Case Digest (G.R. No. 140500)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Ernestina Bernabe against Carolina Alejo, who acts as guardian ad litem for her minor son, Adrian Bernabe. The events leading to the case began with the late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe, who allegedly fathered Adrian with his secretary, Carolina Alejo. Adrian was born on September 18, 1981. Fiscal Bernabe passed away on August 13, 1993, and his wife, Rosalina, died shortly after on December 3, 1993, leaving Ernestina as the sole heir to his estate. On May 16, 1994, Carolina filed a complaint on behalf of Adrian, seeking to have him recognized as the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and to claim his share of the estate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City dismissed the complaint on July 16, 1995, citing the Family Code and the case of Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals, ruling that the action was barred. The RTC later granted Ernestina's motion for reconsideration, reinforcing the dismissal based on Article...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 140500)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son, Adrian Bernabe, with his secretary, Carolina Alejo. Adrian was born on September 18, 1981.
- Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, and his wife, Rosalina, died on December 3, 1993, leaving Ernestina Bernabe as the sole surviving heir.
Filing of the Complaint:
- On May 16, 1994, Carolina Alejo, as guardian ad litem for Adrian, filed a complaint seeking recognition of Adrian as the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and a share in his estate, which was being held by Ernestina.
Trial Court's Decision:
- On July 16, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City dismissed the complaint, citing the Family Code and the case of Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, ruling that the action was barred.
- The RTC held that the death of the putative father (Fiscal Bernabe) barred the action for recognition, as the Family Code requires such actions to be filed during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
Court of Appeals' Ruling:
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, ruling that Adrian's rights were governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child attains majority age. The court held that the Family Code did not take away this right.
Issue:
- Whether respondent has a cause of action to file a case for recognition and partition after the putative father's death, in the absence of any written acknowledgment of paternity.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from attaining majority to file an action for recognition under Article 285 of the Civil Code, despite its repeal by the Family Code.
- Whether the petition for certiorari is fatally defective for failure to implead the Court of Appeals as a respondent.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
Period to File Action for Recognition:
- The Court held that Adrian's right to file an action for recognition under Article 285 of the Civil Code had already vested before the Family Code took effect. The Family Code cannot impair this vested right.
- Article 285 of the Civil Code allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child attains majority age, even if the putative parent has died during the child's minority.
Substantive vs. Procedural Law:
- The Court ruled that Article 285 of the Civil Code is substantive law, as it grants a right to file an action for recognition. The Family Code, being procedural, cannot take away this vested right.
Failure to Implead the Court of Appeals:
- The Court held that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead the lower courts or judges as respondents. Therefore, the failure to implead the Court of Appeals was not a reversible error.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)