PATERNITY & FILIATION

A. Concept of Paternity, Filiation & Legitimacy

Art. 163 - The filiation of children may be by nature or by adoption. Natural
filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
B. Legitimate Children
Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
legitimate.
Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the
sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of
the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such
insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth
of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the
birth certificate of the child.
Angeles v. Maglaya (2005)
The presumption of legitimacy under Art. 164 of the Family Code may be
availed only upon convincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the childs
parents were legally married and that his/her conception or birth occurred during
the subsistence of that marriage.
Sayson v. CA (1992)
The birth certificate offers only prima facie evidence of filiation, and may be
refuted by contrary evidence. However, such evidence is lacking in the case at bar.
SSS v. Aguas (2006)
There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and
founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason that the presumption that
children born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes
conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access
between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately
precedes the birth of the child due to (a) physical incapacity of the husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living
separately in such way that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness
of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse.
Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva (2006)
It is well-settled that a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the
facts contained therein. It is not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the
statements made there by the interested parties.
1. Who are considered legitimate children?
(a) Conceived during marriage
(b) Born during marriage
(c) Conceived by artificial insemination

(d) Adopted children

(e) Legitimated children
2. Rights of legitimate children
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during
his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during
minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five
years within which to institute the action.
Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:
(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with
the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper
cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on
Support; and
(3) To be entitled to the legitimate and other successional rights granted to
them by the Civil Code.
Moore v. Republic (1963)
Our laws do not authorize a legitimate child to use the surname of a person
who is not his father.
Naldoza v. Republic (1982)
To allow them, at their mothers behest, to bear only their mothers surname
(which they are entitled to use together with their fathers surname) and to discard
altogether their fathers surname, thus removing the prima facie evidence of their
paternal provenance or ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the minors
and their father should be consulted.
Republic v. CA
But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we
allow private respondent (a legitimate child of her parents) to bear her step-fathers
surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him
Continental Steel v. Montano (2009)
Legitimacy of a child attaches upon his/her conception. In this case, it was
not disputed that Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their
child was conceived during their marriage, hence, making said child
legitimate upon her conception.
C. Ilegitimate children
1. Who are considered illegitimate?
Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are
illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.

Joanie Surposa Uy v. Jose Ngo Chua (2009)

The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Public policy
demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a
child. Paternity and filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be
judicially established, and it is for the Court to declare its existence or absence. It
cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties.
Compromise Agreement that petitioner also waived away her rights to future
support and future legitime as an illegitimate child of respondent. Evidently, the
Compromise Agreement between petitioner and respondent is covered by the
prohibition under Article 2035 of the Civil Code.
2. Rights of illegitimate children
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during
his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during
minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five
years within which to institute the action.
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173,
except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which
case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in
conformity with this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist
of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. Except for this modification,
all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall
remain in force.
Osmena de Valencia v. Rodriguez (1949)
A legitimate child wants her illegitimate siblings to drop their fathers
surname. Court said yes it is a right of legitimate children but it is not a
prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname
of their father.
From all appearances, their father acquiesces in the use of his surname. Even
if he objects, they can still use the surname Valencia, no law grants
exclusive ownership over a surname
Uyguangco v. CA (1989)
An illeg. child sought participation in the settlement of his fathers estate. He
had no documents to prove his claim. He claims to have been in open and
continuous possession of the status of an illeg. child. But court did not allow
him to prove this because his father is already dead, can no longer affirm or
deny childs filiation.

Mangulabnan v. IAC (1990)

