Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

X.

Paternity and Filiation

A. Concept of Paternity, Maternity, Filiation

Art. 163.
The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural filiation
may be legitimate or illegitimate.

Filiation is the civil status of the child in relation to his parents; subject by law.

Paternity/ Maternity is the civil status of the parent with respect to the child begotten by them.

*While paternity (maternity) is the civil status relationship of the father (mother)
to the child, filiation is the civil status or relationship of the child to the father or mother.
Joanie Surposa Uy V. Jose Ngo Chua
GR No. 183965; September 18, 2009
Chico- Nazario, J.:
FACTS:

Jose Ngo Chua who was then married, had an illicit relationship with Irene Surposa and
they had two children, namely Joanie, the petitioner in this case, and her brother, Allan. Jose
attended at the birth of Joanie and instructed that her birth certificate be filled out with the
following names: ALFREDO F. SURPOSA as father and IRENE DUCAY as mother. Alfredo F.
Surposa was the name of Irenes father, and Ducay was the maiden surname of Irenes mother.
However, Jose financially supported Joanie and Allan and even provided employment for her. He
and Allan were introduced to each other and became known in the Chinese community as Joses
illegitimate children. During Joanies wedding, Jose sent his brother Catalino Chua (Catalino) as
his representative and Joses relatives even attended the baptism of Joanies daughter.

Joanie had filed for the issuance of a decree of illegitimate filiation against Jose.

Later, Jose denied that he had an illicit relationship with Irene, and that Joanie was his
daughter. Hearings then ensued and Joanie presented documentary evidence to prove her claim
of illegitimate filiation. Joanie had already filed a similar petition for the issuance of a decree of
illegitimate affiliation against Jose and Jose filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the
decision last February 21, 2000 barred by res judicata. A Compromise Agreement was made
between the two parties prior where Joanie declares, admits and acknowledges that there is no
blood relationship or filiation between petitioner and her brother Allan on one hand and Jose
Ngo Chua, in exchange the latter paid the two million Pesos each. The court ruled in favor of the
respondent hence this appeal

ISSUE:

Whether or not the principle of res judicata is applicable to judgments predicated upon a
compromise agreement on cases enumerated in Article 2035 of the Civil Code of the Philippines;

RULING:

Res judicata is based upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law,
namely: public policy and necessity, which makes it in the interest of the State that there should
be an end to litigation and that the hardship of the individual that he should be vexed twice for
the same cause. The requisites must also concur: that there must be a final judgment or order;
that the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; that
it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and that there must be, between the two cases,
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

The court ruled that res judicata does not exist in this case. The compromise agreement
is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an
end to one already commenced. In the case of Estate of the late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, the
Court pronounced that a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based
on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. A contract must have requisites and
no according to Article 2035 of the Civil Code, one of the requisites of such to be valid is that the
compromise must not pertain to the Civil Status of a person and the issue of Future Support
and Future Legitime.

The agreement in this case is intended to settle the question of Joanies status and
filiation, on whether she is an illegitimate child of respondent. In exchange for Joanie and her
brother Allan acknowledging that they are not the children of Jose, Jose would pay Joanie and
Allan Php2,000,000.00 each. Although unmentioned, it was a necessary consequence of said
compromise agreement that Joanie also waived away her rights to future support and future
legitime as an illegitimate child of Jose. Evidently, the compromise agreement between Joanie
and Jose is covered by the prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code as espoused in the
case of Advincula v. Advincula.

It is settled, then, in law and jurisprudence, that the status and filiation of a child cannot
be compromised. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation
of a child. Paternity and filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially
established, and it is for the Court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to the will
or agreement of the parties. Being contrary to law and public policy, the compromise agreement
between Joanie and Jose is void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It
produces no legal effect at all. The void agreement cannot be rendered operative even by the
parties' alleged performance (partial or full) of their respective prestations.
Kinds of Filiation:

(Classification)

A. By nature
Legitimate
Illegitimate

B. By adoption

Art. 164.
Children conceived or born during the marriage
of the parents are legitimate. Children conceived
as a result of artificial insemination of the wife
with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor
or both are likewise legitimate children of the
husband and his wife, provided, that both of them
authorized or ratified such insemination in a
written instrument executed and signed by them
before the birth of the child. The instrument shall
be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth
certificate of the child. (255a, 258a)
Kinds/ Status of Children:

Manuel De Asis V. Court of Appeals, Honorable Jaime Hamoy, Glen Camil Andres De Asis
represented by her mother/guardian Vircel Andres
GR No. 127578; February 15, 1999
Purisima, J.:
FACTS:

