Belen Sagad Angeles vs.

Aleli Corazon Angeles Maglaya

G.R No. 153758
September 27, 2005

Facts: On January 21, 1998, in the city of Manila, Francisco Angeles died intestate leaving behind four (4)
parcels of land among other valuable properties. Respondent Corazon claims that as the sole legitimate
child of the deceased and Genoveva Mercado, she has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications required of an administrator. Petitioner Belen claims that as Franciscos second wife
and surviving spouse, she should be made the administrator of the estate of the deceased. Belen adds
that the respondent cannot be the daughter of Francisco because although she was recorded as
Franciscos legitimate daughter, the corresponding birth certificate was not signed by him. Belen further
added that the respondent, who claims to be the legitimate child of Francisco and a certain Genovena
Mercado did not present the marriage contract of her supposed parents or any other document
supporting their union for that matter. Belen also said that she and Francisco adopted a child.

Respondents in turn alleged that per certification of the appropriate offices from January to December
1938, records of marriages of the Civil Registrar of Bacolor Pampanga where the alleged 1938 Franciso-
Genoveva wedding took place were destroyed. She also dismissed the adoption as of little consequence,
owing to her having interposed with the Court of Appeals a petition to nullify the decree of adoption
entered by the RTC at Caloocan. Respondent testified having been in open and continuous possession of
the status of the legitimate child. Four other witnesses testified on her behalf, and she also offered in
evidence her birth certificate which contained an entry stating that she was born at Mary Johnson
Hospital , Tondo Manila to Francisco Angeles and Genoveva Mercado and whereon the handwritten
Yes appears below the question Legitimate?. Pictures taken during respondents wedding as bride to
Atty Guillermo Maglaya; a copy of her marriage contract, and her scholastic and government records
were also offered as evidence.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is a legitimate child of decedent Francisco M. Angeles and
Genoveva Mercado

Held: NO. CA erred in giving respondent presumptive legitimacy. A legitimate child is a product of, end,
therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage (FC Art 146). However, the presumption of legitimacy
under Art 164 may be availed only upon convincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the
childs parents were legally married and that his/her conception or birth occurred during the subsistence
of that marriage. Respondent failed to present evidence of Franciscos marriage to Genoveva, thus she
cannot be presumed legitimate. Further, the Birth Certificate presented was not signed by Francisco
against whom legitimate filiation is asserted. Not even by Genoveva. It was only signed by the attending
physician making it only proof of the fact of the birth of a child. The legitimate filiation of a child is a
matter fixed by law itself, it cannot be made dependent on the declaration of the attending physician or
midwife, or that of the mother of the newborn child. None of the evidence respondent presented is
enough to prove filiation or recognition. Further, RTC Caloocan
in the case respondent filed to nullify the adoption of Francisco and Belen of their child, said that
respondent is NOT a legitimate child of Francisco and Genoveva; following the rule on conclusiveness of
judgment, herein respondent is precluded from claiming that she is the legitimate daughter of Francisco
and Genoveva Mercado. In fine, the issue of herein respondents legitimate filiation to Francisco and the
latters marriage to Genoveva, having been judicially determined in a final judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction, has thereby become res judicata and may not again be resurrected or litigated
between herein petitioner and respondent or their privies in a subsequent action, regardless of the form
of the latter. Finally, it should be noted that on the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate
of the deceased, the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the deceased