THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123450. August 31, 2005.]

GERARDO B. CONCEPCION , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS and

MA. THERESA ALMONTE , respondents.

Juan Orendain P. Buted for petitioner.

Stephen L. Monsanto for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; PATERNITY AND FILIATION; LEGITIMATE CHILDREN;

THE LAW REQUIRES THAT EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION BE MADE IN FAVOR OF
LEGITIMACY. — The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Article 164 of
the Family Code is clear. A child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his
parents is legitimate. As a guaranty in favor of the child and to protect his status of
legitimacy, Article 167 of the Family Code provides: "Article 167. The child shall be
considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or
may have been sentenced as an adulteress." The law requires that every reasonable
presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. We explained the rationale of this rule in the
recent case of Cabatania v. Court of Appeals. "The presumption of legitimacy does not
only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural
justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to protect the
innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPUGNING THE LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD IS A STRICTLY
PERSONAL RIGHT OF THE HUSBAND OR, IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, HIS HEIRS; CASE AT
BAR. — Gerardo invokes Article 166 (1) (b) of the Family Code. He cannot. He has no
standing in law to dispute the status of Jose Gerardo. Only Ma. Theresa's husband Mario
or, in a proper case, his heirs, who can contest the legitimacy of the child Jose Gerardo
born to his wife. Impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the
husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa
was void from the very beginning, he never became her husband and thus never acquired
any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY PROCEEDS FROM THE SEXUAL
UNION IN MARRIAGE, PARTICULARLY DURING THE PERIOD OF CONCEPTION. — The
presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during
the period of conception. To overthrow this presumption on the bases of Article 166 (1)
(b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no
access that could have enabled the husband to father the child. Sexual intercourse is to be
presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted
by evidence to the contrary. The presumption is quasi-conclusive and may be refuted only
by the evidence of physical impossibility of coitus between husband and wife within the
first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child. To rebut
the presumption, the separation between the spouses must be such as to make marital
intimacy impossible. This may take place, for instance, when they reside in different
countries or provinces and they were never together during the period of conception. Or,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the husband was in prison during the period of conception, unless it appears that sexual
union took place through the violation of prison regulations.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AN ASSERTION BY THE MOTHER AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF
HER CHILD CANNOT AFFECT THE LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD BORN OR CONCEIVED
WITHIN A VALID MARRIAGE; CASE AT BAR. — An assertion by the mother against the
legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a
valid marriage. . . . A mother has no right to disavow a child because maternity is never
uncertain. Hence, Ma. Theresa is not permitted by law to question Jose Gerardo's
legitimacy.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF FILIATION; NECESSARY ONLY WHEN THE LEGITIMACY OF
THE CHILD IS BEING QUESTIONED OR WHEN THE STATUS OF A CHILD BORN AFTER
THREE HUNDRED DAYS FOLLOWING THE TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE IS SOUGHT TO BE
ESTABLISHED. — The reliance of Gerardo on Jose Gerardo's birth certificate is misplaced.
It has no evidentiary value in this case because it was not offered in evidence before the
trial court. The rule is that the court shall not consider any evidence which has not been
formally offered. Moreover, the law itself establishes the status of a child from the
moment of his birth. Although a record of birth or birth certificate may be used as primary
evidence of the filiation of a child, as the status of a child is determined by the law itself,
proof of filiation is necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being questioned, or
when the status of a child born after 300 days following the termination of marriage is
sought to be established. Here, the status of Jose Gerardo as a legitimate child was not
under attack as it could not be contested collaterally and, even then, only by the husband
or, in extraordinary cases, his heirs. Hence, the presentation of proof of legitimacy in this
case was improper and uncalled for.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BETWEEN THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF THE CHILD'S ILLEGITIMACY AND THE QUASI-CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION
OF LAW OF HIS LEGITIMACY, THE LATTER SHALL PREVAIL; CASE AT BAR. — [A] record of
birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. As prima facie evidence,
the statements in the record of birth may be rebutted by more preponderant evidence. It is
not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness of the statements made therein
by the interested parties. Between the certificate of birth which is prima facie evidence of
Jose Gerardo's illegitimacy and the quasi-conclusive presumption of law (rebuttable only
by proof beyond reasonable doubt) of his legitimacy the latter shall prevail. Not only does
it bear more weight, it is also more conducive to the best interests of the child and in
consonance with the purpose of the law.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, DISTINGUISHED. — Law,
reason and common sense dictate that a legitimate status is more favorable to the child.
In the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status. He is
entitled to bear the surnames of both his father and mother, full support and full
inheritance. On the other hand, an illegitimate child is bound to use the surname and be
under the parental authority only of his mother. He can claim support only from a more
limited group and his legitime is only half of that of his legitimate counterpart. Moreover
(without unwittingly exacerbating the discrimination against him), in the eyes of society, a
'bastard' is usually regarded as bearing a stigma or mark of dishonor. Needless to state,
the legitimacy presumptively vested by law upon Jose Gerardo favors his interest.
8. ID.; ID.; MARRIAGE; IN CASE OF ANNULMENT OR DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, VISITATION RIGHTS IS GRANTED TO A PARENT WHO IS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 DEPRIVED OF CUSTODY OF HIS CHILDREN. — In case of annulment or declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage, Article 49 of the Family Code grants visitation rights to a
parent who is deprived of custody of his children. Such visitation rights flow from the
natural right of both parent and child to each other's company. There being no such parent-
child relationship between them, Gerardo has no legally demandable right to visit Jose
Gerardo.
9. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE; APPLIED
IN CASE AT BAR. — The State as parens patriae affords special protection to children from
abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It is mandated to
provide protection to those of tender years. Through its law, the State safeguards them
from every one, even their own parents, to the end that their eventual development as
responsible citizens and members of society shall not be impeded, distracted or impaired
by family acrimony. This is especially significant where, as in this case, the issue concerns
their filiation as it strikes at their very identity and lineage.