Vircel Andres in her capacity as legal guardian of minor Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed
an action in October 1988 for maintenance and support against the alleged father Manuel De
Asis who failed to provide support and maintenance despite repeated demands. Vircel later on
withdrew the complaint in 1989 for the reason that Manuel denied that Glen Camil is his child
and due to such denial, it seems useless to pursue the said action. Vircel and Manuel mutually
agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint with the condition that Manuel will not pursue
his counter claim. However, in 1995, Vircel filed a similar complaint against Manuel, this time
as the minors legal guardian/mother. Manuel interposed maxim of res judicata for the dismissal
of the case. He maintained that since the obligation to give support is based on existence of
paternity between the child and putative parent, lack thereof negates the right to claim support.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Glen Camil Andres de Asis is barred from action for support;

RULING:

The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a third
person. The original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial complaint was in the
nature of a compromise regarding future support which is prohibited by law. With respect to
Manuels contention for the lack of filial relationship between him and the child and agreement
of Vircel in not pursuing the original claim, the Court held that existence of lack thereof of any
filial relationship between parties was not a matter which the parties must decide but should be
decided by the Court itself. While it is true that in order to claim support, filiation or paternity
must be first shown between the parties, but the presence or lack thereof must be judicially
established and declaration is vested in the Court. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of
the parties. Hence, the first dismissal cannot bar the filing of another action asking for the same
relief (no force and effect). Furthermore, the defense of res judicata claimed by Manuel was
untenable since future support cannot be the subject of any compromise or waiver.

Moreover, future support cannot be the subject of a compromise. The right to support
being founded upon the need of the recipient to maintain his existence, he is not entitled to
renounce or transfer the right for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life
itself. The right to life cannot be renounce; hence, support which is the means to attain the
former, cannot be renounced.
Rodolfo Fernandez and Mercedes Caranto Fernancez, husband and wife,
Eddie Fernandez, and Luz Fernandez, spouses V. Romeo Fernandez,
Potenciano Fernandez, Francisco Fernandez, Julita Fernandez, William
Fernandez, Mary Fernandez, Alejandro Fernandez,
Gerardo Fernandez, Rodolfo Fernandez
and Gregorio Fernandez
GR No. 143256; August 28, 2001
Gonzaga- Reyes, J.:
FACTS:

Late Spouses Dr. Jose Fernandez, and Generosa De Venecia being childless by the death
of their son, purchased from a certain Miliang for P20.00 a one month baby boy. The boy was
named as Rodolfo Fernandez. Rodolfo was taken cared of by Dr Jose and Generos and was sent
to school and became a dental technician. He lived with the couple until they became old and
disabled.

Sometime on 1989, after the death of Dr. Jose, Rodolfo and Generosa executed a deed of
extra-judicial partition dividing and allocating to themselves the estate left by the deceased. On
the same day, Generosa sold her share to Rodolfos son, Eddie Fernandez. After learning the
transaction, Romeo, Potenciano, Francisco, Julita, William, Mary, Alejandro, Gerardo, Rodolfo
and Gregorio, all surnamed Fernandez, being nephews and nieces of the Dr. Jose, their father
Genaro being a brother of Dr Jose, filed an action to declare the extra-judicial partition of estate
and deed of sale void ab initio; claimed that Rodolfo is not a legitimate nor a legally adopted child
of spouses Dr. Jose Generosa, hence Rodolfo could not inherit from the spouses.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rodolfo is a legitimate or a legally adopted child of Jose Fernandez and
Generosa de Venecia Fernandez;

RULING:

Rodolfo is neither a legitimate nor a legally adopted child of Dr Jose and Generosa.
Rodolfo failed to come up with evidences to prove his filiation. The only public document he could
show was the Application for Recognition of Back Pay Rights under Act No. 897. 897. Such is a
public document but nevertheless, it was not executed to admit the filiation of Jose K. Fernandez
with him. Rodolfo also claims that he enjoyed and possessed the status of being a legitimate
child of the spouses openly and continuously until they died. Open and continuous possession
of the status of a legitimate child is meant the enjoyment by the child of the position and
privileges usually attached to the status of a legitimate child such as bearing the paternal
surname, treatment by the parents and family of the child as legitimate, constant attendance to
the child's support and education, and giving the child the reputation of being a child of his
parents. However, it must be noted that possession of status of a child does not in itself constitute
an acknowledgment; it is only a ground for a child to compel recognition by his assumed parent.
His baptismal certificate, although public documents, is evidence only to prove the
administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified, but not the veracity of the
statements or declarations made therein with respect to his kinsfolk. It may be argued that a
baptismal certificate is one of the other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws of
proving filiation but in this case, the authenticity of the baptismal certificate was doubtful when
Fr. Raymundo Q. de Guzman of St. John the Evangelist Parish of Lingayen-Dagupan, Dagupan
City issued a certification on October 16, 1995 attesting that the records of baptism on June 7,
1930 to August 8, 1936 were all damaged. The pictures he presented do not also constitute proof
of filiation.
1. Legitimate Child a child conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
legitimate.
2.
3.