Title
Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-49542
Decision Date
Sep 12, 1980
A married woman sought recognition and support for her child, alleging an extramarital affair. The Supreme Court upheld the presumption of legitimacy under the Civil Code, ruling the child conclusively presumed legitimate as no physical impossibility of access between spouses was proven.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49542)

Case Background

This case involves a petition for review sought by Antonio Macadangdang to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. No. 54618-R, which reversed the earlier ruling of the Court of First Instance of Davao that dismissed Elizabeth Mejias' action for the recognition and support of her allegedly illegitimate son, Rolando. The Court of Appeals declared Rolando to be the illegitimate son of Macadangdang and ordered him to provide a monthly support of P350.00 until Rolando reached adulthood.

Factual Events

Elizabeth Mejias had an extramarital affair with Antonio Macadangdang in March 1967, shortly before she separated from her legal husband, Crispin Anahaw. Mejias gave birth to Rolando on October 30, 1967, approximately seven months after her encounter with Macadangdang. The proceedings commenced when Mejias, on April 25, 1972, filed a complaint for recognition and support against Macadangdang, thereby initiating a series of legal disputes centered on the legitimacy of Rolando.

Issues Presented

The primary legal issues in this case are:

  1. Whether Rolando is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of Elizabeth Mejias and her husband Crispin Anahaw.
  2. Whether Mejias can initiate proceedings to disclaim her child’s legitimacy without including her husband as a party to the action.

Analysis of Legitimacy Presumption

Under the provisions of the Civil Code, specifically Articles 255 and 256, children born within 300 days following the marriage or separation of spouses are presumed legitimate unless there is evidence to establish physical impossibility of access between the spouses. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to the law, physical impossibility could arise from reasons such as impotence or serious illness of the husband.

The Court assessed the claim that Mejias' husband was separated, emphasizing that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate such an assertion. Testimonies revealed that Mejias remained in proximity to her husband, indicating that access for conception was not definitively impossible. Thus, the presumption of legitimacy was found to be intact, notwithstanding Mejias' claims.

Court Findings on Evidence

The Supreme Court highlighted that the testimony provided by Mejias lacked corroborative evidence and relied heavily on her self-serving statements. The Court rejected her testimony as insufficient, noting that without concrete proof of separation or failure of access between her and her husband during the initial critical months preceding the birth, Rolando is presumed legitimate as per the established legal framework.

Conclusions on Adjunct Considerations

In affirming the presumptions of legitimacy, the Supreme Court reiterated key public policy considerations aimed at protecting the welfare of children born withi

...continue reading

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