DECISION

CORONA , J : p

The child, by reason of his mental and physical immaturity, needs special safeguard and
care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth. 1 In case of
assault on his rights by those who take advantage of his innocence and vulnerability, the
law will rise in his defense with the single-minded purpose of upholding only his best
interests.
This is the story of petitioner Gerardo B. Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa
Almonte, and a child named Jose Gerardo. Gerardo and Ma. Theresa were married on
December 29, 1989. 2 After their marriage, they lived with Ma. Theresa's parents in
Fairview, Quezon City. 3 Almost a year later, on December 8, 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth
to Jose Gerardo. 4
Gerardo and Ma. Theresa's relationship turned out to be short-lived, however. On
December 19, 1991, Gerardo filed a petition to have his marriage to Ma. Theresa annulled
on the ground of bigamy. 5 He alleged that nine years before he married Ma. Theresa on
December 10, 1980, she had married one Mario Gopiao, which marriage was never
annulled. 6 Gerardo also found out that Mario was still alive and was residing in Loyola
Heights, Quezon City. 7
Ma. Theresa did not deny marrying Mario when she was twenty years old. She, however,
averred that the marriage was a sham and that she never lived with Mario at all. 8
The trial court ruled that Ma. Theresa's marriage to Mario was valid and subsisting when
she married Gerardo and annulled her marriage to the latter for being bigamous. It
declared Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child as a result. The custody of the child was
awarded to Ma. Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. 9
Ma. Theresa felt betrayed and humiliated when Gerardo had their marriage annulled. She
held him responsible for the 'bastardization' of Gerardo. She moved for the
reconsideration of the above decision "INSOFAR ONLY as that portion of the . . . decision
which grant(ed) to the petitioner so-called 'visitation rights' . . . between the hours of 8 in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the morning to 12:00 p.m. of any Sunday." 1 0 She argued that there was nothing in the law
granting "visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child." 1 1 She
further maintained that Jose Gerardo's surname should be changed from Concepcion to
Almonte, her maiden name, following the rule that an illegitimate child shall use the
mother's surname.
Gerardo opposed the motion. He insisted on his visitation rights and the retention of
'Concepcion' as Jose Gerardo's surname.
Applying the "best interest of the child" principle, the trial court denied Ma. Theresa's
motion and made the following observations:
It is a pity that the parties herein seem to be using their son to get at or to hurt the
other, something they should never do if they want to assure the normal
development and well-being of the boy.

