0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
59 Ansichten117 Seiten
R.A. 9255 An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to use the surname of their Father, amending Article 176 of the Family Code Remember that. It allows illegitimate children to use the surname of their father provided their filiation has been expressly recognized through the following documents: - Record of Birth in the Civil Registrar - Admission in Private Handwritten Instruments. Protection Order may include removal from the residence of the petitioner and staying away from the residence, school, and place of
R.A. 9255 An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to use the surname of their Father, amending Article 176 of the Family Code Remember that. It allows illegitimate children to use the surname of their father provided their filiation has been expressly recognized through the following documents: - Record of Birth in the Civil Registrar - Admission in Private Handwritten Instruments. Protection Order may include removal from the residence of the petitioner and staying away from the residence, school, and place of
R.A. 9255 An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to use the surname of their Father, amending Article 176 of the Family Code Remember that. It allows illegitimate children to use the surname of their father provided their filiation has been expressly recognized through the following documents: - Record of Birth in the Civil Registrar - Admission in Private Handwritten Instruments. Protection Order may include removal from the residence of the petitioner and staying away from the residence, school, and place of
IN FAMILY LAWS BY: ALEX L. MONTECLAR Dean College of Law University of San Carlos RECENT LAWS AND SC RULES WITH SALIENT FEATURES R.A. 9255 An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of their Father, amending Article 176 of the Family Code Remember that It allows illegitimate children to use the surname of their father provided their filiation has been expressly recognized through the following documents: Record of Birth in the Civil Registrar Admission in Public Documents Admission in Private Handwritten Instruments It amends Article 176 of the Family Code and sets aside the SC ruling in Mossesgeld vs. CA.
R.A. 9262 An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Children, Providing Protective Measures for Victims It says that. Violence must be AGAINST the Wife, ex- Wife, a Woman with Whom the Person has Sexual Relationship, their children, etc. Specific on Acts Resulting to Physical, Sexual, Psychological Harm, or Economic Abuse, INCLUDING threats thereof. Jurisdiction is with RTC designated as the Family Court. Protection Order is issued for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against women or child. It may be issued by the Barangay Captain (BPO) or the Court (TPO) or (PPO) Protection Order shall prohibit respondent from harming or communicating with the petitioner. It may include removal from the residence of the petitioner and staying away from the residence, school, and place of employment of the petitioner at specified distance. Respondent may be ordered to Support the Petitioner. An appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the respondent may be withheld by the Court and AUTOMATICALLY remitted to the victim. PPO may be filed by Offended Party Parents or guardians of the offended party DSWD Police Officers Punong Barangay Lawyer, counsel, therapist At least 2 concerned responsible citizens. Violence Against Women and Children is a Public Crime. In cases of Legal Separation, where violence is alleged as a ground, Art. 58 of the FC shall not apply. Victims Who Are Found to Be Suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur criminal or civil liability even in the absence of any element of self defense. Victim shall be entitled to custody and support. Barangay Captain or the Court hearing the Application for Protection Order should not Attempt to force or unduly Influence Petitioner to Compromise or Abandon her Claim. Victim is entitled to Paid Leave of Absence up to Ten Days in Addition to Other Paid Leaves under the Labor Code A.M. 02-11-10-SC Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity and Annulment of Voidable Marriages ONLY the Husband and the Wife can file a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity. In case of Voidable Marriages, the action may be filed by the parties or their parents or guardians depending upon the grounds. A petition must be verified and signed PERSONALLY by the petitioner. Copy of the Petition MUST BE SERVED to the Sol. Gen and Office of the Prosecutor WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS from filing and submit proof of compliance. I t says that: No Motion to Dismiss except on the Ground of Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter or over a person shall be allowed. Pre-trial is Mandatory Trial must be done PERSONALLY by the Judge Decision must state that the Decree of Nullity or Annulment shall be issued ONLY after COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLES 50 and 52. NO appeal unless a Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial was filed. I t further says that: Liquidation, Partition, and Distribution, custody, support of common children, and the Delivery of Presumptive Legitime shall Take Place AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. It is the DUTY OF THE PREVAILING PARTY to CAUSE THE REGISTRATION of the DECREE of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage. I t finally says that:
A.M. NO. 02-11-11-SC RULE ON LEGAL SEPARATION
It says that: Petition may be DENIED or DISMISSED if any of the GROUNDS stated in Art. 56 FC is present. Donations made by innocent spouse in favor of the Offending Spouse may be Revoked. In case of RECONCILIATION, the Spouses shall File a JOINT MANIFESTATION under OATH with the court. The FORMER property regime may be REVIVED or a NEW ONE may be adopted.
