Persons and Family Relations

Persons and Family Relations Fourth Week part 2
Concepcion v CA G.R. No. 123450 Aug. 31 2005
FACTS:
Petitioner Gerardo Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa Almontewere married
in 1989. Almost a year later, Ma. Theresa gave birth to Jose Gerardo. In 1991, however, Gerardo filed a
petition to have his marriage to Ma. Theresa annulled on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that 9 years
before he married private respondent, the latter had married one Mario Gopiao, which marriage was
never annulled. The trial court ruled that Ma. Theresas 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. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and held that
Jose Gerardo was not the son of Ma. Theresa by Gerardo but by Mario during his first marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Jose Gerardo is a legitimate child of Mario and
not petitioner Gerardo.
RULING:
Yes. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, a child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his
parents is legitimate. In the present case, since the marriage between Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was
void ab initio, the marriage between Mario and Ma. Theresa was still subsisting at the time
Jose Gerardo was conceived, and thus the law presumes that Jose Gerardo was a legitimate child of
private respondent and Mario. Also, Gerardo cannot impugn the legitimacy of the child because such
right is strictly personal to 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.
The petition was denied.
Estate of Ong v Diaz G.R. No. 171713 Dec. 17 2007
FACTS:
The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and Joanne Rodgin Diaz
for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a
decision and declared the minor to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering
him to support the child until she reaches the age of majority. Rogelio died during the pendency of the
case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead
person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as current jurisprudence
affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of settling the present paternity dispute."
ISSUE:
Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.
RULING:
Yes.
The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist
appropriate biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA Evidence allows the conduct of DNA
testing by using biological samples--organic material originating from the person's body, ie., blood,
saliva, other body fluids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic materials- that is susceptible to DNA
testing.
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to
obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and
any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. (People vs Umanito, citing Tecson vs
Comelec 424 SCRA 277)
Benitez-Badua v CA G.R. No. 105625 Jan. 24 1994
FACTS:
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian were owners of various properties located in
Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while his husband died in 1989. Vicentes sister and nephew filed a
complaint for the issuance of letters of administration of Vicentes estate in favor of the nephew, herein
private respondent. The petitioner, Marissa Benitez-Badua, was raised and cared by the deceased
spouses since childhood, though not related to them by blood, nor legally adopted. The latter to prove
that she is the only legitimate child of the spouses submitted documents such as her certificate of live
birth where the spouses name were reflected as her parents. She even testified that said spouses
continuously treated her as their legitimate daughter. On the other hand, the relatives of Vicente
declared that said spouses were unable to physically procreate hence the petitioner cannot be the
biological child. Trial court decided in favor of the petitioner as the legitimate daughter and sole heir of
the spouses.
ISSUE:
WON petitioners certificate of live birth will suffice to establish her legitimacy.
HELD:
The Court dismissed the case for lack of merit. The mere registration of a child in his or her birth
certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption. It does not confer upon the child
the status of an adopted child and her legal rights. Such act amounts to simulation of the child's birth or
falsification of his or her birth certificate, which is a public document.
Geronimo v Santos G.R. No. 197099 Sep. 28 2015
Salas v Matusalem G.R. No. 180284 Sep 11 2013
Babiera v Catotal G.R. No. 138493 June 15 2005
Agustin v CA G.R. No. 162571 June 15 2005
Angeles v Angeles G.R. No. 153798 Sep 2 2005
Ilano v CA G.R. No. 104376 Feb. 23 1994
Herrera v Alba G.R. No. 148220 June 15 2005
People v Malapo G.R. No. 123115 Aug. 25 1998
Mendoza v CA G.R. No. 86302 Sep. 24 1991

Liyao, Jr. v Tahoti-Liyao G.R. No. 138961 Mar. 7 2002
Verceles v Posada G.R. No. 159785 Apr 27 2007
In the Matter of the Adoptiom of Stephanie Nanthy Astorga Garcia G.R. No. 148311 Mar. 31 2005
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 16892-93, May 21,
2009

Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Persons and Family Relations Fourth Week part 2

Concepcion v CA G.R. No. 123450 Aug. 31 2005

The petition was denied.

Estate of Ong v Diaz G.R. No. 171713 Dec. 17 2007

Benitez-Badua v CA G.R. No. 105625 Jan. 24 1994

Geronimo v Santos G.R. No. 197099 Sep. 28 2015

Salas v Matusalem G.R. No. 180284 Sep 11 2013

Babiera v Catotal G.R. No. 138493 June 15 2005

Agustin v CA G.R. No. 162571 June 15 2005

Angeles v Angeles G.R. No. 153798 Sep 2 2005

Ilano v CA G.R. No. 104376 Feb. 23 1994

Herrera v Alba G.R. No. 148220 June 15 2005

People v Malapo G.R. No. 123115 Aug. 25 1998

Mendoza v CA G.R. No. 86302 Sep. 24 1991

Verceles v Posada G.R. No. 159785 Apr 27 2007

You might also like