Title
Yap vs. Yap
Case
G.R. No. 222259
Decision Date
Oct 17, 2022
Lowella Yap claims inheritance as Diosdado Sr.'s nonmarital child; dispute over filiation and estate partition. Supreme Court remands for DNA testing, prioritizing child's welfare.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222259)

Petitioner

Lowella alleges she was born April 1, 1961 to Diosdado Yap, Sr. and Matilde Lusterio, was acknowledged by the decedent in documents and affidavits, was treated as a daughter by the decedent’s family, and was listed as his child in his memorial program. She sought partition and accounting after portions of the estate were extrajudicially partitioned among respondents.

Respondents

Almeda, Hearty, and Diosdado, Jr. deny Lowella’s filiation with the decedent. They assert that Lowella’s mother was married to Bernardo Lumahang at the time of Lowella’s birth and that Lowella is therefore presumed legitimate as Lumahang’s child. They challenged the authenticity of documents (affidavit and special power of attorney) allegedly executed by the decedent and relied on civil registry and National Statistics Office certifications negating registration under certain names.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Relevant filings began with a complaint on March 12, 1996; the decedent died in January 1995. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on March 28, 2012 declaring Lowella to be an acknowledged nonmarital child and ordering partition; the Court of Appeals reversed part of that ruling on April 30, 2015 (with denial of reconsideration on November 13, 2015); the petition to the Supreme Court led to the decision whose operative date is October 17, 2022. Applicable constitution for the decision: 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Relevant Facts Established at Trial

Lowella testified about her upbringing with the decedent’s household, use of the name Lowella despite birth registration as “Nelie,” and presented documentary evidence: a civil registry entry (book of live births) indicating Nelie Lusterio Yap born April 1, 1961 to Diosdado Yap and Matilde Rosterio; a Special Power of Attorney where she was referred to as the decedent’s daughter; photographs, letters of Almeda addressing her as “Mama Mie,” and the decedent’s memorial program listing her as a child. The Municipal Civil Registrar corroborated a live-birth entry. Defense witnesses included Ofelia Ho (who disputed signatures) and certifications from the National Statistics Office and a civil registry marriage certificate showing Matilde’s marriage to Lumahang on January 15, 1953.

RTC Findings

The RTC found Lowella to be the decedent’s nonmarital daughter and ordered partition among Lowella and the marital heirs. The RTC gave weight to the civil registry entry (book of live births) and other documentary exhibits as prima facie evidence of filiation, held that National Statistics Office certifications did not invalidate the local registry entry, and found irrelevant the marriage between Matilde and Lumahang in light of petitioner’s testimony that Matilde had a relationship with the decedent during a separation from Lumahang.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals set aside the portion of the RTC decision declaring Lowella an acknowledged nonmarital child. It held that because Lowella was born during Matilde’s marriage to Lumahang, she enjoys the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the Family Code and therefore her status as a child of Lumahang can only be impugned in an action specifically filed for that purpose by the husband or, in exceptional circumstances, his heirs (Articles 170 and 171). The CA treated the action for partition as an improper collateral attack on legitimacy.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether petitioner established her status as the decedent’s nonmarital child sufficiently to overturn the presumption of legitimacy that attends a child born during the subsistence of the mother’s valid marriage.

Applicable Law and Legal Principles

  • 1987 Constitution applies. Family Code provisions are controlling: Article 164 (presumption of legitimacy for children conceived or born during marriage) and Article 166 (grounds to impugn legitimacy). Articles 170–171 prescribe the action to impugn legitimacy and who may bring it and within what periods.
  • The presumption of legitimacy is a disputable presumption grounded in public policy to protect innocent offspring, but it may be rebutted by substantial and credible evidence, including physical impossibility of access or biological/scientific proof (e.g., DNA).
  • Jurisprudence recognizes that the status of a child born in wedlock cannot be attacked collaterally in most circumstances; nonetheless, recent rulings permit the reception of DNA and other evidence to establish filiation where warranted, consistent with the best interests of the child and rules on DNA evidence.

Supreme Court Analysis and Reasoning

  • The Court recognized that Lowella was born during Matilde’s marriage to Lumahang, thus prima facie presumptively legitimate under Article 164. However, the presumption may be rebutted under Article 166 by proof of physical impossibility of access or biological/scientific evidence that the husband could not be the father.
  • The Court found the RTC’s factual conclusion (that Matilde and Lumahang had separated and that the decedent was the father) to be grounded largely on petitioner’s testimony without corroborating evidence; hence that finding was charact

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms