Title
De Santos vs. Angeles
Case
G.R. No. 105619
Decision Date
Dec 12, 1995
Antonio de Santos’ children from a bigamous marriage deemed illegitimate; only natural children can be legitimated under Civil Code, favoring sole legitimate heir.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105619)

Factual Background

Dr. Antonio de Santos married Sofia Bona on February 7, 1941,. They had one child, Maria Rosario. Over time, their marriage soured, leading to Dr. de Santos’s cohabitation with Conchita Talag. In 1949, Antonio acquired a divorce in Nevada, but failed to acknowledge that the divorce was not valid in the Philippines. He married Conchita in 1951 in Tokyo, Japan, which did not provide them with legal recognition in the Philippines because of his ongoing marriage to Sofia. They had eleven children before Sofia’s death in 1967. After Dr. de Santos's passing in 1981, Conchita petitioned the court to be recognized as the administratrix of his estate.

Procedural History

Conchita's initial grant of letters of administration included her claim that her children were legitimate heirs. Maria Rosario contested this by arguing the illegitimacy of her half-siblings. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of Conchita, legitimizing the children based on the previous case of Tongoy v. Court of Appeals, and declared all twelve children as heirs. Maria Rosario sought certiorari relief, asserting that only natural children could be legitimated.

Applicable Law

The decision hinges on Article 269 of the Civil Code, which states that "only natural children can be legitimated." It explicitly defines natural children as those born outside wedlock of parents who were not disqualified from marrying at the time of conception. This implies a critical distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, as well as a hierarchical categorization of rights arising from that classification.

Legal Analysis of Filiation and Legitimacy

The pivotal legal issue here revolves around the identification of the offspring from the second marriage as "natural children." As the trial court indicated legitimacy based on the concept of "legal fiction," it suggests that children of a bigamous marriage could simultaneously enjoy rights akin to those conferred upon legitimate children. However, critical to this analysis are the qualifications stipulated in Article 269 which require no impediment to marriage at the time of the child’s conception.

Distinguishing Between Types of Children

There exists a strict dichotomy in law, delineating legitimate children from natural children by legal fiction, and notably, those born from void marriages. The children born to Conchita and Dr. de Santos were conceived while Antonio's marriage to Sofia was still valid; thus, these children do not fit the definition of natural children as prescribed by Article 269. Further, their illegitimate status cannot be overlooked simply because their parents later contracted a marriage after the dissolution of a prior union.

Rights of Acknowledged Natural Children versus Natural Children by Legal Fiction

While Article 89 of the Civil Code recognizes “natural children by legal fiction” and grants them rights equivalent to acknowledged natural children, this recognition does not extend to rights of legitimation that are exclusive to natural children as defined in Article 269. Consequently, while both groups share common rights, the right to be legitimized is fundamentally reserved for legitimate natural children, excluding those born under illegal unions contracted under the impediment of an existing marriage.

Conc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.