A.M. 02-11-12 SC RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER It says that. This Rule Refers to the Provisional Orders issued by the court during the PENDENCY of the case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Annulment of Marriage, and Legal Separation. The provisional Orders may refer to Spousal Support, Child Support, Visitation Rights, Hold Departure Order, and Order of Protection. These provisional orders may be issued by the court motu propio or upon application under oath by any party with or without a bond. Hold Departure Order may be issued by the Court motu proprio or upon application under oath to prevent the departure of the child of the parties during the pendency of the case. Order of Protection may be issued by the Court to prevent a party from Harassing or Intimidating the other party or child, or to stay away from the other party. A.M. 02-11-12 SC RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER A.M. NO. 03-04-04-SC RULE ON CUSTODY OF MINORS AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN RELATION TO THE CUSTODY OF MINORS It says that.. It can be filed by any person who have rightful custody of the minor. Motion to Dismiss is NOT allowed. Answer must be VERIFIED and filed within FIVE days from RECEIPT Of summons. After Answer or Expiration of the Period, the Court may Require a Social Worker to CONDUCT a study of the Child and the Parties and Submit Report. It further says that.. Pre-trial is MANDATORY. During the Pre-trial the case may be referred to MEDIATION. After Answer, the court may award PROVISIONAL ORDER awarding custody of the child. Doing so, the court shall consider the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER may be issued MOTU PROPIO It finally says that.. The Court may Issue Protection Order. Judgment may award custody of the child to EITHER PARENTS or TO OTHER PERSON, if both are unfit. NO APPEAL shall be allowed unless the appellant filed a MOTION FOR RECON or NEW TRIAL within 15 DAYS from notice of judgment. APPEAL is by Notice of Appeal. Petition for Habeas Corpus involving CUSTODY OF MINOR must be FILED in the FAMILY COURT. The WRIT will be ENFORCEABLE ONLY in the JUDICIAL REGION to which the FAMILY COURT belongs. UPDATES IN JURISPRUDENCE MARRIAGE Silverio vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, Oct. 22, 2007) Sex reassignment or sex change does not make a man into a woman. The sex of a person is determined at the time of birth. There is yet no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, thus, the determination of a persons sex at the time of his birth, if not attended by error, is immutable. Morigo vs. People (G.R. No. 145226, Feb. 6, 2004) Absence of marriage ceremony renders the marriage null and void Sevilla vs. Cardenas (G.R. 167684, July 31, 2006) No marriage license certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or that it could not be found in the register despite diligent search. Marriage license xxxx xxxxx Xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Alcantara vs. Alcantara (G.R. No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007) Absence of marriage license renders the marriage void. The absence must be apparent on the marriage contract. Marriage license xxxx xxxxx Xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals. (505 SCRA, Oct. 27, 2006) A threat from NPA on petitioner to marry respondent is not so overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter voluntarily the marriage thus, it is not sufficient to annul the marriage . Abunado vs. People (G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004) Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question to bigamy case. Duncan vs. Glaxo (G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004) Marriage prohibition in employment contract is valid as it is reasonable under the circumstance because relationship of employees of competing companies may prejudice the interest of the company. Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol (G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006) The company policy provides that no employee of the company can marry each other. The company policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative for the failure of the employer to present any evidence of business necessity of the no- spouse employment policy. Absence of such a bona fide occupational qualification renders the policy invalid. Alvarez vs. Ramirez (G.R. No. 143439, Oct. 14, 2005) Marital disqualification rule does not apply if the relationship of the spouses is already so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed. Conjuangco vs. Palma (A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005) Cotracting a bigamous marriage is a ground for disbarment of a lawyer. Delgado Vda. De la Rosa vs. Heirs of Damian (January 27, 2006) Absence of marriage certificate in the civil registry does not conclusively prove that there was no marriage. If a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period they are presumed to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Marriage contract is not the only evidence of marriage as it can also be proven by other documents especially if they have already been living together as husband and wife. De Castro vs. De Castro (G.R. No. 160172, Feb. 13, 2008) The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked. Thus, even in action for Support, the court may pass upon the validity of the marriage so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. Ancheta vs. Ancheta (G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004) In