Persons Case Digest: Ilano v. CA G.R. No. 104376 February 23, 1994

ILANO v. CA

G.R. No. 104376  February 23, 1994

NOCON, J.

FACTS:

Ø  Leoncia first met petitioner Artemio G. Ilano while she was working as secretary to Atty. Mariano C. Virata.

Ø  Leoncia, then managing a business of her own as Namarco distributor, met petitioner again. Later, he courted her more than four years. Their relationship became intimate and with his promise of marriage, they eloped.

Ø  While they were living at Makati, private respondent Merceditas S. Ilano was born   Her birth was recorded as Merceditas de los Santos Ilano, child of Leoncia Aguinaldo de los Santos and Artemio Geluz Ilano.  Inasmuch as it was already past seven o'clock in the evening, the nurse promised to return the following morning for his signature. However, he left an instruction to give birth certificate to Leoncia for her signature, as he was leaving early the following morning.

Ø  During the time that petitioner and Leoncia were living as husband and wife, he showed concern as the father of Merceditas. When Merceditas was in Grade I at the St. Joseph Parochial School, he signed her Report Card for the fourth and fifth grading periods

Ø  CA  REVERSED RTC  judgment declaring plaintiff MERCEDITAS S. ILANO as the duly acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child.

ISSUE:

W/N MERCEDITAS S. ILANO is the duly acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child.

HELD: Petition is DENIED. CA affirmed.

YES. 

Ø  Under the then prevailing provisions of the Civil Code, illegitimate children or those who are conceived and born out of wedlock were generally classified into: (1) Natural, whether actual or by fiction, were those born outside of lawful wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the child, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other (2) Spurious, whether incestuous, were disqualified to marry each other on account of certain legal impediments. Since petitioner had a subsisting marriage to another at the time Merceditas was conceived, she is a spurious child. Rights of an illegitimate child arose not because he was the true or real child of his parents but because under the law, he had been recognized or acknowledged as such a child.  A recognition once validly made is irrevocable. It cannot be withdrawn. A mere change of mind would be incompatible with the stability of the civil status of person, the permanence of which affects public interest. Even when the act in which it is made should be revocable, the revocation of such act will not revoke the recognition itself. To be sure, to establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child," it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. "Continuous" does not, however, mean that the concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues (De Jesus v. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866). The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own, directly and not through other, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate). There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his own, by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care.

Ø  The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not sufficient to offset the totality of the evidence indubitably showing that the signature thereon belongs to him. The entry in the Certificate of Live Birth that Leoncia and Artemio was falsely stated therein as married does not mean that Merceditas is not appellee's daughter. This particular entry was caused to be made by Artemio himself in order to avoid embarrassment.

Ø  It is difficult to believe that plaintiffs mother, who is a mere dressmaker, had long beforehand diabolically conceived of a plan to make it appear that defendant, who claims to be a total stranger to be a total stranger, was the father of her child, and in the process falsified the latter's signatures and handwriting.

Ø  The natural, logical and coherent evidence of plaintiff from the genesis of the relationship between Leoncia and appellee, their living together as circumstances of plaintiff's birth, the acts of appellee in recognizing and supporting plaintiff, find ample support from the testimonial and documentary evidence which leaves no room to reasonably doubt his paternity which may not be infirmed by his belated denials.

Ø  Any other evidence or proof that the defendant is the father is broad enough to render unnecessary the other paragraphs of this article. When the evidence submitted in the action for compulsory recognition is not sufficient to meet requirements of the first three paragraphs, it may still be enough under the last paragraph. This paragraph permits hearsay and reputation evidence, as provided in the Rules of Court, with respect to illegitimate filiatio

Ø  As a necessary consequence of the finding that private respondent is the spurious child of petitioner, she is entitled to support. In awarding support to her, respondent court took into account the following:

Ø  The obligation to give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a right to recover the same needs it for maintenance, but it shall not be paid except from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand.

Ø  The complaint in this case was filed on August 14, 1972. Plaintiff, having been born on December 30, 1963, was about 9 years old at the time and was already of school age spending about P400.00 to P500.00 a month for her school expenses alone, while defendant was earning about P10,000.00 a month. She is therefore entitled to support in arrears for a period of 12 years, 4 months and 14 days, which is hereby fixed at P800.00 a month for the 1st 3 years; and considering the declining value of the peso as well as her needs as she grows older, at a graduated increase of P1,000.00 a month for the next 3 years; P1,300.00 a month for the succeeding 3 years; and P1,500.00 a month for the last 3 years, 4 months and 14 days until she attained the age of majority.

