Case Summary (G.R. No. 222259)
Regional Trial Court Ruling
In 2012 the RTC found Lowella to be the decedent’s acknowledged nonmarital child based on her birth registration, a special power of attorney, letters signed by “Mama Mie,” photographs, and a sworn affidavit of the decedent. It dismissed intervenors for failure to prosecute and ordered estate partition among Lowella and the marital heirs.
Court of Appeals Reversal
The CA set aside the RTC’s recognition of Lowella as nonmarital child. Citing Family Code Article 164, it held Lowella presumed legitimate as her mother was married at her birth, and the legitimacy presumption may be impugned only by a direct action under Articles 170–171 by the husband (or heirs). The CA deemed the partition suit an improper collateral attack on legitimacy.
Presumption and Impugning of Legitimacy
Under Family Code Article 164, a child born in wedlock is presumed legitimate. Article 166 permits rebuttal only on narrow grounds (physical impossibility, scientific evidence, defect in artificial insemination). Articles 170–171 restrict who may file an impugnment action and the period for doing so. Jurisprudence (Tison; Liyao v. Tanhoti-Liyao) emphasizes that legitimacy cannot be collaterally attacked.
Best Interests of the Child and Statutory Purpose
Recent Supreme Court decisions (Santiago v. Jornacion) have tempered the rule against collateral attacks, emphasizing that the presumption of legitimacy is rebuttable and that children’s best interests—recognized under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—justify allowing direct filiation actions and scientific proof to establish true paternity where evidence warrants.
Physical Impossibility Ground
Family Code Article 166(1) allows impugning legitimacy when it was physically impossible for the husband to effect conception. Macadangdang v. CA clarifies that mere separation is insufficient; parties must demonstrate absolute impossibility of access. The RTC’s finding of a brief separation, based solely on petitioner’s testimony without proof of impossibility, amounted to speculation.
Need for Additional Evidence
Given the speculative nature of the RTC’s factual finding on separation and the absence of proof of impossibility of access, the Supreme Court remanded for further fact-finding. It instructed the RTC to receive additional evidence to determine whether the marital presumption may be successfully rebutted.
DNA Testing as Valid Scientific Proof
Family Code Article 166(2) allows rebuttal by biological or scie
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222259)
Factual Background
- Diosdado Yap, Sr. died in January 1995, leaving estate and heirs: wife Almeda Yap; legitimate children Josie May Yap, Hearty Yap-Dybongco, and Diosdado Yap, Jr.; and an acknowledged nonmarital child, Lowella Yap.
- On March 12, 1996, Lowella and Josie May filed a Complaint for partition and accounting, with prayer for receivership and preliminary injunction, against Almeda, Hearty, and Diosdado, Jr., alleging their inheritance rights.
- After inaction by other heirs, Lowella and Josie discovered extrajudicial partition of part of the estate by Almeda, Hearty, and Diosdado, Jr., prompting formal legal action.
- Defendants Almeda, Hearty, and Diosdado, Jr. denied Lowella’s status as heir, contesting Josie’s filiation and asserting Lowella’s father was Bernardo Lumahang, Matilde Lusterio’s lawful husband since January 15, 1953.
- Adonis Yap and Adam Lou Yap intervened as putative nonmarital children of the decedent but later withdrew from proceedings.
- In January 2002, Josie was dropped as a party; Adonis and Adam did not manifest further interest, leaving Lowella as sole plaintiff.
- During trial, Lowella testified she was born April 1, 1961 to Diosdado, Sr. and Matilde Lusterio; lived with the decedent’s family; worked in his construction business; and was addressed affectionately as his daughter.
- Documentary evidence presented by Lowella included:
• Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Bacolod registering “Nelie Rosterio Yap” as born to Diosdado Yap and Matilde Rosterio;
• Special Power of Attorney executed by Diosdado, Sr. referring to Lowella as his daughter;
• Photographs of Lowella nursing the decedent;
• Letters from Almeda signed “Mama Mie”;
• Memorial program listing Lowella as one of Diosdado, Sr.’s children;
• Affidavit by Diosdado, Sr. affirming his paternity over Lowella. - The defense presented certifications from the National Statistics Office showing no record of Lowella or Nelie Yap born April 2, 1961; the marriage contract of Matilde Lusterio and Lumahang (1953); and birth c