Narciso Salas vs. Annabelle Matusalem/ G. R. No. 180284/September 11, 2013/Villarama, Jr. J.

(Si Narciso daw ay tatay ni Paulo kaya need ng Respondent ang support niya. Petition Granted)

FACTS:

On 1995, Annabelle Matusalem filed a complaint for Support/Damages against Narciso Salas (petitioner) in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City (Civil Case No. 2124-AF). Respondent claimed that petitioner is the father of her son
Christian Paulo Salas who was born on December 28, 1994.

At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo testified. Petitioner was declared to have waived his right to
present evidence and the case was considered submitted for decision based on respondent’s evidence.

On 1999, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of respondent. The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal. On the
paternity issue, the CA affirmed the trial court's ruling that respondent satisfactorily established the illegitimate filiation
of her son Christian Paulo, and consequently no error was committed by the trial court in granting respondent's prayer
for support.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that respondent's evidence sufficiently proved that her son
Christian Paulo is the illegitimate child of petitioner.

HELD:

The Court granted the petition.

Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on
the same evidence as legitimate children.

Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states:

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.

Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "A-1") of Christian Paulo Salas in which the name of petitioner
appears as his father but which is not signed by him. Admittedly, it was only respondent who filled up the entries and
signed the said document though she claims it was petitioner who supplied the information she wrote therein.

Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation.
An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the
lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Aquino vs. Aquino/ G.R. Nos. 208912 and 209018/December 07, 2021/ Leonen, J.

(Na estopped daw si ang Aquino clan sa pag deny sa filiation ni Angela. Pwtition granted.)

FACTS
On 2003, Angela moved that she be included in the distribution and partition of Miguel’s estate. She alleged that she
was Arturo child and presented a Certification from the Hospital, asserting that she was Arturo and Susan Kuan’s
Daughter. Her father’s relatives had continuously recognized her as Arturo’s natural child since her birth. Rodolfo
opposed Angela’s Motion, claiming that Arturo never legally recognized Angela as his natural child in his lifetime.

The RTC issued Order granting Angela’s Motions. It ruled that the Aquino clan was already estopped from denying
Angela’s filiation. As heir, Angela was deemed entitled to share in Miguel’s estate. Furthermore, the CA rendered a
decision denying Rodolfo’s petition on the grounds of wrong remedy and violation of the principles of forum shopping
and res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether or not Amadea Angela K. Aquino was able to prove her filiation.

HELD

Yes. The Court citing Bernabe vs. Alejo, 2002 held that under the new law, an action for the recognition of an
illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code makes no distinction on
whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance
to dispute the claim, considering that “illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the
legitimate family being aware of their existence. The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or
deny the child’s filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.

Wherefore, Amadea Angela K. Aquino’s Motion for Reconsideration in G. R. No. 208912 is partially granted. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 01633 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Ordoña v. Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City/G.R. No. 215370, /November 09, 2021/ Inting, J.

(Ito po ay tungkol Paternity in relation to the Certificate of Live Birth. Impugning. See Arts. 166, 167 and 170 of the FC.)

FACTS:

Petitioner Richelle Ordona and her husband Ariel were separated-in-fact. Petitioner then met Allan Fulgueras. She and
Allan engaged in an intimate relationship where she got pregnant. On January 26, 2010, petitioner gave birth to a son. In
the Certificate of Live Birth, the child was given the name “Alrich Paul Ordona Fulgueras” with "Allan Demen Fulgueras"
as the purported father. Thus, on September 7, 2011, petitioner filed before the RTC the Rule 108 petition seeking the
following corrections: (1) change of last name of Alrich Paul in Item No. 1 from" Fulgueras" to "Ordona," petitioner's
maiden name; and (2) deletion of entries in the paternal. She alleged that it was not Allan who signed the Affidavit of
Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity attached to the Certificate of Live Birth considering that Allan was not in the
Philippines when she gave birth to Alrich Paul.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner can impugn the child’s legitimacy.

HELD:

Petitioner is barred from impugning Alrich Paul’s presumed legitimacy considering the prohibition under Article 167 of
the Family Code. Article 167 provides that the child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have
declared against illegitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.” To elucidate, the presumption of legitimacy
under Article 164 of the Family Code is not conclusive. It may be disputed based on the grounds and manner provided
under Articles 166,170, and 171 of the same law.
Santiago v. Jornacion/ G.R. No. 230049/ November 09, 2021/ Carandang, J.

(Si Bernie ay nag file ng petition para sa paternity niya kay Sofia. Petition granted. See Arts. 164 and 170)

FACTS

On May 17, 2013, Bernie filed a petition with the RTC of Marikina City which sought to establish his paternity with Sofia
and to have the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City correct some entries in Sofia's Birth Certificate. Bernie claimed to be
the biological father of Sofia. He averred that Sofia was the fruit of his romantic relationship with Magdalena 0. Gabutin.
Bernie alleged that it was he and Magdalena who lived as husband-and-wife. Bernie only realized the importance of
establishing his filiation with Sofia when Magdalena died on October 23, 2012. He stressed his biological relationship
with Sofia (as evidenced by the DNA test results conducted in Ohio, U.S.A.) and its precedence over presumption of
Sofia’s legitimacy.

