Case Summary (G.R. No. 169914)
Trial Court’s Findings and Orders
The Regional Trial Court found Ma. Theresa’s marriage to Mario valid and subsisting, rendering her subsequent marriage to Gerardo void for bigamy. It declared Jose Gerardo illegitimate, awarded custody to Ma. Theresa, and granted Gerardo visitation rights pursuant to PD 603 Article 8’s mandate that the child’s welfare be paramount.
Post–Trial Motions and Custody Issues
Ma. Theresa moved for reconsideration to eliminate Gerardo’s visitation rights—arguing no statute grants a putative father such rights—and to restore the child’s surname to hers. The trial court denied the motion, underscoring the child’s need for a father figure and psychological welfare under the “best interest of the child” principle.
Appellate Court’s Initial Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto. It endorsed visitation based on child welfare, held that an illegitimate child cannot change surname motu proprio, and required a separate Rule 103 proceeding for any registry correction.
Appellate Reconsideration and Legitimacy Declaration
Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed itself. It held that because Ma. Theresa was validly married to Mario Gopiao at the time of conception and birth, Jose Gerardo is legitimate under Family Code Article 164. Consequently, Gerardo lacks both custody/visitation rights and any claim to the child’s surname.
Presumption of Legitimacy under the Family Code
Family Code Article 164 presumes legitimacy for a child conceived or born during marriage. Article 167 mandates that this presumption be upheld despite any maternal declaration against it. Article 166(1)(b) allows rebuttal only by proof beyond reasonable doubt of physical impossibility of access during the critical period.
Inapplicability of Spousal Disavowal
Article 167 forbids a mother’s declaration against her child’s legitimacy. Ma. Theresa’s statement that she “never lived” with Mario could not overcome the quasi-conclusive legitimacy presumption, especially given their proximate residences in the same city and absence of evidence precluding sexual access.
Identity, Surname, and Filiation Rights
A legitimate child is entitled to both parents’ surnames (Art. 174) and full inheritance rights. Illegitimate children bear only the mother’s surname (Art. 176) and have reduced successional rights. As Mario’s legitimate offspring, Jose Gerardo cannot assume Concepcion’s surname absent a separate judicial proceeding.
No Visitation Rights Absent Parent–Child Relationship
Family Code Article 49 and PD 603 grant visitation rights to a parent deprived of custody. Such rights presuppose a valid parent–child
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169914)
Facts
- Gerardo B. Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte were married on December 29, 1989, and co–resided with Almonte’s parents in Fairview, Quezon City.
- On December 8, 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth to a son, Jose Gerardo.
- In December 1991, Concepcion filed for annulment of their marriage on the ground of bigamy, alleging Almonte had previously married Mario Gopiao in 1980 and that marriage remained subsisting.
- Almonte admitted marrying Gopiao but claimed the union was a sham and that she never lived or cohabited with him.
Procedural History
- At first instance, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Almonte’s marriage to Gopiao valid, annulled her marriage to Concepcion as void for bigamy, and adjudged Jose Gerardo illegitimate. Custody was awarded to Almonte; Concepcion received visitation rights.
- Almonte moved for reconsideration, disputing Concepcion’s visitation rights over an illegitimate child and urging that the child’s surname revert to her maiden name, “Almonte.” The RTC denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) initially affirmed the RTC decision, upholding visitation rights under the “best interest of the child” doctrine and requiring a separate proceeding for any name change.
- Upon Almonte’s motion for reconsideration at the CA, the appellate court reversed its earlier ruling, holding that Jose Gerardo was the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao, thus barring Concepcion from custody, visitation, or imposing his surname.
- Concepcion’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a putative father of an illegitimate child has a legally demandable right to visitation.
- Whether an illegitimate child must bear the mother’s surname motu proprio or may retain a different surname pending a separate name-change proceeding.
- Whether Jose Gerardo is legitimately the child of Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao, notwithstanding his birth certificate and admissions by Concepcion and Almonte.
- Whether Concepcion, whose marriage to Almonte was void ab initio, has standing to contest the legitimacy or impose his surname on the child.
Applicable Law
- Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603, Art. 8): “Child’s welfare paramount.”
- United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 3): “Best interests of the child a primary consideration.”
- Family Code provisions on legitimacy and impugnation:
• Art. 164: Child conceived or born dur