Daddy? Duh!
Lucio and Lucia owned real properties in the Calabarzon area. Lucio followed his lady love to the grave. The couple’s death spawned a bitter legal battle between their reputed daughter, Vicky, and Thea, Lucio’s sister.
Thea, in the intestate estate proceedings she filed, asked the court that she be appointed the administratrix of Lucio’s estate.
She claimed that she is the only heir of Lucio. While Vicky was raised and cared by Lucio and Lucia since childhood, she is not related to them by blood, nor legally adopted, and is therefore not a legal heir.
The allegations infuriated Vicky. She insisted that she is the couple’s legitimate daughter. Vicky argued that Thea cannot challenge her legitimate status because her father, Lucio, is the only one who could have impugned her status as such child. Among the documents she presented is the Certificate of Live Birth duly signed by Lucio.
Thea presented a number of witnesses who stated that they never saw Lucia become pregnant. It was established that Lucia was even referred to a noted obstetrician-gynecologist for treatment because she was not able to procreate. Even Lucia’s personal hair stylist testified that Lucia told her that Lucio “bought the child” and told her not to tell anyone.
Q: Can Thea assail Vicky’s status given that Lucio did not, in his lifetime, questioned Vicky’s status as a legitimate child?
A: Yes, Thea can.
Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain couple.
Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said child by proving: (1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual intercourse, with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child; (2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been his child; (3) that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or ratification by either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence.
Articles 170 and 171 reinforce this reading as they speak of the prescriptive period within which the husband or any of his heirs should file the action impugning the legitimacy of said child.
Q: Is Vicky a biological child of Lucio and Lucia?
A: No, she is not the child of the couple. It was established by clear and convincing evidence that Lucia never became pregnant and, therefore, never delivered a child.
The fact of a woman’s becoming pregnant and growing big with child, as well as her delivering a baby, are matters that cannot be hidden from the public eye, and so is the fact that a woman never became pregnant and could not have, therefore, delivered a baby at all.
The above was not negated by documentary evidence presented by Vicky, the most notable of which is her Certificate of Live Birth purportedly showing that her parents were the late Lucio and Lucia and which was signed by Lucio.
While it is true that under Article 410 of the New Civil Code, “the books making up the Civil Registry and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated”, the same can still be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
Q: Can Vicky still inherit from the estate of Lucio?
A: No, she is not a compulsory heir of the Lucio.
Q: What is the moral of the story?
A: The practice for people who want to avoid the expense and trouble of a judicial adoption to simply register the child as their supposed child in the civil registry does not augur well for the child.
The mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption, does not confer upon the child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights of such child, and even amounts of simulation of the child’s birth or falsification of his or her birth certificate, which is a public document. (Source: Benitez-Badua vs. CA, G.R. No. 105625 January 24, 1994)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is currently the Dean for the Lyceum of the Philippines University; president of the Philippines Association of Law Schools; and Senior Partner, Gatchalian Castro & Mawis Law Office
Next Saturday (July 15), Sara Mae D. Mawis, Junior Associate at Esguerra & Blanco Law Offices; and Lecturer, Adamson University College of Law, will be starting her column.
