TOPIC: PATERNITY AND FILIATION: Prescriptive Period of Action to Claim Legitimate Filiation

BERNARDO VS. FERNANDO

DOCTRINE

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

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

Article 173 of the Family Code, an action to claim legitimate filiation is strictly personal to the child whose filiation is in question, and he or
she may exercise such anytime within his lifetime. The only three instances when such right passes to the child's heirs are:

(1) when the child dies during minority;

Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules provides for the facts which the court must take judicial notice of without need of proof, to

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and
maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

CAGUIOA, J.:

FACTS:

The case revolves around five parcels of land left behind by the late Jose Chiong. In 1925 The late Jose
Chiong executed a Deed of Donation, bequeathing the subject properties to Jose Chiong Fernando, the predecessor--
in-interest of respondents.

On June 18, 2002, respondents executed an "Affidavit of Identity [of] Heirs" (Affidavit), where they claimed to be
the legal heirs of the late Jose Chiong. Mario, on behalf of the heirs of the late Jose Chiong, filed a complaint for
Annulment, Reconveyance and Accounting with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction8 with the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch

Mario primarily alleged that his mother, Barbara Chiong (Barbara), was born, to spouses Jose Chiong and Ambrosia
Domingo (Ambrosia) Mario’s claim was supported by the submission of Barbara’s Certificate of Live Birth and
Baptismal. Hence, he and his siblings being grandchildren of Jose Chiong and he further claimed that they are the
ones who are entitled to the subject properties. Mario averred those respondents were not the true heirs of Jose
Chiong, but were only collateral relatives as descendants of Jose Chiong's cousin through their maternal
grandfather, whose claim in inheriting the subject properties was subordinate to his and his siblings' claim.
The RTC ruled in favor of Mario and his Siblings and was persuaded that by preponderance of evidence, Mario was
able to prove that Barbara was indeed the daughter of Jose Chiong.

Respondents appealed to the CA via Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, it granted the appeal, reversed the consolidated
decision of the RTC, and dismissed the case for Lack of Cause of Action.

The CA discussed the documents submitted offered by the petitioners to prove Barbara's legitimate status. It ruled
that with respect to Barbara's birth certificate, because its dorsal portion was not presented in evidence, the CA had
no way of ascertaining whether Jose Chiong had a hand in its preparation, particularly pertaining to the entries
indicating paternity. It added that the mere fact that the late Jose Chiong was identified in the frontal portion of the
birth certificate as the father of Barbara Domingo only evidenced the fact which gave rise to its execution, or the
birth of a child.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE #1: Whether the petitioners sufficiently prove the legitimate status of Barbara to Jose Chiong which
established their right to the subject properties.

HELD #1:

No, Petitioners failed to prove the legitimate status of Barbara to Jose Chiong.

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.

The law requires that every reasonable presumption leans towards legitimacy, and establishes the status of a child
from the moment of his birth.  Proof of filiation becomes necessary only when the legitimacy of the child is being
questioned, or when the status of a child born after 300 days following the termination of marriage is sought to be
established. 

In case of the need to prove filiation, the same may only be raised in a direct and separate action instituted to prove
the filiation of the child.

As provided by Article 173 of the Family Code, an action to claim legitimate filiation is strictly personal to the child
whose filiation is in question, and he or she may exercise such anytime within his lifetime. The only three instances
when such right passes to the child's heirs are:

1. when the child dies during minority;

In this case, petitioners seek to establish the legitimate status of their mother, Barbara. However, although there is a
mention of Barbara's passing, there is nothing in the records of the case which would show that Barbara had died
under any of the circumstances outlined under Article 173, which would have transmitted the right to claim her
legitimate status to her heirs, herein petitioners. Given that petitioners here seek to prove Barbara's legitimate
filiation to Jose Chiong absent any of the three circumstances under Article 173, they may not be considered to have
the standing to pursue the same.

Having failed at discharging the burden of proof incumbent upon petitioners in establishing Barbara's legitimate
status, no legitimate filiation between Barbara and Jose Chiong may be recognized.

ISSUE #2: Whether the court may take judicial notice of the fact that during the birth of Barbara, prior to the
passage of Commonwealth Act No. 3753, only the attending physician or midwife was required to sign in the birth
certificates, without such similar requirement for the parents of the born child.

HELD#2:

No, Petitioners' allegation that the Court should take judicial notice of when the signature of the father of the child
was or was not required in the certificate of birth is misplaced and so as The additional argument that the baptismal
certificate should be considered a certificate of birth as it was executed prior to an established system of registry was
also only alleged but not proved. Mario extends this by analogy, arguing that since at the time of Barbara's baptism,
there was a strict prohibition in the Catholic religion against baptism of children born out of wedlock, the baptismal
certificate could further prove a legitimate marriage between Jose Chiong and Ambrosia. This claim, both belated
and unsubstantiated, cannot be considered by the Court as sufficient basis to grant petitioners' claim

Rule 129, Section 1 of the Rules provides for the facts which the court must take judicial notice of without need of
proof, to

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of
the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a).

Demonstrably, the prescriptions governing the preparation and accomplishment of birth certificates in the system of
registry do not fall under any of the enumerated categories of facts.

At best, this allegation of a past protocol in the system of registry may fall under Section 294 of the same Rule,
which provides for matters that the court may, in its sound discretion, opt to take judicial notice of. Being
discretionary, the Court may not take judicial notice thereof if it is not convinced that the matter is of public
knowledge, or capable of unquestionable demonstration, or otherwise ought to be known by judges
because of their judicial functions.

That this case has already lasted for over 17 years since Mario first instituted the Complaint forAnnulment,
Reconveyance and Accounting is lamentable. Even so, the Court maintains that no length of time will ripen a mere
allegation lacking proof into a demandable right, least of all in the case where legitimate filiation is the status which
may be granted or withheld.