Title
Bernabe vs. Alejo
Case
G.R. No. 140500
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2002
Adrian Bernabe, claiming to be the illegitimate son of the late Fiscal Bernabe, sought recognition and a share in his estate. The Supreme Court upheld his right to file for recognition under the Civil Code, ruling that the Family Code did not impair his vested rights, allowing the action within four years of attaining majority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22366)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Ernestina Bernabe
Respondent: Carolina Alejo, as guardian ad litem for Adrian Bernabe

Key Dates

• September 18, 1981 – Birth of Adrian Bernabe
• May 16, 1994 – Complaint for recognition filed on Adrian’s behalf
• July 7, 1999 – Court of Appeals decision
• October 14, 1999 – CA resolution denying reconsideration
• January 21, 2002 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (protection of vested rights and due process)
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 285 (period for recognition of natural children)
• Family Code of the Philippines, Articles 172, 173, 175, 255

Statement of the Case

Ernestina Bernabe seeks nullification of the CA’s reversal of the RTC’s dismissal of a recognition and partition suit filed by Adrian. She insists that under the Family Code, the action is barred by the putative father’s death and absence of written acknowledgment.

Factual Background

Adrian was born out of a liaison between Fiscal Bernabe and his secretary, Carolina Alejo. After the deaths of Fiscal Bernabe (August 1993) and his wife (December 1993), Carolina, for Adrian, sued in May 1994 to recognize Adrian as an illegitimate heir and partition the estate now held by Ernestina.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC dismissed the complaint, holding that (1) under Article 175 of the Family Code the action must have been filed during the putative father’s lifetime; and (2) without a written acknowledgment, the suit was barred by his death.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA reversed, applying Civil Code Article 285. Since Adrian was born in 1981, his cause of action vested under the Civil Code, which permits an illegitimate child to file for recognition within four years after attaining majority if the parent died during minority. The CA held the Family Code did not extinguish that vested right.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether Adrian has a cause of action to claim recognition and succession rights absent any written acknowledgment.
  2. Whether Article 285’s four-year period survived the Family Code’s repeal of its exceptions.
  3. Whether failure to implead the CA in the petition for certiorari is fatal.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

Under the 1987 Constitution, vested rights enjoy protection against impairment. Article 255 of the Family Code accords retroactive effect only if no vested or acquired right is prejudiced.

Vested Rights and Substantive Nature of Recognition Actions

Article 285 of the Civil Code granted Adrian a substantive, vested right to file within four years of majority, unaffected by the Family Code. Procedural rules cannot extinguish such vested substantive rights. Jurisprudence confirms that substantive rights created by law vest immediately and survive subsequent procedural reforms.

Scope of Article 285 Civil Code and Retroactivity

The Court held that because Adrian’s right to recognition vested before the Family Code’s effectivity, the new Code’s lifetime-only rule cannot impair it. Pre–Family Code jurisprudence (Aruego Jr. v. CA) supports applying Civil Code periods to minors whose putative parent died during minority.

Natural vs. Spurious Ch

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.