JAMES CUA KO versus Republic of the Philippines

JAMES CUA KO versus Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 210984

April 12, 2023

FACTS:

Shalimar filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with one Kerwin. While the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was still pending, Shalimar gave birth to "Jamie Shaye." In Jamie Shaye's certificate of live birth, Shalimar indicated "James Cua Ko" as the name of Jamie Shaye's father. James executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission to support the entry of his name in Jamie Shaye's certificate of live birth. Eventually, Shalimar's marriage to Kerwin was voided by the RTC.

James subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child before the RTC. The trial court denied the petition and MR. The CA affirmed the trial court's Decision. MR was denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in denying petitioner James Cua Ko's Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child for being contrary to the presumption of legitimacy and the best interest of the child rule.

RULING:

No. The SC ruled that the CA was correct in denying petitioner's Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child for being a collateral attack against the legitimacy of minor Jamie Shaye Ko. Petitioner has no standing to impugn Jamie Shaye's legitimacy. He also has no standing to establish Jamie Shaye's filiation. Legitimacy and filiation are two different concepts. Therefore, while the law grants the husband the sole right to impugn his child's legitimacy, the same child may bring an action to establish that she is not filiated to her mother's husband.

 Article 164 of the Family Code provides that "children conceived or born during the marriage are legitimate." There is no dispute that Jamie Shaye was born before the marriage between her mother Shalimar, and Kerwin was voided. To grant petitioner's Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Child would be to impugn the legitimate status of Jamie Shaye collaterally, contrary to Article 170 of the Family Code, which requires direct action to impugn a child's legitimacy.

Further, Article 170 provides that only the husband and, in some instances, his heirs can bring this direct action but only on specified grounds. Even the mother is prohibited by law from declaring against her child's legitimacy. Articles 166, 167, 170, and 171 of the Family Code provide:

 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: (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse; 

(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164; or 

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. 

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. ARTICLE 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was recorded. If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. 

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: 

(I) 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.

The Court cited the case of Concepcion v. CA where it expounded the presumption of legitimacy where the child was declared legitimate by virtue of the mother's first marriage, this despite the mother's declaration that her child was not fathered by her first husband. In that case, this Court prohibited the putative father from impugning the legitimacy of the child because he is not the husband allowed by law to do so. Similar to the chiId in Concepcion, Jamie Shaye retains her legitimate status despite the entries in her birth certificate and the declaration of her mother, Shalimar, that her father is not Kerwin but petitioner. Furthermore, not being the husband, petitioner has no right under the law to impugn Jamie Shaye's legitimacy by filing the Petition for voluntary recognition.

The SC added that the ruling in this case, however, is without prejudice to Jamie Shaye's right to establish her filiation to petitioner should she wish to do so. Articles 172, 173, and 175 of the Family Code provide: 

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. 

ARTICLE 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action. The action already commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both  of the parties. 

ARTICLE 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. From the foregoing, filiation is established in the same manner, whether a child's parents were married when they had them. The action to establish filiation may be brought during the lifetime of the child, with the right of action transferrable to their heirs should they die during minority or be afflicted with insanity. 

However, in case of establishing " illegitimate filiation," the action must be brought during the lifetime of the parent if the ground for bringing the action is either the open and continuous possession of status as a nonmarital child or by another means established by law or the Rules of Court. This right to establish filiation is consistent with Article 164 of the Family Code and the presumption of legitimacy. The concept of legitimacy is straightforward: it is a civil status established if the person is born during the subsistence of marriage. Filiation, on the other hand, is a relationship, the state of being someone's offspring; it is determined mainly by biology. It may be the law that solely declares who are legitimate children, but in no way can it alter blood relationships. Confusion arises because our legal concept of legitimacy assumes filiation when legitimacy and filiation are two different concepts. 

To recall, Article 164 of the Family Code provides that " children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate." Thus, Article 164 assumes two things: (1) that the child was born during the subsistence of a marriage; and (2) that this subsisting marriage is the marriage of their parents. The reality, however, is that a child can be born during the subsistence of a marriage, but not necessarily that of their biological parents. Nonetheless, under Concepcion, children born under similar circumstances would be legitimate, but doubts as to their filiation and identity will persist. For this reason, children should be allowed, as the law allows them, to establish their filiation notwithstanding the presumption of legitimacy. To reiterate, legitimacy and filiation are conceptually distinct. 

The Court recognized this conceptual difference in Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz. In that case, this Court allowed the conduct of DNA testing to compel the putative father's estate to recognize the minor child and give support, notwithstanding the child's birth during the subsistence of her mother's marriage to another man. Estate of Ong is notable because the child is legitimate under the law; she was born during the subsistence of her mother's marriage to another man, not the deceased Rogelio Ong. Nevertheless, the child was allowed to prove her filiation to her putative father primarily to get the recognition that she was the deceased's child and to get support. In Estate of Ong, a legitimate child was allowed to establish her filiation to a person, not her mother's husband. In the same way that the child in Estate of Ong was allowed to bring an action to establish filiation, Jamie Shaye should likewise be allowed to establish her filiation to petitioner. However, it must be emphasized that the choice to do so would be hers and hers alone. After all, it is her interests that would be affected by such action. The presumption of legitimacy and this Court's ruling in Concepcion are based on a laudable purpose: upholding the best interest of the child. However, Concepcion defined the "best interest of the child" in terms of successional rights. 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. 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. 

Some may agree that having more property successional rights are in their best interest. For others, establishing their true identity matters more than anything in the world. When the latter case is true, they should be allowed to establish their filiation, regardless of any presumption or legal fiction to the contrary.

 link to 🠊FULL TEXT