Case Digest Liyao v. Liyao 138961, 7 march 2002

Impugning illegitimate filiation

Case Digest Liyao v. Liyao 138961, 7 march 2002

Facts: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision dated June 4, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 45394^[1] which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 167 in declaring William Liyao, Jr. as the illegitimate (spurious) son of the deceased William Liyao and ordering Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, Pearl Margaret L. Tan, Tita Rose L. Tan and Linda Christina Liyao to recognize and acknowledge William Liyao, Jr. as a compulsory heir of the deceased William Liyao and entitled to all successional rights as such and to pay the costs of the suit.

 The complaint was later amended to include the allegation that petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of the child of said William Liyao, petitioner having been recognized and acknowledged as such child by the decedent during his lifetime."^[3]

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the ruling of the trial court saying that the law favors the legitimacy rather than the illegitimacy of the child and the presumption of legitimacy is thwarted only on ethnic ground and by proof that marital intimacy between husband and wife was physically impossible at the period cited in Article 257 in relation to Article 255 of the Civil Code. The appellate court gave weight to the testimonies of some witnesses for the respondents that Corazon Garcia and Ramon Yulo who were still legally married and have not secured legal separation, were seen in each others company during the supposed time that Corazon cohabited with the deceased William Liyao. The appellate court further noted that the birth certificate and the baptismal certificate of William Liyao, Jr. which were presented by petitioner are not sufficient to establish proof of paternity in the absence of any evidence that the deceased, William Liyao, had a hand in the preparation of said certificates and considering that his signature does not appear thereon. The Court of Appeals stated that neither do family pictures constitute competent proof of filiation. With regard to the passbook which was presented as evidence for petitioner, the appellate court observed that there was nothing in it to prove that the same was opened by William Liyao for either petitioner or Corazon Garcia since William Liyaos signature and name do not appear thereon.

Issue:  May petitioner impugn his own legitimacy to be able to claim from the estate of his supposed father, William Liyao?

Held: We deny the present petition.

Under the New Civil Code, a child born and conceived during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate.^[22] The presumption of legitimacy of children does not only flow out from a declaration contained in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded in a policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.^[23]

The presumption of legitimacy of the child, however, is not conclusive and consequently, may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. Hence, Article 255 of the New Civil Code^[24]provides:

Article 255. Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate.

Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the husband having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the child.

This physical impossibility may be caused:

1) By the impotence of the husband;

2) By the fact that husband and wife were living separately in such a way that access was not possible;

3) By the serious illness of the husband.

Petitioner insists that his mother, Corazon Garcia, had been living separately for ten (10) years from her husband, Ramon Yulo, at the time that she cohabited with the late William Liyao and it was physically impossible for her to have sexual relations with Ramon Yulo when petitioner was conceived and born. To bolster his claim, petitioner presented a document entitled, Contract of Separation,^[25] executed and signed by Ramon Yulo indicating a waiver of rights to any and all claims on any property that Corazon Garcia might acquire in the future.^[26]

The fact that Corazon Garcia had been living separately from her husband, Ramon Yulo, at the time petitioner was conceived and born is of no moment. While physical impossibility for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife is one of the grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child, it bears emphasis that the grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child mentioned in Article 255 of the Civil Code may only be invoked by the husband, or in proper cases, his heirs under the conditions set forth under Article 262 of the Civil Code.^[27]Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs for the simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces and he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that infidelity or expose it in view of the moral and economic interest involved.^[28]It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none - even his heirs - can impugn legitimacy; that would amount o an insult to his memory.^[29]

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]

Do the acts of Enrique and Bernadette Yulo, the undisputed children of Corazon Garcia with Ramon Yulo, in testifying for herein petitioner amount to impugnation of the legitimacy of the latter?

We think not. As earlier stated, it is only in exceptional cases that the heirs of the husband are allowed to contest the legitimacy of the child. There is nothing on the records to indicate that Ramon Yulo has already passed away at the time of the birth of the petitioner nor at the time of the initiation of this proceedings. Notably, the case at bar was initiated by petitioner himself through his mother, Corazon Garcia, and not through Enrique and Bernadette Yulo. 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.

Considering the foregoing, we find no reason to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence presented by both parties on the petitioners claim of alleged filiation with the late William Liyao. In any event, there is no clear, competent and positive evidence presented by the petitioner that his alleged father had admitted or recognized his paternity.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45394 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.