Case Digest (G.R. No. 140500)
Facts:
Ernestina Bernabe v. Carolina Alejo as Guardian ad Litem for the Minor Adrian Bernabe, G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ernestina Bernabe is the sole surviving heir of the late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe; respondent Carolina Alejo filed the action as guardian ad litem for her son Adrian Bernabe, whom she alleged was the fiscal’s illegitimate son. Adrian was born on September 18, 1981; Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993 and his wife Rosalina died December 3, 1993. On May 16, 1994 Carolina, on Adrian’s behalf, sued to have Adrian declared an acknowledged illegitimate son and to obtain his share in Fiscal Bernabe’s estate, which Ernestina holds.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, Pasay City, dismissed the complaint by Order dated July 26, 1995 (later reiterated October 6, 1995) on the ground that under the Family Code the action was barred because the putative father had died and had not acknowledged the child in writing; the RTC relied on Articles of the Family Code (Arts. 172, 173, 175) which, it held, left no exception like that formerly in Article 285 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals (Special First Division, authored by J. Jesus M. Elbinias) reversed in a Decision dated July 7, 1999, holding that because Adrian was born in 1981 his right was governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allowed a minor whose parent died during minority to file within four years after attaining majority; the CA concluded the Family Code did not divest that vested right and remanded the case for trial. The CA Resolution of October 14, 1999 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner sought review in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asking that the CA Decision and Resolution be annulled and that the RTC’s dismissal be reinstated. The petition raised (1) whether respondent had a cause of action for recognition and partition after the putative father’s death absent written acknowledgment, (2) whether Article 285’s four‑year rule survived the Family...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent has a cause of action to file for recognition and partition after the putative father's death in the absence of any written acknowledgment.
- Whether Article 285 of the Civil Code (four years from attaining majority) still governs the period to file an action for recognition despite the enactment of the Family Code which omitted its exceptions.
- Whether the petition under Rule 45 is fatally defective for fa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)