In an action for support, illeg. child asked for support pendente lite but father
opposed the same. SC ruled that affidavit of mother, 2 witnesses and the
birth certificate of child established his status as illeg child and is therefore
entitled to support pendente lite.
Briones v. Miguel
Loreta, being the mother of and having sole parental authority over the 10year-old minor who is an illeg child, is entitled to his custody. She has the
right to keep him in her company. She cannot be deprived of that right and
she may not even renounce it or transfer it except in cases authorized by
law.
Montefalcon v. Vasquez (2008)
Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his
illegitimate child. The amount is variable. There is no final judgment thereof
as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the
necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately
according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and
the resources or means of the person obliged to support. Support comprises
everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial
capacity of the family.
Heirs of Maramag v. De Guzman (2009)
The revocation of Eva as a beneficiary in one policy and her disqualification
as such in another are of no moment considering that the designation of the
illegitimate children as beneficiaries in Loretos insurance policies remains
valid. Because no legal proscription exists in naming as beneficiaries the
children of illicit relationships by the insured, the shares of Eva in the
insurance proceeds, whether forfeited by the court in view of the prohibition
on donations under Article 739 of the Civil Code or by the insurers
themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts, must be awarded
to the said illegitimate children, the designated beneficiaries, to the exclusion
of petitioners. It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any
beneficiary, or when the designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to
receive the proceeds, that the insurance policy proceeds shall redound to the
benefit of the estate of the insured.
Dela Cruz v. Gracia (2009)
Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, permits an
illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her father if the latter had expressly
recognized him/her as his offspring through the record of birth appearing in the
civil register, or through an admission made in a public or private handwritten
instrument. The recognition made in any of these documents is, in itself, a

consummated act of acknowledgment of the childs paternity; hence, no separate

action for judicial approval is necessary.
xxx
In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the
following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the
acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission
of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence
submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement
that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other
relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be
shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is
merely corroborative of such other evidence.
Manungas v. Loreto (2011)
the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of Engracia Manungas. It
must be remembered that the estate of Florentino Manungas was already the
subject of intestate proceedings that have long been terminated. Diosdado, as
an illegitimate heir of Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia
Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of Manungas.
There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator.
D. Action to Impugn Legitimacy
Reyes v. Mauricio (2010) - In a case involving tenancy filed by the wife of the
deceased tenant, who subsequently died and was substituted by her
daughter, the Supreme Court stated that the filiation of the daughter cannot
be collaterally attacked in the tenancy case.
Grounds
Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following
grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual
intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:
(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way
that sexual intercourse was not possible; or
(c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual
intercourse;
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child
could not have been that of the husband, except in the instance provided in the
second paragraph of Article 164; or

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the

written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake,
fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence. (255a)
(a) Physical impossibility of access
Andal v. Macaraig (1951) - Although the husband was already suffering from
tuberculosis and his condition then was so serious that he could hardly move and
get up from his bed, his feet were swollen and his voice hoarse, yet that is no
evidence of impotency, nor does it prevent carnal intercourse.
Macadangdang v. CA (1980) - Whether or not respondent were separated
would be immaterial to the resolution of the status of the child Rolando.
What should really matter is the fact that during the initial one hundred
twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the
aforementioned child, no concrete or even substantial proof was presented
to establish physical impossibility of access between respondent and her
spouse.
Concepcion v. CA (2005) - The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the
sexual union in marriage, particularly during the period of conception. To
overthrow this presumption on the basis of Article 166 (1) (b) of the Family
Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access
that could have enabled the husband to father the child. Sexual intercourse is
to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such
presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
(b) Biological or other scientific grounds
Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought
within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register,
if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or
municipality where the birth took place or was recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of
birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be
two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the
birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his
heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of
the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)
Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child
within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:
(1) If the husband should died before the expiration of the period fixed for
bringing his action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted
therefrom; or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)

Arnel Agustin v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005]

For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who
choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing
technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and
abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have
repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when
DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of
evidence gathering. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our
stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity.
Herrera v. Alba (2005)
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the
paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without
prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own
defenses.57 Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the
facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered
subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.
Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz (2007)
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not
ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist
appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As defined above, the term biological
sample means any organic material originating from a persons body, even if found
in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva,
and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones. Thus, even if Rogelio already died,
any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be used
for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining
an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.
Lucas v. Lucas (2011)
as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory
blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of
paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a
party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing
must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence
to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood
testing.37
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to
protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on
the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or
establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA
testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example,
consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already
preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would
only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.

