Benitez Badua Vs CA Digest
Benitez Badua Vs CA Digest
105625 January 24, 1994 The appellate court reversed the trial court ad held that Articles 166
and 170 of the Family Code are not applicable.
MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA, petitioner,
vs. ISSUE:
COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORIA BENITEZ LIRIO AND FEODOR BENITEZ
AGUILAR, respondents. Are Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code applicable in this case?
Augustus Cesar E. Azura for private respondents. No. Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not
contemplate a situation, like in the instant case, where a child is
alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain
couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or
PUNO, J.: his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166,
it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said child.
FACTS:
As regards the Birth Certificate which lists Marissa as the child of
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez owned various Isabel and Vicente, the court said that it is highly questionable and
properties in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while Vicente died in 1989. suspicions. Under Article 410 of the New Civil Code, is states that,
Vicente died intestate. "the books making up the Civil Registry and all documents relating
thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie
After Vicente’s death, his sister and nephew filed a case for issuance evidence of the facts therein stated." The totality of contrary evidence
of letters of administration of Vicente's estate. They claim that Isable presented by the sister and nephew of Vicente show that Isabel did
and Vicente were childless and that one Marissa Benitez-Badua who not become pregnant as testified to by the witnesses. Also the Deed
was raised and cared by them since childhood is not their child and of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Isabel
was not legally adopted by them. Chipongian executed by Vicente himself and by Isabel’s brother,
stated that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Isabel Chipongian
Marissa opposed the petition and alleged that she is the sole heir of because she died without descendants or ascendants". In executing
deceased Vicente and capable of administering his estate. She this Deed, Vicente effectively repudiated the Certificate of Live Birth
presented Certificate of Live Birth, as one of her evidences to prove of Marissa where it appeared that Vicente was Marissa’s father.
her claim.
Therefore, Marissa’s petition before the Supreme Court was
The trial court decided in favor of Marissa and dismissed the petition dismissed.
of Vicente’s sister and nephew. The trial court relied on Articles 166
and 170 of the Family Code on impugning the legitimacy of the child.