Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

G.R. No.

L-75377 February 17, 1988

CHUA KENG GIAP, petitioner,


Article 166. Legitimacy of a child may be

impugned absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
only on the following grounds: 2) That it is proved that for biological or other
1) That it was physically impossible for the scientifi c reasons, the child could not have been
husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife that of the husband, except in the instance provided
within the fi rst 120 days of the 300 days which in the second paragraph of Article 164; or
immediately 3) That in case of children conceived through
preceded the birth of the child because artifi cial insemination, the written authorization
of: or ratifi cation of either parent was obtained
a) the physical incapacity of the husband through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or
to have sexual intercourse with his wife; undue infl uence. (255a)
b) the fact that the husband and wife Article 167. The child shall be considered legitimate
were living separately in such a way that sexual although the mother may have declared
intercourse was not possible; against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced
c) serious illness of the husband, which as an adulteress. (256a)


- This case arose when Chua Keng Giap filed - YES. Thus, in an inheritance case
on May 19, 1983, a petition for the where a person claims to be the son
settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao
of an alleged woman and of the
in the regional trial court of Quezon City.
- The private respondent moved to dismiss for
decedent whose properties are being
lack of a cause of action and of the liquidated, and such person-claimant
petitioner's capacity to file the petition. was not in fact delivered by the
- Chua Keng Giap had been declared as not alleged mother, she can validly
the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and
declare that the said person is not in
Sy Kao in S.P. No. Q-12592, for the
settlement of the estate of the late Chua
any way related to her as her child
Bing Guan. The decision in that case had long and, as the Supreme Court said,
become final and executory.2 “who better than Sy Kao herself
- Petitioner Sy Kao denies that respondent would know if Chua Keng Giap was
Chua Keng Giap is her son by the deceased
really her son? More than any one
Chua Bing Guan. Thus, petitioner's
opposition filed on December 19, 1968, is
else, it was Sy Kao who could say— as
based principally on the ground that the indeed she has said these for many
respondent was not the son of Sy Kao and years — that Chua Keng
the deceased but of a certain Chua Eng Kun Giap was not begotten of her womb”
and his wife Tan Kuy.


- WON the Contrary to declaration by

mother be a basis for a childs