Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Teofista Babiera vs Presentacion Catotal

Posted by kaye lee on 11:33 PM G.R. No. 138493 June 15 2000

FACTS: Presentacion questioned the authenticity of the entry of birth of Teofista. She asserted that the birth certificate is void ab initio, as it was totally a simulated birth, the signature of informant forged, and contained false entries, to wit:

That Teofista is the legitimate child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera and Hermogena Cariosa; Signature of the mother, Hermogena, is falsified; Teofista's correct family name is GUINTO, not Babiera; Her real mother was Flora Guinto, and her status is an illegitimate child; It was clinically and medically impossible for Hermogena to bore a child at 54 years of age; her last child birth was when Presentacion was born.

Presentacion ask the court to declare Teofista's certificate of birth void and ineffective, and to order the City Civil Registrar to cancel the same as it affect the hereditary rights of Presentacion who inherited the estate.

Teofista countered that she and Presentacion are full-blooded sisters, as showed therein her certificate of birth, Certificate of Baptism, and her School Report Card. She also filed a motion on the grounds that: the petition states no cause of action, being an attack on her legitimacy as the child of Hermogena and Eugenio; that Presentacion has no legal capacity to file the petition pursuant to Art. 171 of the Family Code; and that the petition was barred from prescription in accordance with Art. 170 of the Family Code.

The trial court ruled in favor of Presentacion. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not Presentacion has legal capacity to file the special proceedings pursuant to Art. 171; 2. Whether or not the special proceedings is improper and barred by the statute of limitation;

3. Whether or not the public record of Teofista's birth is superior to the oral testimony of Presentacion.

RULING: Petition is not meritorious.

1. Article 171 is not applicable in this case. Article 171 of the Family Code shows that it applies to instances which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife's child. The provision, however, presupposes that the child was the undisputed child of the mother. Present case alleges and shows that Hermogena did not give birth to Teofista. The present action does not impugn Teofista's filiation to Eugenio and Hermogeno, be there is no blood relation to impugn in the first place. The reason why Presentacion took interest on Teofista's status is to protect the former's successional rights.

2. Article 170 of the FC does not apply. The provision provides a prescriptive period for action to impugn the legitimacy of the child. The present action involves the cancellation of Teofista's Birth Certificate, it does not impugn her legitimacy. The action to nullify the birth certificate does not prescribe because it was allegedly declared void ab initio.

3. The specific attendant in the case at bar and the totality of the evidence presented during trial, sufficiently negates the presumption of regularity in the issuance of birth certificate.

First, the birth certificate was not signed by the local civil registrar, and the mother's signature was different from other signatures. Second, no medical records or doctor's prescription that provide as evidence of Hermogena's pregnancy. It was impossible for her to have given birth at 54 years of age. Third, the disposition of Hermogena which states that she did not give brith to Teofista and that the latter was not hers of Eugenio.

S-ar putea să vă placă și