Ø  This being an action for legal support, the award of attorney's fees is appropriate under Article 2208 (6) of the Civil Code. Moreover, the court deems it just and equitable under the given facts and circumstances that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

Persons Case Digest: Potenciano v. Reynoso G.R. No. 140707 April 22, 2003

POTENCIANO v. REYNOSO

G.R. No. 140707 April 22, 2003.

PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

Ø  Felipe Pareja executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a parcel of land and all improvements in favor of his illegitimate son defendant-appellant Manuel Jayme who later claimed that the said sale was made to cover the payments he had made for the hospitalization expenses of his father, he having been constrained to borrow money from several people for the purpose.

Ø  Before Felipe Pareja died, he executed a Last Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed to herein appellees and appellant Manuel Jayme the lot in question while at the same time recognizing them as his illegitimate children.

Ø  10 days after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor, spouses Manuel and Natividad Jayme executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the property in favor of defendant-appellant Norgene Potenciano who eventually filed an ejectment case against plaintiff-appellee Dwight Reynoso.

Ø  CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC, that the signatures of Felipe B. Pareja on the subject Deeds of Sale had been forged

ISSUE:  W/N  Felipe B. Pareja’s unprobated Last Will and Testament as established filiation therefore Manuel Jayme has the capacity to sue

HELD:  Petition is DENIED.

YES.

·         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 acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required

Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. Thus, a document acknowledged before a notary public has in its favor the presumption of regularity. However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. To show that the signatures of Pareja were forged on the questioned Deeds of Sale, petitioners presented Dwight Reynoso, who was familiar with his handwriting; and Romeo Varona, a handwriting expert of the National Bureau of Investigation. However, we are not unmindful of the rule that a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts; the judge is still required to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature.  The CA conducted its own independent examination of the signatures and concluded that the striking differences between the questioned signatures.  Atty. Duterte’s testimony as to the latter Deed of Sale was completely belied by the other witnesses, who testified that Pareja had signed as a witness in the latter’s own residence and not in the presence of the notary public. Petitioner Potenciano himself admitted that Pareja, being already sickly at the time, had signed in the latter’s own house and not in the presence of Notary Public Duterte.  Since the signature of the alleged vendor was a forgery, no rights were transferred from him to the alleged vendees. In turn, the Jayme spouses could not have conveyed ownership of the property to Petitioner Potenciano. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have.   

Persons Case Digest: SSS v. Aguas G.R. No. 165546 February 27, 2006

SSS v. AGUAS

G.R. No. 165546  February 27, 2006.

CALLEJO, SR., J.

FACTS:

Ø  Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner of the SSS died.

Ø  Pablo’s surviving spouse, Rosanna H. Aguas, filed a claim with the SSS for death benefits on indicating in her claim that Pablo was survived by his minor child, Jeylnn

Ø  Her claim for monthly pension was settled.

Ø  SSS received a sworn from Leticia Aguas-Macapinlac, Pablo’s sister, contesting Rosanna’s claim for death benefits. She alleged that Rosanna abandoned the family abode approximately more than 6 years before, and lived with another man on whom she has been dependent for support. She further averred that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna.

Ø  The SSC ruled that Rosanna was no longer qualified as primary beneficiary.

Ø  CA reversed the SSC deicision and favored the respondents.

ISSUE:

W/N Rosanna, Jeylnn and Janet are entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of Pablo

HELD: Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

Ø  It bears stressing that under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.

Ø  Jeylnn’s claim is justified by the photocopy of her birth certificate which bears the signature of Pablo. Petitioner was able to authenticate the certification from the Civil Registry showing that she was born on October 29, 1991. The records also show that Rosanna and Pablo were married on December 4, 1977 and the marriage subsisted until the latter’s death on December 8, 1996. It is therefore evident that Jeylnn was born during Rosanna and Pablo’s marriage.

Ø  Impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. In this case, there is no showing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of Jeylnn during his lifetime.

Ø  The presumption that Jeylnn is a legitimate child is buttressed by her birth certificate bearing Pablo’s signature, which was verified from his specimen signature on file with petitioner. A birth certificate signed by the father is a competent evidence of paternity.

Ø  For  Rosanna, to qualify as a primary beneficiary, she must establish 2 qualifying factors: (1) that she is the legitimate spouse, and (2) that she is dependent upon the member for support.

Ø  A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for support" upon the husband, absent any showing to the contrary. If it is proved that the were  till living together at the time of his death, it is presumed that she was dependent on the husband for support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.

Ø  Only Jeylnn is entitled to the SSS death benefits as it was established that she is his legitimate child. Records show that Janet was merely "adopted" by the spouses, but there are no legal papers to prove it. Rosanna was the legitimate wife of Pablo, she is likewise not qualified as a primary beneficiary since she failed to present any proof to show that at the time of his death, she was still dependent on him for support even if they were already living separately. NOTE: Legitimacy cannot be extended to other siblings.