The Court allowed visitorial rights to the father knowing that the minor needs a
father, especially as he is a boy, who must have a father figure to recognize —
something that the mother alone cannot give. Moreover, the Court believes that
the emotional and psychological well-being of the boy would be better served if
he were allowed to maintain relationships with his father.
There being no law which compels the Court to act one way or the other on this
matter, the Court invokes the provision of Art. 8, PD 603 as amended, otherwise
known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, to wit:
"In all questions regarding the care, custody, education and property of the
child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration."
WHEREFORE, the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration has to be, as it is
hereby DENIED. 1 2

Ma. Theresa elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, assigning as error the ruling of the
trial court granting visitation rights to Gerardo. She likewise opposed the continued use of
Gerardo's surname (Concepcion) despite the fact that Jose Gerardo had already been
declared illegitimate and should therefore use her surname (Almonte). The appellate court
denied the petition and affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. 1 3
On the issue raised by Ma. Theresa that there was nothing in the law that granted a
putative father visitation rights over his illegitimate child, the appellate court affirmed the
"best interest of the child" policy invoked by the court a quo. It ruled that "[a]t bottom, it
(was) the child's welfare and not the convenience of the parents which (was) the primary
consideration in granting visitation rights a few hours once a week." 1 4
The appellate court likewise held that an illegitimate child cannot use the mother's
surname motu proprio. The child, represented by the mother, should file a separate
proceeding for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court to effect the
correction in the civil registry. 1 5
Undaunted, Ma. Theresa moved for the reconsideration of the adverse decision of the
appellate court. She also filed a motion to set the case for oral arguments so that she
could better ventilate the issues involved in the controversy. EHSAaD

After hearing the oral arguments of the respective counsels of the parties, the appellate
court resolved the motion for reconsideration. It reversed its earlier ruling and held that
Jose Gerardo was not the son of Ma. Theresa by Gerardo but by Mario during her first
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 marriage:
It is, therefore, undeniable — established by the evidence in this case — that the
appellant [Ma. Theresa] was married to Mario Gopiao, and that she had never
entered into a lawful marriage with the appellee [Gerardo] since the so-called
"marriage" with the latter was void ab initio. It was [Gerardo] himself who had
established these facts. In other words, [Ma. Theresa] was legitimately married to
Mario Gopiao when the child Jose Gerardo was born on December 8, 1990.
Therefore, the child Jose Gerardo — under the law — is the legitimate child of the
legal and subsisting marriage between [Ma. Theresa] and Mario Gopiao; he
cannot be deemed to be the illegitimate child of the void and non-existent
'marriage' between [Ma. Theresa] and [Gerardo], but is said by the law to be the
child of the legitimate and existing marriage between [Ma. Theresa] and Mario
Gopiao (Art. 164, Family Code). Consequently, [she] is right in firmly saying that
[Gerardo] can claim neither custody nor visitorial rights over the child Jose
Gerardo. Further, [Gerardo] cannot impose his name upon the child. Not only is it
without legal basis (even supposing the child to be his illegitimate child [Art. 146,
The Family Code]); it would tend to destroy the existing marriage between [Ma.
Theresa] and Gopiao, would prevent any possible rapprochement between the
married couple, and would mean a judicial seal upon an illegitimate relationship.
16

The appellate court brushed aside the common admission of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa
that Jose Gerardo was their son. It gave little weight to Jose Gerardo's birth certificate
showing that he was born a little less than a year after Gerardo and Ma. Theresa were
married:
We are not unaware of the movant's argument that various evidence exist that
appellee and the appellant have judicially admitted that the minor is their natural
child. But, in the same vein, We cannot overlook the fact that Article 167 of the
Family Code mandates:

"The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an
adulteress." (underscoring ours)
Thus, implicit from the above provision is the fact that a minor cannot be
deprived of his/her legitimate status on the bare declaration of the mother and/or
even much less, the supposed father. In fine, the law and only the law
determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for one's
legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised . Not even the birth
certificate of the minor can change his status for the information contained
therein are merely supplied by the mother and/or the supposed father. It should
be what the law says and not what a parent says it is . 1 7 (Emphasis
supplied)

Shocked and stunned, Gerardo moved for a reconsideration of the above decision but the
same was denied. 1 8 Hence, this appeal.
The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. 1 9 Article 164 of the Family
Code is clear. A child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is
legitimate. 2 0
As a guaranty in favor of the child 2 1 and to protect his status of legitimacy, Article 167 of
the Family Code provides:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Article 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may
have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an
adulteress.

The law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. 2 2 We
explained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. Court of Appeals 2 3 :
The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the
statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed
virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring
from the odium of illegitimacy.

Gerardo invokes Article 166 (1)(b) 2 4 of the Family Code. He cannot. He has no standing in
law to dispute the status of Jose Gerardo. Only Ma. Theresa's husband Mario or, in a
proper case, 2 5 his heirs, who can contest the legitimacy of the child Jose Gerardo born to
his wife. 2 6 Impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband
or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. 2 7 Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was
void from the very beginning, he never became her husband and thus never acquired any
right to impugn the legitimacy of her child. DHAcET

The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly
during the period of conception. 2 8 To overthrow this presumption on the basis of Article
166 (1)(b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was
no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child. 2 9 Sexual intercourse is
to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such presumption is
rebutted by evidence to the contrary. 3 0
The presumption is quasi-conclusive and may be refuted only by the evidence of physical
impossibility of coitus between husband and wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days
which immediately preceded the birth of the child. 3 1
To rebut the presumption, the separation between the spouses must be such as to make
marital intimacy impossible. 3 2 This may take place, for instance, when they reside in
different countries or provinces and they were never together during the period of
conception. 3 3 Or, the husband was in prison during the period of conception, unless it
appears that sexual union took place through the violation of prison regulations. 3 4
Here, during the period that Gerardo and Ma. Theresa were living together in Fairview,
Quezon City, Mario was living in Loyola Heights which is also in Quezon City. Fairview and
Loyola Heights are only a scant four kilometers apart.
Not only did both Ma. Theresa and Mario reside in the same city but also that no evidence
at all was presented to disprove personal access between them. Considering these
circumstances, the separation between Ma. Theresa and her lawful husband, Mario, was
certainly not such as to make it physically impossible for them to engage in the marital act.
Sexual union between spouses is assumed. Evidence sufficient to defeat the assumption
should be presented by him who asserts the contrary. There is no such evidence here.
Thus, the presumption of legitimacy in favor of Jose Gerardo, as the issue of the marriage
between Ma. Theresa and Mario, stands.
Gerardo relies on Ma. Theresa's statement in her answer 3 5 to the petition for annulment of
marriage 3 6 that she never lived with Mario. He claims this was an admission that there
was never any sexual relation between her and Mario, an admission that was binding on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 her.
Gerardo's argument is without merit.
First, the import of Ma. Theresa's statement is that Jose Gerardo is not her legitimate son
with Mario but her illegitimate son with Gerardo. This declaration — an avowal by the
mother that her child is illegitimate — is the very declaration that is proscribed by Article
167 of the Family Code.
The language of the law is unmistakable. An assertion by the mother against the legitimacy
of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a valid
marriage.
Second, even assuming the truth of her statement, it does not mean that there was never
an instance where Ma. Theresa could have been together with Mario or that there occurred
absolutely no intercourse between them. All she said was that she never lived with Mario.
She never claimed that nothing ever happened between them.
Telling is the fact that both of them were living in Quezon City during the time material to
Jose Gerardo's conception and birth. Far from foreclosing the possibility of marital
intimacy, their proximity to each other only serves to reinforce such possibility. Thus, the
impossibility of physical access was never established beyond reasonable doubt.
Third, to give credence to Ma. Theresa's statement is to allow her to arrogate unto herself
a right exclusively lodged in the husband, or in a proper case, his heirs. 3 7 A mother has no
right to disavow a child because maternity is never uncertain. 3 8 Hence, Ma. Theresa is not
permitted by law to question Jose Gerardo's legitimacy.
Finally, for reasons of public decency and morality, a married woman cannot say that she
had no intercourse with her husband and that her offspring is illegitimate. 3 9 The
proscription is in consonance with the presumption in favor of family solidarity. It also
promotes the intention of the law to lean toward the legitimacy of children. 4 0
Gerardo's insistence that the filiation of Jose Gerardo was never an issue both in the trial
court and in the appellate court does not hold water. The fact that both Ma. Theresa and
Gerardo admitted and agreed that Jose Gerardo was born to them was immaterial. That
was, in effect, an agreement that the child was illegitimate. If the Court were to validate
that stipulation, then it would be tantamount to allowing the mother to make a declaration
against the legitimacy of her child and consenting to the denial of filiation of the child by
persons other than her husband. These are the very acts from which the law seeks to
shield the child.
Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child.
4 1 Otherwise, the child will be at the mercy of those who may be so minded to exploit his
defenselessness.
The reliance of Gerardo on Jose Gerardo's birth certificate is misplaced. It has no
evidentiary value in this case because it was not offered in evidence before the trial court.
The rule is that the court shall not consider any evidence which has not been formally
offered. 4 2
Moreover, the law itself establishes the status of a child from the moment of his birth. 4 3
Although a record of birth or birth certificate may be used as primary evidence of the
filiation of a child, 4 4 as the status of a child is determined by the law itself, proof of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 filiation is necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being questioned, or when the
status of a child born after 300 days following the termination of marriage is sought to be
established. 4 5
Here, the status of Jose Gerardo as a legitimate child was not under attack as it could not
be contested collaterally and, even then, only by the husband or, in extraordinary cases, his
heirs. Hence, the presentation of proof of legitimacy in this case was improper and
uncalled for.
In addition, a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.
4 6 As prima facie evidence, the statements in the record of birth may be rebutted by more
preponderant evidence. It is not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness of the
statements made therein by the interested parties. 4 7 Between the certificate of birth
which is prima facie evidence of Jose Gerardo's illegitimacy and the quasi-conclusive
presumption of law (rebuttable only by proof beyond reasonable doubt) of his legitimacy,
the latter shall prevail. Not only does it bear more weight, it is also more conducive to the
best interests of the child and in consonance with the purpose of the law.
It perplexes us why both Gerardo and Ma. Theresa would doggedly press for Jose
Gerardo's illegitimacy while claiming that they both had the child's interests at heart. The
law, reason and common sense dictate that a legitimate status is more favorable to the
child. In the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status. He
is entitled to bear the surnames of both his father and mother, full support and full
inheritance. 4 8 On the other hand, an illegitimate child is bound to use the surname and be
under the parental authority only of his mother. He can claim support only from a more
limited group and his legitime is only half of that of his legitimate counterpart. 4 9 Moreover
(without unwittingly exacerbating the discrimination against him), in the eyes of society, a
'bastard' is usually regarded as bearing a stigma or mark of dishonor. Needless to state,
the legitimacy presumptively vested by law upon Jose Gerardo favors his interest.
It is unfortunate that Jose Gerardo was used as a pawn in the bitter squabble between the
very persons who were passionately declaring their concern for him. The paradox was that
he was made to suffer supposedly for his own sake. This madness should end.
This case has been pending for a very long time already. What is specially tragic is that an
innocent child is involved. Jose Gerardo was barely a year old when these proceedings
began. He is now almost fifteen and all this time he has been a victim of incessant
bickering. The law now comes to his aid to write finis to the controversy which has unfairly
hounded him since his infancy.
Having only his best interests in mind, we uphold the presumption of his legitimacy.
As a legitimate child, Jose Gerardo shall have the right to bear the surnames of his father
Mario and mother Ma. Theresa, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on
surnames. 5 0 A person's surname or family name identifies the family to which he belongs
and is passed on from parent to child. 5 1 Hence, Gerardo cannot impose his surname on
Jose Gerardo who is, in the eyes of the law, not related to him in any way.
The matter of changing Jose Gerardo's name and effecting the corrections of the entries
in the civil register regarding his paternity and filiation should be threshed out in a separate
proceeding.
In case of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, Article 49 of the Family
Code grants visitation rights to a parent who is deprived of custody of his children. Such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 visitation rights flow from the natural right of both parent and child to each other's
company. There being no such parent-child relationship between them, Gerardo has no
legally demandable right to visit Jose Gerardo.
Our laws seek to promote the welfare of the child. Article 8 of PD 603, otherwise known as
the Child and Youth Welfare Code, is clear and unequivocal:
Article 8. Child's Welfare Paramount. — In all questions regarding the care,
custody, education and property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount
consideration.

