30. Liyao vs. Liyao, G.R. No.

138961, March 7, 2002

Facts:
William Liyao, Jr., represented by his mother Corazon G. Garcia, filed an
action for Compulsory Recognition as the Illegitimate Son of the deceased
William Liyao and ordering the deceaseds heirs to recognize and
acknowledge William, Jr. as a compulsory heir of the deceased William and
entitled to all successional rights as such. Evidence shows that Corazon, at
the time of William, Jr.s birth, was legally married to Ramon Yulo. However,
Corazon alleged that she and William cohabited as husband and wife from
1965 until the death of William on December 2, 1975 and that William, Jr.
was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of the child of
William Liyao for having been recognized and acknowledged as such child by
the decedent during his lifetime.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner William, Jr. may impugn his own legitimacy to
be able to claim from the estate of his supposed father, William Liyao.
Held:
No. It is settled that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed
legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy
or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. We cannot allow petitioner to
maintain his present petition and subvert the clear mandate of the law that
only the husband, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, could impugn
the legitimacy of a child born in a valid and subsisting marriage. The child
himself cannot choose his own filiation. If the husband, presumed to be the
father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the
child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mothers
alleged paramour. On the other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is
overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of the husband who
successfully defeated the presumption.
31. Eceta vs. Eceta, G.R. No. 157037
Facts:
Rosalina P. Vda. De Eceta was married to Isaac Eceta. The couple
acquired several properties during their marriage, among which is the
disputed property located at Stanford, Cubao, Quezon City. In 1967, Isaac
died leaving behind Rosalina and Vicente as his compulsory heirs. In 1977,
Vicente died leaving behind his mother, Rosalina, and illegitimate child,
Maria Theresa.
In 1991, Maria Theresa filed a case for "Partition and Accounting with
Damages" against Rosalina alleging that by virtue of her fathers death, she
became Rosalinas co-heir and co-owner of the Cubao property.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of
facts wherein they both admitted their relationship to one another, i.e., that
Rosalina is Maria Theresas grandmother. Also, Maria Theresa, to establish
her filiation with Vicente, presented a duly authenticated birth certificate,
signed by Vicente, thereby acknowledging that she is his daughter.

Issue:
Whether or not the authenticated birth certificate of Maria Theresa is
enough to prove her filiation with Vicente Eceta.
Held:
Yes. Maria Theresa successfully established her filiation with Vicente by
presenting a duly authenticated birth certificate. 7 Vicente himself signed
Maria Theresas birth certificate thereby acknowledging that she is his
daughter. By this act alone, Vicente is deemed to have acknowledged his
paternity over Maria Theresa, thus:
The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children,
is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate
filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof,
filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous
possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The due
recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is,
in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child,
and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic
writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it
is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a
separate action for judicial approval.
32. Bernabe vs. Alejo, G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002
Facts:

The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his
secretary of twenty-three (23) years, Carolina Alejo. The son was born
on September 18, 1981 and was named Adrian Bernabe. Fiscal Bernabe died
on August 13, 1993, while his wife Rosalina died on December 3 of the same
year, leaving Ernestina as the sole surviving heir.

On May 16, 1994, Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed a complaint for

Recognition praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate
son of Fiscal Bernabe and as such he be given his share in
Fiscal Bernabes estate, which is now being held by Ernestina as the sole
surviving heir. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the
death of the putative father had barred the action. The Court of Appeals
ruled that in the interest of justice, Adrian should be allowed to prove that he
was the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe. Having been born in 1981, his
rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action
for recognition to be filed within four years after the child has attained the
age of majority. The subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take
away that right. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether Adrians right to an action for recognition, which was granted
by Article 285 of the Civil Code, had already vested prior to the enactment of
the Family Code.
Held:
Yes. Illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family
Code took effect and whose putative parent died during their minority are
thus given the right to seek recognition (under Article 285 of the Civil Code)
for a period of up to four years from attaining majority age. This vested right
was not impaired or taken away by the passage of the Family Code.

Indeed, our overriding consideration is to protect the vested rights of

minors who could not have filed suit, on their own, during the lifetime of their
putative parents. As respondent aptly points out in his Memorandum, the
State as parens patriae should protect a minors right. Born in
1981, Adrian was only seven years old when the Family Code took effect and
only twelve when his alleged father died in 1993. The minor must be given
his day in court.