Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 304 views

    Concepcion Vs CA GR No 123450 August 3

    Uploaded by

    preiquency
    Gerardo filed for annulment of his marriage to Theresa on the grounds that Theresa was still married to Mario. The trial court found Theresa and Mario's marriage still valid and declared her son Jose illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals declared Jose legitimate as Theresa's son with Mario. The Supreme Court ruled that Jose is legitimate. First, Theresa cannot declare her own son illegitimate under law. Second, proximity of Theresa and Mario allowed for possibility of intimacy. Third, only the husband can question legitimacy. Finally, a married woman cannot deny intimacy with her husband or declare the child illegitimate. The child's legitimacy is determined by law alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Concepcion Vs CA GR No 123450 August 3

    Uploaded by

    preiquency
    304 views1 page
    Gerardo filed for annulment of his marriage to Theresa on the grounds that Theresa was still married to Mario. The trial court found Theresa and Mario's marriage still valid and declared her son Jose illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals declared Jose legitimate as Theresa's son with Mario. The Supreme Court ruled that Jose is legitimate. First, Theresa cannot declare her own son illegitimate under law. Second, proximity of Theresa and Mario allowed for possibility of intimacy. Third, only the husband can question legitimacy. Finally, a married woman cannot deny intimacy with her husband or declare the child illegitimate. The child's legitimacy is determined by law alone.

    Original Description:

    concepcion vs ca

    Original Title

    Concepcion vs CA GR No 123450 August 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gerardo filed for annulment of his marriage to Theresa on the grounds that Theresa was still married to Mario. The trial court found Theresa and Mario's marriage still valid and declared her son Jose illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals declared Jose legitimate as Theresa's son with Mario. The Supreme Court ruled that Jose is legitimate. First, Theresa cannot declare her own son illegitimate under law. Second, proximity of Theresa and Mario allowed for possibility of intimacy. Third, only the husband can question legitimacy. Finally, a married woman cannot deny intimacy with her husband or declare the child illegitimate. The child's legitimacy is determined by law alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    304 views1 page

    Concepcion Vs CA GR No 123450 August 3

    Uploaded by

    preiquency
    Gerardo filed for annulment of his marriage to Theresa on the grounds that Theresa was still married to Mario. The trial court found Theresa and Mario's marriage still valid and declared her son Jose illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals declared Jose legitimate as Theresa's son with Mario. The Supreme Court ruled that Jose is legitimate. First, Theresa cannot declare her own son illegitimate under law. Second, proximity of Theresa and Mario allowed for possibility of intimacy. Third, only the husband can question legitimacy. Finally, a married woman cannot deny intimacy with her husband or declare the child illegitimate. The child's legitimacy is determined by law alone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Concepcion vs CA GR No 123450 August 3` 2005

    FACTS: Gerardo and Ma Theresa was married, lived with Theresas family and delivered a baby
    named Jose Gerardo a year later. However, their relationship turned out to be short-lived. A year
    after, Gerardo filed a petition for annulment on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that 9 yrs
    before he married Ma Theresa, she had married one Mario Gopiao, whose marriage was never
    annulled. Gerardo also found out that Mario is still alive and residing in the same city.
    RTC declared Ma Theresa and Marios marriage still subsisting and Jose Gerardo an illegitimate
    child. Gerardo granted visitorial rights. Ma Theresa moved for the change of her sons surname
    to her maiden name and no visitation rights to the putative father. Motion for Reconsideration
    denied.
    CA declared Jose Gerardo to be the legitimate child of Mario Gopiao.
    ISSUE: WON Jose Gerardo is the illegitimate child of Gerardo.
    RULING: No. First, the import of Ma. Theresas 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
    Gerardos 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. Theresas statement is to allow her to arrogate unto herself a right
    exclusively lodged in the husband, or in a proper case, his heirs. 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 Gerardos 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.
    The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
    legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
    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 ones 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.
    Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.

    You might also like