Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 713 views

    Benitez Badua Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code were applicable in this case. The Supreme Court agreed and found that those articles do not apply when determining if a child is the biological child of a couple, as in this case where Vicente's heirs claimed Marissa was not his biological child. While birth certificates are usually considered evidence, the total evidence presented showed Isabel did not become pregnant and a document signed by Vicente stated he and Isabel had no descendants. Therefore, the Court dismissed Marissa's petition and found she was not entitled to inherit from Vicente's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Benitez Badua Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    713 views1 page
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code were applicable in this case. The Supreme Court agreed and found that those articles do not apply when determining if a child is the biological child of a couple, as in this case where Vicente's heirs claimed Marissa was not his biological child. While birth certificates are usually considered evidence, the total evidence presented showed Isabel did not become pregnant and a document signed by Vicente stated he and Isabel had no descendants. Therefore, the Court dismissed Marissa's petition and found she was not entitled to inherit from Vicente's estate.

    Original Description:

    Benitez Badua vs CA Digest

    Original Title

    Benitez Badua vs CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code were applicable in this case. The Supreme Court agreed and found that those articles do not apply when determining if a child is the biological child of a couple, as in this case where Vicente's heirs claimed Marissa was not his biological child. While birth certificates are usually considered evidence, the total evidence presented showed Isabel did not become pregnant and a document signed by Vicente stated he and Isabel had no descendants. Therefore, the Court dismissed Marissa's petition and found she was not entitled to inherit from Vicente's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    713 views1 page

    Benitez Badua Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code were applicable in this case. The Supreme Court agreed and found that those articles do not apply when determining if a child is the biological child of a couple, as in this case where Vicente's heirs claimed Marissa was not his biological child. While birth certificates are usually considered evidence, the total evidence presented showed Isabel did not become pregnant and a document signed by Vicente stated he and Isabel had no descendants. Therefore, the Court dismissed Marissa's petition and found she was not entitled to inherit from Vicente's estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    105625 January 24, 1994 The appellate court reversed the trial court ad held that Articles 166
    and 170 of the Family Code are not applicable.
    MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA, petitioner,
    vs. ISSUE:
    COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORIA BENITEZ LIRIO AND FEODOR BENITEZ
    AGUILAR, respondents. Are Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code applicable in this case?

    Reynaldo M. Alcantara for petitioner. HELD:

    Augustus Cesar E. Azura for private respondents. No. Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not
    contemplate a situation, like in the instant case, where a child is
    alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain
    couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or
    PUNO, J.: his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166,
    it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said child.
    FACTS:
    As regards the Birth Certificate which lists Marissa as the child of
    Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez owned various Isabel and Vicente, the court said that it is highly questionable and
    properties in Laguna. Isabel died in 1982 while Vicente died in 1989. suspicions. Under Article 410 of the New Civil Code, is states that,
    Vicente died intestate. "the books making up the Civil Registry and all documents relating
    thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie
    After Vicente’s death, his sister and nephew filed a case for issuance evidence of the facts therein stated." The totality of contrary evidence
    of letters of administration of Vicente's estate. They claim that Isable presented by the sister and nephew of Vicente show that Isabel did
    and Vicente were childless and that one Marissa Benitez-Badua who not become pregnant as testified to by the witnesses. Also the Deed
    was raised and cared by them since childhood is not their child and of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Isabel
    was not legally adopted by them. Chipongian executed by Vicente himself and by Isabel’s brother,
    stated that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Isabel Chipongian
    Marissa opposed the petition and alleged that she is the sole heir of because she died without descendants or ascendants". In executing
    deceased Vicente and capable of administering his estate. She this Deed, Vicente effectively repudiated the Certificate of Live Birth
    presented Certificate of Live Birth, as one of her evidences to prove of Marissa where it appeared that Vicente was Marissa’s father.
    her claim.
    Therefore, Marissa’s petition before the Supreme Court was
    The trial court decided in favor of Marissa and dismissed the petition dismissed.
    of Vicente’s sister and nephew. The trial court relied on Articles 166
    and 170 of the Family Code on impugning the legitimacy of the child.

    You might also like