(c) Art. 166, par. 3

Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following
grounds:
(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the
written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake,
fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.
2. Effect of Mothers Declaration
Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may
have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
Chua Keng Giap v. IAC
Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua KengGiap was really her
son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say as indeed she said these
many years that Chua KengGiap was not begotten of her womb.
3. In subsequent marriages
Art. 168. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage,
these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of
the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former
marriage, provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the
former marriage;
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of
the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the
termination of the former marriage. (259a)
Art. 169. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days
following the termination of the marriage shall be proved by whoever alleges such
legitimacy or illegitimacy. (261a)
4. Presumptions
Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought
within one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register,
if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or
municipality where the birth took place or was recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of
birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be
two years if they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the
birth of the child has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his
heirs, the period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of
the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)

Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the
period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:
(1) If the husband should died before the expiration of the period fixed for
bringing his action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted
therefrom; or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)
5. Prescription of action to impugn legitimacy
Gaspay v. CA (1994) - In light of the above, the death of Flaviano Gaspay, Sr.,
does not constitute a time bar to private respondent's claim as his
acknowledged illegitimate daughter. Settled is the rule that "actions based on
voluntary acknowledgment may be brought even after the father's death."
6. Who may impugn
Benitez-Badua v. CA (1994) - birth certificate was negated by totality of
evidence presented that Marissa was not a child of deceased spouses. Such as
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate prepared by the deceased
husband which did not include Marissa as an heir.
Liyao Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao (2002)
It is therefor clear that the present petition initiated by Corazon G. Garcia as
guardian ad litem of the then minor, herein petitioner, to compel recognition by
respondents of petitioner William Liyao, Jr, as the illegitimate son of the late William
Liyao cannot prosper. It is settled that a child born within a valid marriage is
presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.[30] We cannot allow
petitioner to maintain his present petition and subvert the clear mandate of the law
that only the husband, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, could impugn the
legitimacy of a child born in a valid and subsisting marriage. The child himself
cannot choose his own filiation. If the husband, presumed to be the father does not
impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter
cannot choose to be the child of his mothers alleged paramour. On the other hand, if
the presumption of legitimacy is overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of
the husband who successfully defeated the presumption.[31]
It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct
action brought for that purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by
law.
Republic v. Magpayo (2011)
The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as to affect his
legal status in relation to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that
of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant respondents
supplication.

E. Proof of Filiation
1. of legitimate children
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a,
266a, 267a)
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during
his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die
during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a
period of five years within which to institute the action.
Diaz v. CA (1984) - the presumption in decedent's favor of legitimacy has not
been successfully contradicted nor overcome by oppositor's testimonial and
documentary evidence.
Tison v. CA (1997) - The issue, therefore, as to whether petitioners are the
legitimate children of Hermogenes Dezoller cannot be properly controverted
in the present action for reconveyance. This is aside, of course, from the
further consideration that private respondent is not the proper party to
impugn the legitimacy of herein petitioners. The presumption consequently
continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted.
Even assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved in this case, the
burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners who have the benefit of the
presumption in their favor, but on private respondent who is disputing the
same.
Trinidad v. CA (1998) - Although a baptismal certificate is indeed not a conclusive
proof of filiation, it is one of "the other means allowed under the Rules of Court and
special laws" to show pedigree.
Heirs of Conti v. CA (1998) - It may be argued that baptismal certificates are
evidence only of the administration of the sacrament, but in this case, there were
four (4) baptismal certificates which, when taken together, uniformly show that
Lourdes, Josefina, Remedios and Luis had the same set of parents, as indicated
therein. Corroborated by the undisputed testimony of Adelaida Sampayo that with
the demise of Lourdes and her brothers Manuel, Luis and sister Remedios, the
only sibling left was Josefina Sampayo Reyes, such baptismal certificates have
acquired evidentiary weight to prove filiation.

De Jesus v. Estate of Juan Gamboa Dizon (2001) - in an attempt to establish

their illegitimate filiation to the late Juan G. Dizon, petitioners, in effect, would
impugn their legitimate status as being children of Danilo de Jesus and Carolina
Aves de Jesus. This step cannot be aptly done because the law itself establishes
the legitimacy of children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents.
2. Of illegitimate children
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173,
except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which
case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (289a)
Reyes v. CA
The birth certificate, to be sufficient recognition, must be signed by the father
and mother jointly, or by the mother alone if the father refuses, otherwise she may
be penalized; and if the alleged father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing
of his name by the mother, or doctor or registrar, is incompetent evidence of
paternity of said child.
While baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they are
evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein
specified, but not the veracity of the statements or declarations made therein with
respect to his kinsfolk.
Irenes secondary student permanent record and her written consent to the
operation of her father, not being signed nor written in the handwriting of Francisco
Delgado, cannot be taken as an authentic writing to prove her recognition by her
alleged father.
The marriage contract of Irene Delgado and Moises Villanueva, wherein it
was stated that Francisco Delgado gave his consent or advise for Irene Delgado to
marry, and that he was her father cannot be also taken as recognition in an
authentic document because it was not signed nor in the handwriting of Francisco
Delgado. It cannot also be taken as recognition in a public instrument.
The family pictures (Exhibits 11 to 11-E) presented by Irene, showing
Irene posing with Francisco Delgado, cannot be a sufficient proof of recognition. In
the case of Bercilles v. GSIS, supra, it was held that pictures do not constitute proof
of filiation.
Castro v. CA
There can be no dispute that Benita Castro enjoyed the open and continuous
possession of the status of an illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro and that the
action of Benita in defending her status in this case is similar to an "action to claim
legitimacy" brought during her lifetime.

