her employment, she would often go home to her
husband in the afternoon and return to work the following
The child was presented before the Court, and if the Court is to
decide this case, based on the personal appearance of the child
then there can never be a doubt that the plaintiff-minor is the
child of the defendant with plaintiff-minors mother, Florencia
Regodos.
Issue:
On July 11, 1983, Delia, Edmundo and Doribel filed their own
complaint, this time for the accounting and partition of the intestate
estate of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, against the couple's four
surviving children. And filed in the RTC of Albay. The complainants
asserted the defense they raised , that Delia and Edmundo were the
adopted children and Doribel was the legitimate daughter of
Teodoro and Isabel. As such, they were entitled to inherit Teodoro's
share in his parents' estate by right of representation.
Both cases were decided in favor of the herein private respondents
on the basis of practically the same evidence.
The Judge declared in his decision dated May 26, 1986, that Delia
and Edmundo were the legally adopted children of Teodoro and
Isabel Sayson by virtue of the decree of adoption. Doribel was their
legitimate daughter as evidenced by her birth certificate.
Consequently, the three children were entitled to inherit from Eleno
and Rafaela by right of representation. In his decision dated
September 30, 1986, Judge Jose S. Saez dismissed Civil Case,
holding that the defendants, being the legitimate heirs of Teodoro
and Isabel as established by the aforementioned evidence, excluded
the plaintiffs from sharing in their estate.
Both cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals, where they were
consolidated and affirmed. In Civil Case, the appealed decision is
modified in that Delia and Edmundo Sayson are disqualified from
inheriting from the estate of the deceased spouses Eleno and
Rafaela Sayson, but is affirmed in all other respects.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the birth certificate is a formidable evidence ?
SC HELD:
On the question of Doribel's legitimacy, we hold that the findings of
the trial courts as affirmed by the respondent court must be
sustained. Doribel's birth certificate is a formidable piece of
evidence. It is one of the prescribed means of recognition under
Article 265 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code. It is
true, as the petitioners stress, that the birth certificate offers only
prima facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary
evidence. However, such evidence is lacking in the case at bar.
Mauricio's testimony that he was present when Doribel was born to
Edita Abila was understandably suspect, coming as it did from an
interested party. The affidavit of Abila denying her earlier statement
in the petition for the guardianship of Doribel is of course hearsay,
let alone the fact that it was never offered in evidence in the lower
courts. Even without it, however, the birth certificate must be
upheld in line with Legaspi v. Court of Appeals, where we ruled that
"the evidentiary nature of public documents must be sustained in
the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or
nullity."
Another reason why the petitioners' challenge must fail is the
impropriety of the present proceedings for that purpose. Doribel's
legitimacy cannot be questioned in a complaint for partition and
accounting but in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper
party. The presumption of legitimacy in the Civil Code x x x does not
have this purely evidential character. It serves a more fundamental
purpose. It actually fixes a civil status for the child born in wedlock,
and that civil status cannot be attacked collaterally. The legitimacy
of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that
by the proper parties, and within the period limited by law. The
legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense or as
a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose.
Issue:
Ruling:
Bienvenida. It was Bienvenida who was able to produce
the competent evidences to establish the childs filiation with her
and her husband. She substantiated her claim with sufficient
clinical records, presenting the proper and credible witnesses who
assisted her in her childs birth. Not to mention the fact that it
could be readily observed that Bienvenida and the child have
strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes.
Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is
competent and material evidence to establish parentage. Whereas,
Angelita had been known to have undergone ligation years before
the alleged birth of the child and the admission of Tomas own
brother that Tomas was sterile makes it impossible that he and
Angelita could have produced subject child. More importantly,
the birth certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and private
respondent were legally married which is false because even
private respondent had admitted she is a common-law wife. This
false entry puts to doubt the other data in said birth certificate.
Issue:
child.
AGUSTIN V. PROLLAMANTE
Facts:
Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued
Martins alleged biological father, petitioner Arnel Agustin, for
support and support pendente lite before the Quezon City RTC.
Issue:
Held:
No. The trial court properly denied the petitioners motion to
dismiss because the private respondents complaint on its face
showed that they had a cause of action against the petitioner. The
elements of a cause of action are: (1) the plaintiffs primary right
and the defendants corresponding primary duty, and (2) the
delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the
primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is
determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts
alleged.
No. In Ople v. Torres, the Supreme Court struck down the
proposed national computerized identification system embodied
in Administrative Order No. 308, we said:In no uncertain terms,
we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all
incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to
stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance
public service and the common good... Intrusions into the right
must be accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance public
service and the common good.
Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches
and seizures, and the infringement of privacy of
communication where the constitutional right to privacy has been
critically at issue. Petitioners case involves neither and, as already
drop his middle name as this would help him adjust more easily
to integrate himself into Singaporean society.
Issue:
Facts:
Petitioner Julian Lin Wang a minor represented by his mother
Anna Lisa Wang filed a petition dated 19 September 2002 for
change of name of entry in the civil registry of Julian Lin Wang.
Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his registered
name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin
Wang. Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to
Whether or not the law the law provides for his middle name to
be changed.
Ruling:
The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be
proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. to
justify a request for the change of name, the petitioner must show
not only some proper reason therefore but also that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the
grounds for the change of name which have been held valid are:
a.) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce. b.) When the change results as a
legal consequence
c.) When the change will avoid confusion.
d.) When one has continuously used and been known since
childhood by a Filipino name and was not aware of the alien
parentage.
e.) A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name and
Facts:
De santos vs Angeles
Facts:
-
Issue:
Issues:
-
Held:
-
Yes
Art 269 of the Civil Code provides that only natural children
can be legitimated. Children born outside wedlock of
parents who, at the time of the conception of the former,
were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each
other, are natural
In the present case, it is clear that all the children born to
private respondent and Antonio were conceived and born
when the latters valid marriage to petitioners mother was
still subsisting. The marriage under question is considered
void from the beginning because bigamous, contracted
when a prior valid marriage was still subsisting. It follows
that the children begotten of such union cannot be
considered natural children proper for at the time of their
ADOPTION
Republic v. CA
G.R. No. 92326 January 24, 1992
On February 2, 1988, Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to
adopt Jason Condat, then six (6) years old and who had been living
with her family since he was four (4) months old, before the
Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City. The petition for adoption was
filed by private respondent Zenaida C. Bobiles on February 2, 1988,
when the law applicable was Presidential Decree No. 603, the Child
and Youth Welfare Code. Under said code, a petition for adoption
may be filed by either of the spouses or by both of them. However,
after the trial court rendered its decision and while the case was
pending on appeal in the Court of Appeals, Executive Order No. 209,
the Family Code, took effect on August 3, 1988. Under the said new
law, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory. Petitioner
contends that the petition for adoption should be dismissed
outright for it was filed solely by private respondent without joining
her husband, in violation of Article 185 of the Family Code which
requires joint adoption by the spouses. It argues that the Family
Code must be applied retroactively to the petition filed by Mrs.
Bobiles, as the latter did not acquire a vested right to adopt Jason
Condat by the mere filing of her petition for adoption.
Issues:
1.) Can the Family Code be applied retroactively to the petition for
adoption filed by Zenaida C. Bobiles and;
2.) Granting that the FC should be applied retroactively should the
adoption in favor of private respondent only, her husband not being
a petitioner.
Held:
HERBERT CANG vs CA
G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998
Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano are married and
begot 3 children Keith, Charmaine and Joseph. Anna learned of her
husband extra marital affair hence filed a petition for legal
separation which the court granted. Herbert went to the US to get
divorce, the court granted it and granted sole custody of the
children to Anna. Herbert took an American wife and thus became a
naturalized American citizen. He divorced his American wife and
never remarried. When Herbert was working in the US, he remitted
money for his children's expenses and another, deposited in the
bank in the name of his children. Ronald and Maria Clavano (
siblings of Anna ) filed for the adoption of the 3 children. Anna
Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent alleging that her husband
had "evaded his legal obligation to support" his children and that
her husband had "long forfeited his parental rights" over the
children.
Gina also has a child with another married man w/c became
Angelies sister. For a minor (like Angelie Anne C. Cervantes)
to grow up with a sister whose "father" is not her true
father, could also affect the moral outlook and values of
said minor.
Upon the other hand, Cervantes who are legally married
appear to be morally, physically, financially, and socially
capable of supporting the minor and giving her a future
better than what the natural mother
MACARIO TAMARGO vs CA
G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992
Adelberto Bundoc, who is 10 years old, shot Jennifer
Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her
death. Damages was filed by by petitioner Macario Tamargo
Jennifer's adopting parent against Sps Bundoc while they were still
living. Prior to the incident, spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had
filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. The petition for adoption was
granted after the said incident. In their Answer, spouses Bundoc,
Adelberto's natural parents, reciting the result of the foregoing
petition for adoption, claimed that not they, but rather the adopting
parents sps. Rapisura were indispensable parties to the action since
parental authority had shifted to the adopting parents from the
moment the successful petition for adoption was filed. RTC
dismissed the complaint ruling that natural parents of Adelberto
indeed were not indispensable parties to the action.
They filed an appeal. Spouses Bundoc argues that parental
authority was vested in the latter as adopting parents as of the time
of the filing of the petition for adoption that is, before Adelberto had
shot Jennifer which an air rifle. The Bundoc spouses contend that
they were therefore free of any parental responsibility for
Adelberto's allegedly tortious conduct. Under Article 36 of the Child
and Youth Welfare Code, a decree of adoption shall be entered,
which shall be effective he date the original petition was filed.
Issue:
WON the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is
concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to make the
adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed
against their adopted child, for acts committed by the latter, when
actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents?
Held: NO
The law imposes civil liability under vicarious liability, upon the
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any
damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them.
Parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of
the duties and responsibilities of parents their parental
authority which includes the instructing, controlling and
disciplining of the child.
The shooting occured when parental authority was still
lodged in Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor
Adelberto.
It would thus follow that the natural parents who had then
actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the
indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
Under Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, Parents and
guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child
under their parental authority in accordance with the civil Code.
Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines has similarly
insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act,
shall have beer in the actual custody of the parents sought to be
held liable for the ensuing damage.
parental authority cannot be properly regarded as having
been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting
parents at the time the air rifle shooting happened.
retroactive effect may not be given to the decree of
adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting
parents accruing at a time when adopting parents had no
actual or physically custody over the adopted child
Retroactive affect may perhaps be given to the granting of
the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit
the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the
adopted child.
Held: YES
Law Is Silent as to the Use Of Middle Name. The middle name or
the mothers surname is only considered in Article 375(1) to
identity of names and surnames between ascendants and
descendants, in which case, the middle name or the mothers
surname shall be added. Notably, the law is likewise silent as to
what middle name an adoptee may use.
For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child of the adopters and both shall acquire the
reciprocal rights and obligations including the right of the
adopted to use the surname of the adopters
Justice Caguioa said that it should be mandatory that the
child uses the surname of the father and permissive in the
case of the surname of the mother.
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Libi vs IAC
Facts:
-
Issue:
-
Held:
-
Issue:
-
David vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner Daisie David worked as secretary of private
respondent Ramon Villar, who is married man and a father
of four children
Held:
-
Yes, rule 102 of the rules of court provides that the writ of
habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person
is withheld from the person entitled thereto
In the case at bar, Christopher is an illegitimate child since
at the time of his conception his father, private respondent,
was married to another woman other than the childs
mother. As such, pursuant to art 176 of the Family Code,
115640
vacation and that they all had round-trip tickets. However, her
husband stayed behind to take care of his sick mother and
promised to follow her with the baby. According to Ray, they
had agreed to reside permanently in the Philippines but once
Nerissa was in New York, she changed her mind and continued
working. She was supposed to come back immediately after
winding up her affairs there.
When Nerissa came home a few days before Ray IIs first
birthday, the couple was no longer on good terms. They had
quarrels. Nerissa did not want to live near her in-laws and rely
solely on her husbands meager income of P5,000.00. On the
other hand, Ray wanted to stay here, where he could raise his son
even as he practiced his profession. He maintained that it would
not be difficult to live here since they have their own home and a
car. Despite mediation by the priest, the couple failed to
reconcile.
Nerissa filed a petition to surrender the custody of their
son to her. The trial court issued an Order awarding custody to
Nerissa citing the second paragraph of Article 213 of the Family
Code which provides that no child under seven years of age shall
be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise. Upon appeal by Ray Perez, the Court
of Appeals reversed the trial courts order and held that granting
custody to the boys father would be for the childs best interest
and welfare.
Issue:
Ruling:
Yes. Aside from Article 213 of the Family Code, the
Revised Rules of Court also contains a similar provision. Rule 99,
for the school to be liable there must be a finding that the act or
omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the
injury caused because of negligence, must have causal connection
to the accident. There is no showing of such.
Hence, with the overwhelming evidence presented by
petitioner and the respondent Daniel spouses that the accident
occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel guide
of the jeep, it is not the school, but the registered owner of the
vehicle who shall be held responsible for damages for the death
of Sherwin Carpitanos.
WHEN IS SUPPORT DEMANDABLE
LACSON vs. LACSON
G.R. No. 150644
Facts:
The sisters Maowee Daban Lacson and Maonaa Daban
Lacson are legitimate daughters of petitioner Edward V. Lacson
and his wife, Lea Daban Lacson. Maowee was born on December
4, 1974, while Maonaa, a little less than a year later. Not long after
the birth of Maonaa, petitioner left the conjugal home in Molo,
Iloilo City, virtually forcing mother and children to seek,
apparently for financial reason, shelter somewhere else. For a
month, they stayed with Leas mother-in-law, Alicia Lacson, then
with her (Leas) mother and then with her brother Noel Daban.
After some time, they rented an apartment only to return later to
the house of Leas mother. As the trial court aptly observed, the
sisters and their mother, from 1976 to 1994, or for a period of
eighteen (18) years, shuttled from one dwelling place to another
not their own.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is obliged to give support.
Ruling:
Petitioner admits being obliged, as father, to provide
support to both respondents, Maowee and Maonaa. It is his
threshold submission, however, that he should not be made to
pay support in arrears, i.e., from 1976 to 1994, no previous
extrajudicial, let alone judicial, demand having been made by the
respondents. He invokes the following provision of the Family
Code to complete his point:Article 203 The obligation to give
support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a
right to receive the same needs it for maintenance, but it shall not
be paid except from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand.
To petitioner, his obligation to pay under the afore
quoted provision starts from the filing of Civil Case No. 22185 in
1995, since only from that moment can it be said that an effective
demand for support was made upon him