Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17748)
Factual Background
Petitioner was married to Ariel Libut in October 2000. In 2005 she went abroad and returned in 2008 after discovering her husband’s infidelity. She later worked in Abu Dhabi, met Allan Fulgueras, and became pregnant. Upon her return to the Philippines in September 2009, she gave birth to her son, who was recorded in January 2010 with the surname “Fulgueras” and Allan D. Fulgueras named as father via an Affidavit of Acknowledgment.
Petition for Correction under Rule 108
On September 7, 2011 petitioner filed a Rule 108 petition in the RTC of Pasig City to:
- Change the child’s surname from “Fulgueras” to “Ordoña” (mother’s maiden name);
- Delete the entries concerning the paternal information (Items 13–17);
- Cancel the Affidavit of Acknowledgment on the ground that Allan was abroad at birth and could not have signed it.
Notice of hearing was published and served; no opposition was filed.
RTC Ruling and Grounds for Denial
April 25, 2012 – The trial court denied the petition, holding that:
• Alrich Paul is an illegitimate child, entitled to use the father’s surname under Article 176 of the Family Code as amended by RA 9255.
• The Affidavit of Acknowledgment is a public instrument presumed valid.
• Deleting the paternal entries would prejudice the child’s best interests and legitime.
July 26, 2012 – Motion for reconsideration denied.
CA Ruling and Emphasis on Presumption of Legitimacy
April 10, 2014 – The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC judgment and ordered that the child’s name be corrected to bear the husband’s surname (“Libut”) and that the acknowledgment be disregarded. Its rationale:
- Article 164 presumes legitimacy of children conceived or born during wedlock.
- The child’s legitimate status cannot be attacked collaterally in a Rule 108 petition; only the husband (or his heirs) may contest legitimacy in a direct action.
- Birth certificates are prima facie evidence, but the quasi‐conclusive presumption of legitimacy prevails over them.
October 14, 2014 – Motion for reconsideration denied.
Issues for Review
- Whether a Rule 108 petition may be used to collaterally attack a child’s presumed legitimacy and filiation.
- Whether petitioner, as mother, has legal personality to impugn her own child’s legitimacy.
- Whether the requirements of Rule 108 (parties, notice, publication) were satisfied.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA decision on these grounds:
- Rule 108 may not be used to attack legitimacy or filiation in a collateral manner. Such matters require a direct action by the proper parties under Articles 170–171 of the Family Code.
- Article 167 bars the mother from declaring against her child’s legitimacy; only the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs may impugn legitimacy.
- Petitioner failed to implead her husband (Ariel Libut), an indispensable party under Section 3, Rule 108. He had a legal interest in the child’s presumed filiation.
- Because Ariel was neither a party nor served notice under Section 4, Rule 108, the proceedings lacked due process and must be dismissed.
Application of Rule 108 and Family Code Provisions
• Rule 108 contemplates correction of registry entries in an adversarial proceeding; legitimacy and filiation disputes are excluded from collateral attack.
• Articles 170–171 provide that legitimacy may be disputed only by the husband or his heirs, within a prescribed period.
• Article 167 deems a child legitimate even if the mother has declared otherwise.
Procedural Deficiencies and Indispensable Parties
• Section 3,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17748)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Richelle Busque Ordoña married Ariel O. Libut on October 10, 2000 in Las Piñas City.
- In December 2005 she went to work in Qatar; by 2008 she discovered Ariel’s illicit relationship and separated de facto, but did not file for annulment.
- In April 2008 she went to Abu Dhabi (UAE), met former colleague Allan D. Fulgueras, and had an intimate relationship resulting in pregnancy.
- She returned to the Philippines in September 2009 and on January 26, 2010 gave birth to a son, Alrich Paul, in Pasig City.
- The Certificate of Live Birth recorded the child’s surname as “Fulgueras” and listed “Allan Demen Fulgueras” as father, supported by an Affidavit of Acknowledgment of Paternity.
Rule 108 Petition for Correction of Entries
- On September 7, 2011 petitioner filed a verified Rule 108 petition in RTC Pasig (SP Proc. No. 12335) seeking:
• Change of child’s surname from “Fulgueras” to “Ordoña” (petitioner’s maiden name)
• Deletion of all paternal entries in Items 13–17 of the birth certificate - Alleged Allan could not have signed the paternity affidavit since he was abroad at the time of birth.
RTC Proceedings and Ruling
- RTC Branch 166, Pasig found the petition sufficient, set hearings (Dec 12, 2011 & Feb 6, 2012), ordered publication and service of notices.
- No oppositors appeared or filed opposition; petitioner testified to separation from Ariel in 2008, relationship with Allan in UAE, and supply of paternal details.
- Engineer Michael Mantes testified the paternity signature differed from Allan’s true signature.
- On April 25, 2012, RTC denied the petition:
• Child is an illegitimate child but may use paternal surname if father acknowledged (Art. 176, Fam. Code as amended by RA 9255)
• Deleting paternal entries