cases of Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Annulment of Mariage, no declaration of default can be issued by the court despite the failure of the defendant to file answer. Lam vs. Chua (G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004) The court cannot grant the nullity of marriage on the basis of evidences presented but not alleged in the complaint. However, since the defendant did not question it, then he is now estopped to question it. Tribiana vs. Tribiana (G.R. No.137359, Sept. 13, 2004) The condition precedent under Art. 151 of the Family Code that in a suit between members of the same family, there must be an allegation of earnest effort to compromise, is deemed complied with when the parties have passed through the barangay level for conciliation as shown by the certification issued by the barangay. ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE Republic vs. Orbecido III (G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005) A Filipino spouse who acquired a foreign nationality and thereafter divorced the other spouse capacitates the latter to also remarry. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (Art. 36 F.C.) Dedel vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004) Personality disorder, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not constitute psychological incapacity. Likewise, trial court has no jurisdiction to dissolve church marriage. Tenebro vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 150758, Feb. 18, 2004) Judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is not a defense in the bigamy case Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004) Art. 36 applies to mixed marriage. There is no difference between a Filipino spouse and an alien spouse in so far as psychological incapacity is concerned. Corpus vs. Ochotorena (A.M. RTJ 04-1861, July 30, 2004) No collusion report of the Public Prosecutor is a condition sine qua non for further proceedings to go on in declaration of nullity of marriage cases. Carating-Siayungco vs. Siayungco (G.R. No. 158896, Oct. 29, 2004) Irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities do not constitute psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff. Tenorio vs. Tenorio (G.R.No. 138490, November 24, 2004) Failure to furnish a copy of the Formal Offer of Exhibits to the OSG and the Prosecutor is fatal to the petition. The belated furnishing of the offer may cause the dismissal of the case. However, the case may be refilled as the dismissal is not on the merit but on technicality, thus, res judicata will not set in. Buenaventura vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 127358, March 31, 2005) Award of Moral Damages in Art. 36 cases is not proper. Republic vs. Iyoy (G.R. No. 152577, Sept. 21, 2005) The fact that the wife has already abandoned the husband, obtained a divorce against him in the U.S., and married an American, is no justification to file a declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36. Psychological Incapacity must be manifested before the marriage, it must be grave, and incurable. Gonzales vs. Gonzales (478 SCRA 327, Dec. 16, 2005) A marriage declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity is governed by co-ownership under Art. 147 F.C. Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006) The findings of psychiatrist and clinical psychologist that the wife is a pathological liar coupled with the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila annulling the marriage on the ground of the parties lack of due discretion is sufficient to establish psychological incapacity of the wife under Article 36 of the Family Code . Republic vs. Melgar (G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006) While an actual, medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination is not a condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity, an expert witness would have strengthened her claim. Petitioners failure to present one is fatal to her case. Peres-Ferrarin vs. Ferrarin (G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006) Respondents leaving the house attitude whenever the spouses quarelled, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his bandmates than his family, were not rooted on some incapacitating psychological condition but a mere refusal to assume the essential marital obligations. There is no evidence that the defects were incurable and already present at the inception of the marriage. Mallion vs. Alcantara (G.R. No. 141528, October 31, 2006) Husband filed a case of Declaration of Nullity of Marriage because of psychological incapacity against his wife. The court dismissed it for lack of merit. Later on, he filed again a case of declaration of nullity but this time on the ground of lack of valid marriage license. The RTC dismissed it on the ground of res judicata. The S.C. affirmed the dismissal because although the two cases are based of different grounds, they are of the same cause of action, which is to declare the marriage void. Moreover, when plaintiff filed the first case, he should have included therein all possible grounds (lack of valid license), otherwise, they are deemed waived. Paras vs. Paras (G.R. No. 147824, Aug 2, 2007) Infidelity, not providing support, dissipating her business, forging her signature, and being remiss in his duties as a husband and a father are not psychological incapacity per se. Even if all the allegation in the complaint are true, such traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to become an ideal