G.R. No. 123450 - Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals

Gerardo B. Concepcion married Ma. Theresa Almonte on December 29, 1989, and they resided with her parents in Fairview, Quezon City.
On December 8, 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth to their son, Jose Gerardo.

On December 19, 1991, Gerardo filed for annulment of marriage on the ground of Ma. Theresa’s bigamy, alleging her prior unannulled marriage in 1980 to Mario Gopiao, who was alive and residing in Loyola Heights, QC.
Ma. Theresa admitted the prior marriage but claimed it was a sham and that she never cohabited with Mario.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the first marriage valid and annulled the Concepcion-Almonte marriage as bigamous. The RTC declared Jose Gerardo illegitimate, awarded custody to Ma. Theresa, and granted Gerardo weekly visitation rights.

Ma. Theresa moved to remove Gerardo’s visitation rights and to have the child bear her surname “Almonte”; the RTC denied her motion, invoking the “best interests of the child” (PD 603, Art. 8).
The Court of Appeals (CA) initially affirmed the RTC in toto, upholding visitation rights under the child’s welfare principle and ruling that a surname change requires a separate petition under Rule 103, Rules of Court.
Upon reconsideration and oral arguments, the CA reversed its earlier ruling, holding that Jose Gerardo was the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao (Art. 164, Family Code), and that Gerardo had no custody, visitation, or surname rights.
Gerardo’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied, prompting this petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether a putative father of an illegitimate child may legally claim visitation rights.
Whether Ma. Theresa may change her son’s surname to her maiden name without a separate name-change proceeding.
Who has standing and authority to impugn the legitimacy of a child conceived or born during marriage.