The RTC dismissed the original petition, thus, considered the motion for leave to file and admit the amended petition
moot and academic. The trial court held that while Bernie sought to have some entries in Sofia's Birth Certificate
corrected, the petition is really one to impugn Sofia's legitimacy.

The CA agreed that Bernie's petition was dismissible because Bernie was not the proper party to impugn Sofia's
legitimate status. Moreover, Bernie's prayer to establish filiation with Sofia would violate the presumption of legitimate
filiation under Article 164 of the Family Code. The only way to remove Sofia's status as a legitimate child of Rommel
would be for Rommel or his heirs to file a direct action to impugn such legitimacy within the periods provided by Article
170 of the Family Code.

ISSUE

Whether Bernie is the biological father of Sofia.

HELD

The petition is meritorious. It has been settled that a petition for (substantial) correction of entries under Rule l 08 was
allowed and considered an appropriate adversary proceeding for as long as the notice and publication requirements
under Sections 3 to 5 of Rule l 08 were complied with.

To be clear, while scientific proof is allowed to impugn legitimacy under Article 166(2) of the Family Code, the same type
of proof should also be allowed to establish filiation under Article 175 in relation to Article 172, paragraph 2(2) - i.e., any
other means allowed by the Rules of Court. One of these means is through the use of DNA evidence under A.M. No. 06-
11-5- SC.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 23, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. l 02257 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated November 12, 2013 of the Regional Trial
Court of Marikina City, Branch 273 in Special Proceeding Case No. 2013-897-MK is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Rizalito Y. David v. SEC and Grace Poe

David filed a petition for quo warranto sought to unseat Grace Poe as Senator for allegedly not a natural born Filipino
citizen under Art VI, Sec 3.4 of the constitution. Poe is a foundling whose biological parents are unknown. She was
abandoned at Parish Church, Jaro, Iloilo. Edgardo Militar found her outside the church on Sept 3, 1968 and turned her
over to Mr. and Mrs. Emiliano Militar who reported to the LCR that she was found Sept 6 and was given the name Mary
Grace Contreras Militar in her certificate of live birth. She went to US in 1988 to obtain her college degree but returned
in the Phils on Dec 13, 2004 after Fernando Poe, Jr eventually went into coma. In July 7, 2006, she took the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Phils.

WON Grace is natural born Filipino Citizen

Denied.

SUPPORT

Noel B. Bagtas v. Antonio and Rosita Gallardo

Spouses Gallardo are the parents of Maricel who gave birth to Maryl Joy Gallardo. Maricel boyfriend left her and she
lived with Noel Bagtas and Lydia Sioson. She left her daughter to Bagtas and Sioson wherein she relinquished her right
over Maryl Joy to Bagtas and his wife through a letter.

Spouses Gallardo tried to obtain custody of Maryl Joy but Bagtas and Sioson refused. They then filed with the RTC a
petition for habeas corpus. The RTC issued a writ. They entered into a compromise agreement that MarylJoy be with the
custody of Bagtas on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In September 2002, petitioners learned that the respondents brought
Maryl Joy to Samar. RTC cited the spouses in contempt and dismissed the action for having become moot because the
child has already been delivered to petitioners. MR was denied. This was affirmed by the CA.

WON the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC

Yes. Sec 1, Rule 102 provides that petition for habeas corpus is not limited to the production of the child before the
court. It is the remedy to enable parents to regain custody child even if the child be in the custody of a third person 9f
his own free will. Here, it did not become moot. The RTC should have determined who has the rightful custody of Maryl
Joy.

Articles 214 and 216 of the FC authorize the surviving grandparent in the absence and unsuitability of the parents.
However, child's welfare is the most important consideration. The court is NOT BOUND by any legal right of a person
over the child. The Child and Youth Welfare Code provides that in all questions regarding the care and custody of the
child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration. Requisites for habeas corpus are: petitioner has the right of
custody; respondent is withholding the rightful custody; and best interest of the child demands that he should be in
petitioner custody. RTC dismissed the petition without any trial. REMANDED.

Brinas v People

Brinas was charged with a crime of grave oral defamation in relation to RA 7610. She allegedly uttered "
pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at hindot with mga putang Ina kayo to the minors Maevis and
Keziah. Brinas pleaded not guilty. Brinas was the owner and directress of Challenger, Montessori School and the minors
were 4th year HS, both 16. Brinas daughter was implicated in a text message prompting Brinas to call the minors. From
there, infront the teachers and other students, she uttered the words against the minors who she believed quarreling
her child. The RTC found her guilty and was affirmed by the CA

WON Brinas is guilty

No. Conviction for child abuse under Sec 10a in relation to section 3b2 9f RA 7610 requires the presence of intent to
debase, demean or degrade the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being. Lack of intent to debase may be proven by
demonstrating that the allegedly abusive acts were solely out of emotional outrage in the spur of the moment. Merely
intended to discipline or correct a wrongful behavior of a minor is also a valid defense especially when the accused is
legally entrusted with the care and diacipline of the minor such as teachers. The prosecution failed to prove the
presence of intent. The remarks were uttered in the hit of her anger. Granted.