husband and father. There is no proof of juridical antecedence and incurability which are two of the essential requisites of psychological incapacity. DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (G.R. No. 160258, Jan. 19, 2005) Declaration of presumptive death falls under summary judicial proceedings and is therefore immediately final and executory. Appeal to the Court of Appeals by the Sol. Gen. Is not proper. Manuel vs. People (G.R. No. 165842, Nov. 29, 2005) The fact that the wife has been absent for 21 years does not create a presumption of death to justify the husband to marry again, thus, he can be charged for bigamy Republic vs. C.A. (477 SCRA 276, December 9, 2005) Presumptive death must be anchored on well founded belief that the spouse must have already been dead. The present spouse must exert every deligent effort to locate the absent spouse and must present convincing proof to warrant the presumption of death. SSS vs. Vda. De Bailon (G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006) Declaration of presumptive death by the RTC cannot be overturned by the Social Security Commission. To annul subsequent marriage absentee spouse must execute affidavit of reappearance or go to court. LEGAL SEPARATION Ong vs. Ong (G.R. No. 153206, Oct. 23, 2006) Abandonment referred to in the Family Code is one without justifiable cause for more than one year. PROPERTY RELATIONS Vilaranda vs. Villaranda (G.R. No. 153447, Feb. 23, 2004) Without the wifes consent, the husbands alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable. Joaquino vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004) Property relation of people living together without marriage or under a void marriage is governed by co-ownerships under Art. 147 or Art. 148. If they have no impediment to marry each other then they are governed by Art. 147, otherwise, Art. 148 will apply. Art. 148 requires actual contribution. Registration of property under the name of the paramour is tantamount to a donation which is not allowed under Art. 84 F.C., and so a constructive trust under Art. 1456 C.C. is created in favor of the legal wife Abalos vs. Macatangay (G.R. No. 155043, Sept. 30, 2004) Disposition or encumbrance of a conjugal property requires authority of the court or a WRITTEN consent of the other spouse, otherwise, it is null and void Ching vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 124642, Feb. 23, 2004) All properties acquired during marriage is presumed to be conjugal and it cannot be made to answer for the loan obligation of the husband in the absence of proof that the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family. Villanueva vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004) Presumption of conjugality of property acquired during the marriage. The contention of a concubine that Art. 148 will apply is misplaced as there is no proof of her actual contribution. The fact that some properties were placed in the name of the concubine is of no moment. She failed to prove that these properties were bought with her exclusive money. Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction (G.R. No. 151967, Feb. 16, 2005) In a bigamous marriage, the property relation of the parties shall be governed by co-ownership under Art. 148 of the Family Code. Co-ownership applies only when there is actual contribution from both parties. Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo (G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005) Mortgage on conjugal property executed by the husband without the wifes consent is void. It is not only the share of the non consenting spouse that is void, but the entire encumbrance itself Pelayo vs. Perez (G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005) Under Art. 166 of the Civil Code, lack of consent of one spouse to the sale of conjugal properties by the other spouse does not automatically make the disposition null and void. The contract is merely voidable at the instance of the wife.The wifes consent does not always have to be express as it may be implied. Vda de Ramones vs. Agbayani (G.R. No. 137808, Sept. 20, 2005) Same as the Pelayo vs. Peres ruling. Failure to nullify the sale within 10 years (Art. 166 and173 C.C.) makes the sale valid. The action of the wife to annul the sale has already prescribed. Pintiano-Anno vs. Anno (G.R. No. 163743, Jan. 27, 2006) For presumption of conjugality to apply, the one invoking it must first prove that the subject property was acquired during the marriage. Failure to prove will mean that the property is not conjugal Go vs. Yamane (G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006) Mere registration of the property in the name of the wife does not destroy its conjugal nature. It cannot be made to answer for the personal obligation of the wife unless it redounded to the benefit of the partnership Bautista vs. Silva (502 SCRA 334, Sept. 19, 2006) Sale of conjugal property by the husband without the consent of the wife is null and void. The nullity is not only as to the share of the wife but of the entire property. The buyer here cannot be considered a buyer in good faith. Ferrer vs. Ferrer (G.R. No. 166496, November 9, 2006) Improvements made on the exclusive property of the husband using the conjugal funds is governed by Article 120 F.C. Ownership of both the land and improvement belong to the owner of the property that cost more. In the case at bar, the land appear to be more valuable than the improvement, so the property becomes exclusive property of the husband, subject to reimbursement of the cost of improvement to the conjugal partnership. Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro (G.R. No. 168698, Nov. 29, 2006) Proof of actual contribution is required for Article 148 of the Family Code to apply. If the man who claims to be the source of the money used to buy the property fails to prove his actual contribution then he is not entitled to a share. Article 148 is intended to fill up the hiatus in Art. 144 of the Civil Code Carandang vs. Heirs of Quirino De Guzman (G.R. No. 160347, Nov. 29, 2006) Obligation entered into by the husband and wife are chargeable against the conjugal partnership. The spouses will be solidarily liable. SBTC vs. Mar Tierra Corp. (G.R. No. 143382, Nov. 29, 2006) When the husband acted as guarantor or surety for the loan of another, he does not act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership as the benefit is clearly intended for a third party. Thus, creditor cannot attach the conjugal house and lot. He has the burden of proving that conjugal partnership is benefited from the transaction. MBTC vs. Tan (G.R. No. 163712, November 30, 2006) The bank foreclosed the 4 parcels of land mortgaged by the (H) husband. One of the 4 titles is registered in the name of H married to W. The wife questioned the foreclosure on that land which she claimed to be conjugal. The court ruled that the words married to W is merely descriptive of the civil status of H, and it is not proof that such property is conjugal. The presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code cannot apply without proof that the acquisition was during the marriage. Proof of acquisition is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal ownership. Maquilan vs. Maquilan (G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007) Compromise Agreement entered into by the husband and his wife who was already found guilty of adultery to settle their conjugal properties is valid. It is in the nature of voluntary separation of property during the marriage under Art. 136 of the Family Code. The share of the spouse guilty of adultery is not forfeited under Art. 43 (2) because it refers only to termination of the subsequent marriage due to the reappearance of the absent sp[ouse. FAMILY HOME Gomez vs. Sta. Ines (G.R. No. 132537, Oct. 14, 2005) Family home is not exempted for debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home. Versola vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 164740, July 31, 2006) The right to exemption is a personal privilege granted to debtor and should be claimed and proven by him before the public auction. The S.C. ruled in favor of the respondents due to failure of the petitioner to prove that the house and lot was their family home. Patricio vs. Dario III (G.R. No. 170829, Nov. 20, 2006) Grandchild living with his parents in the house of his grandmother is not considered a minor beneficiary of the said grandmother under Art. 159 F.C. So, partition of the house can be effected even if the said minor is still living in said house. SUPPORT Lam vs. Chua (G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004) Judgment for support does not become final. It is always subject to modification, depending upon the need of the child and the capabilities of the parents to give support. RES JUDICATA will not apply here. Zaguirre vs. Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, Aug. 3, 2005) Support should be claimed in court. It should not be raised as an ancilliary issue in a disbarment case against the lawyer father. Mangonon vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006) An action for support filed by the legitimate children (twins) against their father and grandfather will prosper. Since the father was found to have no means to provide support, then, the grandfather of the twins would be liable. Lacson vs. Lacson (G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006) Husbands contention that he should not be made to pay support in arrears, since no previous extrajudicial nor judicial demands have been made by respondents wife and children is untenable because of the note of commitment to support given by him before he left them. That note of commitment renders the requisite demand unnecessary PATERNITY AND FILIATION Potenciano vs. Reynoso (G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003) Filiation may be established by a holographic as well as notarial wills, but there is no need for it to be probated for purposes of establishing filiation. Arbolario vs. Court of Appeals (G.R.No. 129163, April 22, 2003) Paternity and Filiation, or the lack of it, is a relationship that must be judicially established. Mere cohabitation of the husband with another woman will not give rise to a presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children born of the second marriage. Rivero vs. Court of Appeals ( G.R. No. 141273, May 17, 2005) Civil status of a person cannot be a subject of a compromise agreement.. As such, paternity and filiation, or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially established, and it is for the court to determine its existence or absence. Arnel Agustin vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005) The alleged father of an illegitimate child can be compelled to submit himself to DNA testing in action for support. It does not violate the right of a person against self-incrimination as the kernel of the right is not against all compulsion but against testimonial confession. Rosendo Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005) DNA test is now accepted as