Baluyut v. Baluyut
There is no evidence as required by Article 278 which proves that the
petitioners were recognized by the deceased during his lifetime as his spurious
children. The petitioners' records of birth, although in the name of Enrique Baluyut,
were not signed by the latter. There was no authentic writing presented nor any
statement in a court of record which would prove that the petitioners were
recognized by the deceased.
Since the recognition sought in the case is compulsory, strictness in the
application of the rules applies. We agree with respondent appellate court that the
evidence presented by petitioners failed to satisfy the high standard of proof
required for the success of their action for compulsory recognition.
Mendoza v. CA
An illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other
means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," according to the Civil
Code, or "by evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father,"
according to the Family Code. Such evidence may consist of his baptismal
certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been
entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence,
the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule
130 of the Rules of Court.
The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista,
namely, the mother of Casimiro, Brigida Mendoza, and his brother, Hipolito,
were both dead at the time of Isaac's testimony. The declarations referred to
the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro, which were the very
issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition. The
declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before
the controversy arose between her and Casimiro. Finally, the relationship
between the declarants and Casimiro has been established by evidence other
than such declaration, consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the estate of
Florencio Mendoza, in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs.
Heirs of Gabatan v. CA (2009)
It was absolutely crucial to respondents cause of action that she convincingly
proves the filiation of her mother to Juan Gabatan. To reiterate, to prove the
relationship of respondents mother to Juan Gabatan, our laws dictate that the best
evidence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register,
or an authentic document or a final judgment. In the absence of these, respondent
should have presented proof that her mother enjoyed the continuous possession of
the status of a legitimate child. Only in the absence of these two classes of evidence
is the respondent allowed to present other proof admissible under the Rules of
Court of her mothers relationship to Juan Gabatan.
2. Rights of illegitimate children
Art. 176.
- use surname of mother

- under parental authority of mother

- support from parents
- of the legitime of legitimate child
3. Compulsory recognition
RPC Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. Person guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so
doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in Articles 333 and
334 may also be sentenced, in the same proceeding or in a separate civil
proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
People v. Abella (2010)
We also accord high respect to the ruling of the trial court, as well as to the
appellate courts deference thereto, that the accused-appellant was the biological
father of the two-year old daughter of AAA as a result of the rape incident and in
view of their "striking facial similarities and features." The order to acknowledge
and support accused-appellants offspring is in accordance with Article 345 of the
Revised Penal Code.
F. Legitimated Children
1. who may be legitimated
FC Art. 177 (as amended by RA 9858)
Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time
of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry
each other, or were so disqualified only because either or both of them were below
18 years of age, may be legitimated.
Abadilla v. Tabiliran
Judge liable for deceitful conduct. An examination of the birth certificates of
his 3 illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan clearly indicate that these
children are his legitimate issues. He caused the entry therein. It is important
to note that these children, were born in the year 1970, 1971, and 1975,
respectively, and prior to his marriage to Priscilla, which was in 1986. As a
lawyer and a judge, he ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage
to Priscilla, these 3 children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be
considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing
valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran.
2. How legitimation takes place
Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage
between parents. The annulment of a viodable marriage shall not affect the
legitimation.

3. Retroactivity and Effects

Art. 181. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the
marriage shall benefit their descendants.
4. Action to impugn legitimation
Art. 182. Legitimation may be impugned only by those who are prejudiced in
their rights, within five years from the time their cause of action accrues.

5. Rights of legitimated children

Art. 179. Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate
children.