Article 3 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child of which the
Philippines is a signatory is similarly emphatic:
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private
social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or
legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.

The State as parens patriae affords special protection to children from abuse, exploitation
and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It is mandated to provide protection
to those of tender years. 5 2 Through its laws, the State safeguards them from every one,
even their own parents, to the end that their eventual development as responsible citizens
and members of society shall not be impeded, distracted or impaired by family acrimony.
This is especially significant where, as in this case, the issue concerns their filiation as it
strikes at their very identity and lineage. ADEaHT

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The September 14, 1995 and January 10,
1996 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40651 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Carpio Morales, J., took no part.
Footnotes

1. Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

2. Marriage Contract, Annex "A," Rollo, p. 41.

3. Decision, Annex "E," Rollo, pp. 46-48.

4. Certificate of Live Birth, Annex "M," Rollo, p. 127.
5. Petition, Annex "C," Rollo, pp. 38-40.
6. Marriage Certificate, Annex "B-1," Rollo, p. 43.
7. Supra at note 5.
8. Answer, Annex "D," Rollo, pp. 44-45.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Penned by Judge (now Court of Appeals Justice) Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, CC No. 91-
10935, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 107, Quezon City,
Annex "E," Rollo, p. 46.
10. Motion for Reconsideration, Annex "F," Rollo, p. 49.

