Case Digest (G.R. No. 123450)
Facts:
Gerardo B. Concepcion v. Court of Appeals and Ma. Theresa Almonte, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005, promulgated October 2, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gerardo B. Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa Almonte were married on December 29, 1989; their son Jose Gerardo was born December 8, 1990. Gerardo later filed an action to annul the marriage on the ground of bigamy, alleging that Ma. Theresa had earlier married one Mario Gopiao in 1980 and that that earlier marriage remained subsisting. Ma. Theresa admitted the prior marriage but maintained it was a sham and that she never lived with Mario.
The Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 107) found that Ma. Theresa’s marriage to Mario was valid and subsisting, declared the marriage to Gerardo void for bigamy, and consequently held Jose Gerardo to be illegitimate. The trial court awarded custody to Ma. Theresa and granted Gerardo limited visitation rights; it denied Ma. Theresa’s motion for reconsideration as to visitation, invoking the child’s best interests under Art. 8, PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code).
Ma. Theresa appealed to the Court of Appeals, initially obtaining a decision (Sept. 29, 1994) that affirmed the trial court in toto, including the visitation allowance. On motion for reconsideration and after oral arguments, however, the Court of Appeals reversed itself in a subsequent resolution (Sept. 14, 1995) holding that, as a matter of law, Jose Gerardo was the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario (relying on Art. 164 and Art. 167, Family Code) and that Gerardo could claim neither custody nor visitation nor impose his surname. Gerardo’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Jan. 10, 1996), and he appealed to the Supreme Court (hence the present appeal).
The controversy below therefore encompassed filiation and legitimacy (is J...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner Gerardo have legal standing to impugn the legitimacy of Jose Gerardo given that his marriage to Ma. Theresa was void ab initio?
- Is Jose Gerardo presumed legitimate under the Family Code despite statements by the mother and entries in the birth certificate?
- May Gerardo, as a putative/void-husband, lawfully demand visitation rights under Article 49 of the Family Code?
- Can Gerardo legall...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)