G.R. No. L-24845 - Vda. de Clemena vs. Clemena

Petitioner Adela Ongsiaco Vda. de Clemena instituted Special Proceeding No. 59712 on January 29, 1965, for the settlement of the estate of the late Engracio Clemena.
As the surviving consort, she was duly appointed Special Administratrix on February 2, 1965, qualified, and issued letters of administration.

Respondent Agustin Engracio Clemena, claiming to be the decedent’s illegitimate (but not natural) child, submitted a written opposition.
His opposition was premised on:

Allegation of wrong venue, asserting that the decedent was a resident of Rizal at the time of death.
His claim to illegitimate filiation despite not being recognized by the decedent, either voluntarily or compulsorily.
His admission that he was born on August 28, 1928, hence already being of legal age at the time of the decedent’s death (September 26, 1964).

The respondent’s intervention was challenged by the Administratrix on the ground that he had no legal interest.
Despite the objection, Judge Geronimo ordered the respondent to produce evidence to establish his claimed filiation.
Testimonies were given by three witnesses in support of the respondent’s claim.
The Administratrix moved for a suspension of the hearing, objecting to further evidence, but the court overruled her based on the absence of settled jurisprudence regarding the investigation of illegitimate not natural paternity after the death of the alleged parent.

The Administratrix sought relief from the Supreme Court through petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and a preliminary injunction.
The relief was sought on the ground of abuse of discretion, alleging that the lower court had subjected the deceased parent’s legitimate family to scandal and social humiliation.
The central inquiry was whether an illegitimate child not natural, being over 21 years of age at the death of the alleged father, may institute an action to establish paternity after the parent's death.

Whether an illegitimate child not natural (spurious) can institute an action for judicial investigation and declaration of paternity after the death of the alleged father.

Specifically, whether the time limits set by Article 285 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the recognition of natural children should also apply to illegitimate children not natural.
Whether allowing such a posthumous paternity action would subject the legitimate family to undue scandal and disturb the established gradation of rights among children.

The implications of the absence of an express legal provision in the Civil Code regarding the duration of such actions for illegitimate not natural children.