Action to claim legitimacy, A173 Family Code
1. Action to claim legitimacy
a. Lifetime: Child
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime x x x
For a claim of filiation to succeed, it must be made within the period allowed, and supported by the evidence required under the Family Code. (Ara v. Pizarro, G.R. No. 187273, February 15, 2017, Per Leonen, J.)
To establish filiation, an action for compulsory recognition may be filed against the putative father ahead of an action for support. In the alternative, an action for support may be directly filed, where the matter of filiation shall be integrated and resolved. (Abella v. Cabañero, G.R. No. 206647, August 9, 2017, Per Leonen, J.)
1) cf. Article 172, paragraph 2: Open and continuous possession of status
Ara v. Pizarro, G.R. No. 187273, February 15, 2017, Per Leonen, J.:
• While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of the documents mentioned in the first paragraph (which are practically the same documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil Code except for the “private handwritten instrument signed by the parent himself), he insists that he has nevertheless been “in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” which is now also admissible as evidence of filiation.
• Thus, he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, receiving support from him during that time; that he has been using the surname Uyguangco without objection from his father and the petitioners as shown in his high school diploma, a special power of attorney executed in his favor by Dorotea Uyguangco, and another one by Sulpicio Uyguangco; that he has shared in the profits of the copra business of the Uyguangcos, which is a strictly family business; that he was a director, together with the petitioners, of the Alu and Sons Development Corporation, a family corporation; and that in the addendum to the original extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners he was given a share in his deceased father’s estate.
• It must be added that the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
• The problem of the private respondent, however, is that, since he seeks to prove his filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, his action is now barred because of his alleged father’s death in 1975…
• It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son’s illegitimate filiation.
• Petitioners did not present evidence that would prove their illegitimate filiation to their putative parent, Josefa, after her death as provided under Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code.
• Although not raised by petitioners, it may be argued that petitioner Garcia’s Certificate of Live Birth obtained in 2003 through a late registration of his birth is a record of birth appearing in the civil register under Article 172 of the Family Code.
• True, birth certificates offer prima facie evidence of filiation. To overthrow the presumption of truth contained in a birth certificate, a high degree of proof is needed.However, the circumstances surrounding the delayed registration prevent us from according it the same weight as any other birth certificate.
• A delayed registration of birth, made after the death of the putative parent, is tenuous proof of filiation.
• Thus, we are unable to accord petitioner Garcia’s delayed registration of birth the same evidentiary weight as regular birth certificates.
• Even without a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, filiation may still be established after the death of a putative parent through an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument, signed by the parent concerned.However, petitioners did not present in evidence any admissions of filiation.
• The evidence presented by petitioners such as group pictures with Josefa and petitioners’ relatives, and testimonies do not show that Josefa is their mother. They do not contain any acts, declarations, or omissions attributable directly to Josefa, much less ones pertaining to her filiation with petitioners. Although petitioner Garcia’s Baptismal Certificate, Certificate of Marriage, and Certificate of Live Birth obtained via late registration all state that Josefa is his mother, they do not show any act, declaration, or omission on the part of Josefa. Josefa did not participate in making any of them. The same may be said of the testimonies presented. Although Josefa may have been in the photographs, the photographs do not show any filiation. By definition, none of the evidence presented constitutes an admission of filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code.
• Josefa passed away in 2002.After her death, petitioners could no longer be allowed to introduce evidence of open and continuous illegitimate filiation to Josefa. The only evidence allowed under the law would be a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private signed, handwritten instruction by Josefa.
• An alleged parent is the best person to affirm or deny a putative descendant’s filiation. Absent a record of birth appearing in a civil register or a final judgment, an express admission of filiation in a public document, or a handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned, a deceased person will have no opportunity to contest a claim of filiation.
• In truth, it is the mother and in some cases, the father, who witnesses the actual birth of their children. Descendants normally only come to know of their parents through nurture and family lore. When they are born, they do not have the consciousness required to be able to claim personal knowledge of their parents. It thus makes sense for the parents to be present when evidence under the second paragraph of Article 172 is presented.
• The limitation that an action to prove filiation as an illegitimate child be brought within the lifetime of an alleged parent acknowledges that there may be other persons whose rights should be protected from spurious claims. This includes other children, legitimate and illegitimate, whose statuses are supported by strong evidence of a categorical nature.
b. 5 years: Heirs of child
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy x x x shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (Guy v. CA, G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006, Per Ynares-Santiago, J.)
Under the Family Code, when filiation of an illegitimate child is established by a record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, or an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned, the action for recognition may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime. However, if the action is based upon open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the rules or special laws, it may only be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (Guy v. CA, G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006, Per Ynares-Santiago, J.)