a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determination. In assessing its probative value, courts should consider among others, the following date: 1.) how the samples were collected, 2.) how they were handled, 3.) the possibility of contamination of samples, 4.) the procedures followed in analyzing the samples, 5.) whether or not the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and 6.) qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005) The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Art. 164 of the Family Code provides that a child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is legitimate. Considering that Jose is not the child of Gerardo, the latter has no visitorial right to speak of. Angeles vs. Maglaya (G.R. No. 153798, Sept. 2, 2005) A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the element of a lawful union and there is strictly no legitimate filiation to speak of. In this case, there is absolutely no proof of marriage between Francisco and Genoveva, the alleged parents of petitioner. No marriage certificate or marriage contract was offered in evidence. No solemnizing officer was called to the witness stand. Estate of Ong vs. Diaz (G.R. No. 171713, Dec. 17, 2007) In a case for recognition and support where the alleged father denied his filiation, the court may order DNA testing even after the death of the alleged father. PARENTAL AUTHORITY AND CUSTODY OF MINORS Briones vs. Miguel (G.R. No. 156343, Oct. 18, 2004) Parental authority of an illegitimate child is vested with the mother. The recognition of the child by the father could be a ground for ordering the latter to give support but not the custody of the child Tan vs. Adre (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, Jan. 31, 2005) The custody of the child below 7 yrs. of age in the mother is provisional and does not preclude the husband to prove compelling reasons why the mother should be deprived of such custody Gualberto vs. Gualberto (G.R.No. 154994, June 28, 2005) Under Article 213 of the Family Code no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless there are compelling reasons to provide otherwise. The fact that the mother of the child is a Lesbian is not a valid reason. Not even the fact that the mother is a prostitute or an unfaithful wife is sufficient. To deprive the wife of custody, the husband must clearly establish that her moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the welfare of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from exercising proper parental care. Yu vs. Yu (G.R. No. 164915, March 10, 2006) The issue of custody of children shall be resolved in the court where the Declaration of nullity of marriage is pending pursuant to Art. 49 and 50 F.C. This means that the filing of a separate action for custody is not necessary. Hirsch vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 174485, July 11, 2007) The grant of joint custody of the child by the Court of Appeals is an abuse of discretion. In all question regarding the care and custody of the child, his/her welfare is the paramount consideration. The so-called tender- age presumption under Art. 213 may be overcome only by compelling reason or evidence of the mothers unfitness. Here, the mother was not shown to be unfit, thus sole custody is awarded to her. Madrinan vs. Madrinan (G.R. No. 159374, July 12, 2007) The Court of Appeals have the jurisdiction to entertain a Petition for Habeas Corpus in relation to Custody of Minors cases. R.A. 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was further affirmed by A.M. 03-03-04-SC. Wilson Sy vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 124518, Dec. 27, 2007) In a case for Habeas Corpus in relation to custody of minors, the grant of support even if it was not prayed for in the complaint was declared valid as the petitioner did not object to it when it was raised during the trial of the case. He is now estopped to question it as he is deemed to have impliedly consented to it. CHANGE OF NAME In re Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wong (G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005) A petition to drop the middle name of a person in his birth certificate for convenience is not allowed. A state has an interest in the name of a person and it cannot be changed except on grounds provided for by law. Cerila vs. Delantar (G.R. No. 140305, Dec. 9, 2005) Annulment and cancellation of birth certificate. A person whose birth certificate is sought to be cancelled must be impleaded and notified as a party, otherwise, judgment is void. The proceeding is adversarial and not summary. Republic vs. Carlito Kho (G.R. No.170340, June 29, 2007) Changes in the birth certificate that pertains to citizenship and civil status are substantial that warrants adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Respondent have complied with the requirement under the law,thus, the grant of the petition by the trial court is proper. ADOPTION In the Matter of Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005) An illegitimate child adopted by his own father may use the surname of her mother as her middle name. Landigin vs. Republic (G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006) Adoption must be with the consent of the surviving parent even if she is already living abroad. Furthermore, the adopter must also have the financial capacity to adopt which is wanting in this case. SURNAME Alba vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005) Illegitimate children must bear the surname of the mother except when recognized by the father (R.A. 9255)