1. Gerardo B. Concepcion v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 123450, 31 August 2005)
Facts: The petitioner’s marriage to respondent was annulled on the ground of bigamy. The trial court declared their common child as illegitimate on the theory that the marriage was void from the beginning. The child’s legitimacy and the ability of the petitioner and/or the mother to contest that legitimacy were principal issues.
Issue: Can a child born during the subsistence of a marriage be declared illegitimate by the mother’s admission that the child was conceived with her lover, or by the putative father?
Held: No. The Supreme Court affirmed that a child born during the existence of a valid marriage is legitimate as a matter of law, irrespective of the circumstances of conception or the mother’s own declaration.
Ratio Decidendi:
Article 164 & 167, Family Code: A child conceived or born during marriage is legitimate, and that legitimacy cannot be negated by a mother’s declaration or even by proof that the mother committed adultery.
The presumption of legitimacy is grounded in public policy and the best interest of the child, recognizing the social and moral harms of stigma and legal disadvantage.
Only the husband (or, in exceptional case, his heirs) may directly impugn the legitimacy of such a child within the statutory period and on specifically enumerated grounds (e.g., physical impossibility of intercourse).
Neither the mother nor a putative father may unilaterally strip a legitimate child of that status by extra‑judicial declaration.
Significance: This decision is foundational in Philippine family law and bar review for affirming the irrebuttable protection afforded legitimate children against invalid third‑party attacks on their status, even in the face of adultery. It underscores that legitimacy is a legal status determined by law, not parental admission.
2. Estate of Ong v. Minor Diaz (565 Phil. 225, 2007)
Facts: Involved the legitimacy and filiation of a child born during the subsistence of the mother’s valid marriage, and whether the child could prove biologically she was fathered by someone other than the husband.
Issue: Whether Article 167’s presumption of legitimacy precludes all inquiry into biological filiation.
Held: While the child remains legitimate for all legal purposes, the Supreme Court allowed that biological filiation may be established by appropriate evidence (e.g., DNA) to compel recognition by a putative father’s estate for support.
Ratio Decidendi:
Legitimacy under Article 164 & 167 is a civil status, not a definitive biological fact, and the law strongly protects the legal status irrespective of adulterous conception.
Filiation (biological parentage) may be separately proven without depriving the child of their legitimate status; the law distinguishes between civil status and biological identity.
The best interest of the child supports protecting legitimacy while not foreclosing a child’s right to establish biological origins and enforce support.
Significance: Estate of Ong refines the doctrine by preserving the legal legitimacy conferred by Article 167 while permitting evidence of biological filiation — a nuanced jurisprudential balance between legal status and biological truth.
3. Ko v. Republic of the Philippines (940 Phil. 53, 12 April 2023)
Facts: Addressed a collateral question regarding legitimacy versus filiation and the aversion to collateral attacks on a child’s status, especially where a marriage was later voided — but the child had been born during its subsistence.
Issue: Whether Article 167 protects legitimacy even when a child was born under a marriage later annulled or voided.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a child born during the subsistence of a marriage is legitimate under the law and that legitimacy attaches upon birth, as a status protected against collateral attack.
Ratio Decidendi:
The presumption of legitimacy under Article 167 cannot be easily circumvented by collateral attack; legitimacy is a legal status that attaches at birth if the child is born during marriage.
The distinction between legitimacy and filiation is emphasized: the former is civil status under Family Code provisions like Articles 164 and 167, while the latter concerns biological descent and may be addressed in separate proceedings.
The best interest of the child and policy against social stigma underpin this protective presumption.
Significance: Ko v. Republic is the most recent comprehensive affirmation of the Article 167 doctrine; it underlines the enduring judicial policy that protects a child’s legitimate status from collateral undermining, even where subsequent legal events (e.g., nullity of marriage) might raise questions about biological parentage.
Synthesis: Civil Law Doctrine on Legitimacy (Article 167, Family Code)
1. Presumption of Legitimacy: A child conceived or born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is presumed legitimate under Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code, and this presumption is strongly favored by public policy and the best interest of the child.
2. Mother’s Declaration / Adultery Not Conclusive: A mother’s declaration against legitimacy or even her conviction as an adulteress cannot, by itself, strip the child of legitimate status. The law treats legitimacy as a civil status determined by statute, not by parental assertion.
3. Who May Impugn Legitimacy: Only the husband (or, in exceptional circumstances, his heirs) may directly impugn the legitimacy of a child born in marriage and within the prescribed period, and only on statutory grounds (e.g., physical impossibility of access). Other parties, including the putative father or the mother herself, lack standing to cause deprivation of legitimacy.
4. Distinguishing Legitimacy and Filiation: Legitimacy is a protected civil status, while filiation (biological parentage) may be separately litigated without depriving the child of their legitimate status.
Bar Review and Policy Implications
Key Rule: “Legitimacy” is conferred by law upon birth in wedlock; the statute creates a force‑field favoring legitimacy against collateral attacks.
Best Interests of the Child: The jurisprudence reflects a consistent best interest of the child policy, protective of status, heritage, surname, support, and inheritance, irrespective of parental conduct.
Limited Grounds for Disproof: Direct actions to impugn legitimacy are narrowly circumscribed and subject to strict time limitations to uphold certainty in civil status assignments.
---
Assisted by ChatGPT, January 1, 2025.