11. Id., p. 61.

12. Order, Annex "G," Rollo, pp. 53-54.
13. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and concurred in by Associate
Justices Arturo B. Buena (a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Serafin
V.C. Guingona. Decision dated September 29, 1994, CA-G.R. CV No. 40651, Court of
Appeals, Third Division; CA Rollo, pp. 55-64.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and concurred in by Associate
Justices Arturo M. Buena and Conchita Carpio Morales (now an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court). Resolution dated September 14, 1995, CA-G.R. CV No. 40651, Court of
Appeals, Former Third Division; Rollo, Annex "A," pp. 29-32.
17. Id.
18. Resolution dated January 10, 1996, CA-G.R. CV No. 40651, Court of Appeals, Former
Third Division; Rollo, Annex "B," pp. 34-37.
19. Article 2035 (1), Civil Code; Baluyut v. Baluyut, G.R. No. 33659, 14 June 1990, 186 SCRA
506.
20. Further, under Article 54 of the Family Code, a child who was conceived or born before
the judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate.
It also provides that a child who was born from a subsequent void marriage as a result
of the failure of the contracting parties to comply with the mandatory provisions of
Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code shall likewise be considered legitimate.
21. Tolentino, Arturo, Civil Code of the Philippines with the Family Code, Commentaries and
Jurisprudence, vol. I, 1990 edition, p. 528.
22. Bowers v. Bailey, 237 Iowa 295, 21 N.W. 2d 773.
23. G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004.

24. In particular, Article 166 (1)(b) provides:

Article 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse
with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the
birth of the child because of:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that
sexual intercourse was not possible; or
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 25. Article 171 provides for the instances where the heirs of the husband may impugn the
filiation of the child. Thus:
Article 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the
period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:
(1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing
his action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted
therefrom; or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband.

26. Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, 12 September 1980, 100 SCRA
73; Article 170, Family Code.
27. Liyao, Jr. v. Liyao, 428 Phil. 628 (2002).
28. Supra at note 21 citing People v. Giberson, 197 Phil. 509 (1982).
29. Supra at note 26.
30. Id. citing Tolentino supra.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id. citing Estate of Benito Marcelo, 60 Phil. 442 (1934).
34. Id. citing 1 Manresa 492-500.
35. Supra at note 8.
36. Supra at note 5.
37. Supra at note 26. See also Articles 170 and 171, Family Code.
38. Id.
39. People ex rel. Gonzales v. Monroe, 43 Ill. App 2d 1, 192 N.E. 2d 691.
40. Cf. Article 220 of the Civil Code. It provides:
Art. 220. In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus,
every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility
of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during
marriage, the authority of parents over the children, and the validity of defense for any
member of family in case of unlawful aggression.
While this provision of the Civil Code may have been omitted in the Family Code, the
principles they contain are valid norms in family relations and in cases involving family
members. They are even already embodied in jurisprudence. (Tolentino, supra, p. 506)

41. Supra at note 19.

42. Section 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court.

43. Tolentino, supra, p. 539; Sempio-Diy, Alicia, Handbook on the Family Code of the
Philippines, 1995 edition, p. 275.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 44. Articles 172 and 175, Family Code. Article 172 states:

Article 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(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 of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate 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.
On the other hand, Article 175 provides:

Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same
way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
xxx xxx xxx

45. Cf. Article 169, Family Code.

46. Article 410, Civil Code.
47. Dupilas v. Cabacungan, 36 Phil. 254 (1917).
48. Article 174, Family Code provides:
Article 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:

(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the
provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases,
their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and

(3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by
the Civil Code.
49. Article 176, Family Code states:

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.
The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a
legitimate child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code
governing successional rights shall remain in force.

50. Id.
51. In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, 31
March 2005.
52. People v. Dolores, G.R. No. 76468, 20 August 1990, 188 SCRA 660.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com