Case Digest (G.R. No. 187273)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 272006, February 05, 2025, Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General). Respondents are Linney Jean L. Tangarorang (petitioner in the trial court) and Ramer R. Tangarorang (respondent in the trial court). The controversy arose from Linney’s petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Butuan City, seeking a declaration of nullity of her marriage to Ramer on the ground of his psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Linney alleged that she and Ramer had a child, Sharemahlyne, born September 9, 2006, and that they subsequently married on April 12, 2007. She claimed repeated physical, emotional, and verbal abuse by Ramer, together with alcoholism, gambling, infidelity and financial dependence; she presented a psychologist’s report diagnosing Ramer with narcissistic personality disorder and signs of impulse disorder, judicial affidavits, certificates of marriage and birth, and an affidavit of paternity. The RTC found the petition sufficient, issued summons (the OSG entered an appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor), conducted a pre-trial and trial in which Linney presented witnesses and the OSG did not present opposing evidence; Ramer did not participate in trial.
On August 29, 2023 the RTC granted the petition, declared the marriage void ab initio for Ramer’s psychological incapacity, and — in the dispositive portion — declared Sharemahlyne an illegitimate child pursuant to Article 165 of the Family Code; it ordered cancellation of the marriage certificate and permitted Linney to resume her maiden name. The OSG moved for partial reconsideration limited to the illegitimacy finding; Linney opposed, arguing that Sharemahlyne was illegitimate because she was born before the marriage and no annotation of legitimation appeared on the birth certificate. The RTC denied the motion on February 7, 2024 and reaffirmed that Sharemahlyne remained illegitimate.
The OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari directly to the Supreme Court (Rule 45), contending inter alia that the child’s legitimacy could not be collaterally attacked in the nullity petition, that Linney was not the proper party under Article 182 to impugn legitimation, that the subsequent marriage i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a trial court determine a child’s civil status in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, or does that constitute an impermissible collateral attack?
- Does Article 167 bar a mother from impugning her child’s legitimacy in the circumstances presented?
- Does Article 54 of the Family Code preserve the legitimacy of a child legitimated by the parents’ subsequent marriage when that marriage is later declared void under Article 36 for psychological incapacity, and thus was the RT...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)