Scribd
Upload
38 views3 pages

Concepcion v. Court of Appeals

This case involved a dispute over the legitimacy and surname of a child, Jose Gerardo. Gerardo Concepcion filed for annulment of his marriage to Ma. Theresa Almonte, claiming she was already married to someone else. The court annulled the marriage and declared Jose Gerardo illegitimate. However, the appellate court upheld the strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a marriage. It found that Jose Gerardo was the legitimate son of Ma. Theresa and her first husband Mario, as there was no evidence disproving access during the marriage. The child's interests and legitimacy are paramount according to Filipino law.

Uploaded by

doydoyimba2019
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views3 pages

Concepcion v. Court of Appeals

This case involved a dispute over the legitimacy and surname of a child, Jose Gerardo. Gerardo Concepcion filed for annulment of his marriage to Ma. Theresa Almonte, claiming she was already married to someone else. The court annulled the marriage and declared Jose Gerardo illegitimate. However, the appellate court upheld the strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a marriage. It found that Jose Gerardo was the legitimate son of Ma. Theresa and her first husband Mario, as there was no evidence disproving access during the marriage. The child's interests and legitimacy are paramount according to Filipino law.

Uploaded by

doydoyimba2019
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Parens Patriae

Concepcion v. Court of Appeals

GERARDO B. CONCEPCION, Petitioner, -versus- COURT OF APPEALS and


MA. THERESA ALMONTE, Respondents. G.R. No. 123450, THIRD
DIVISION, August 31, 2005, CORONA, J.

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. 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. 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. The presumption
of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during
the period of conception. 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. 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.

Facts of the case:

Gerardo Concepcion filed a petition to have his marriage to Ma.


Theresa Almonte annulled on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that nine
years before he married Ma. Theresa, she had married one Mario Gopiao,
which marriage was never annulled. The RTC annulled Ma. Theresa’s
marriage to Gerardo for being bigamous and as a result declared Jose
Gerardo as an illegitimate child. The custody of the child was awarded to Ma.
Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights. Ma. Theresa argued that
there was nothing in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative
father of an illegitimate child. 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.
When brought to the appellate court, it held that Jose Gerardo was not the
son of Ma. Theresa by Gerardo but by Mario during her first marriage.

Issue:

Whether or not Jose Gerardo was the legitimate son of Mario during
Ma. Theresa’s first marriage.
Ruling:

(YES)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. 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. 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. The
presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage,
particularly during the period of conception.
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. 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. 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. 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. A persons surname or family name identifies the family to which he
belongs and is passed on from parent to child.
Hence, Gerardo cannot impose his surname on Jose Gerardo who is,
in the eyes of the law, not related to him in any way.

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.

Notes:

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.
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.

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.

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.

You might also like