Bernabe vs Alejo (2002)

Bernabe vs Alejo (2002)
G.R. No. 140500 | 2002-01-21
374 SCRA 180-191

Doctrines:

1.) Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent.

2.) The Family Code provides the caveat that rights that have already vested prior to its enactment should not be prejudiced or impaired.

3.) The rules on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment of natural children, as well as the prescriptive period for filing such action, may likewise be applied to spurious children.

4.) The Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights. (Jison vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495 [1998])

5.) The right to seek recognition granted by the Civil Code to illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect cannot be impaired or taken away. The minors have up to four years from attaining majority age within which to file an action for recognition.

 

Facts:

The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with Carolina Alejo, his secretary of 23 years. The son Adrian Bernabe was born on September 18, 1981.

Fiscal Bernabe and his wife Rosalina both died in 1993 leaving petitioner Ernestina as the sole surviving heir.

On May 16, 1994, Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed a complaint for recognition in the RTC praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and as such he be given his share in Fiscal Bernabe's estate.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, holding that the death of the putative father had barred the action under Article 175 of the Family Code. The trial court added that since the putative father had not acknowledged Adrian Bernabe in writing, the action for recognition should have been filed during the lifetime of the alleged father to give him the opportunity to either affirm or deny the child's filiation.

The Court of Appeals ruled that since Adrian was born in 1981, his rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child has attained the age of majority. The subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away that right.

Hence, this petition.

 

ISSUES:

(1) WON respondent is barred from filing an action for recognition. - NO

(2) WON the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from the attainment of minority to file an action for recognition as provided in Art. 285 of the Civil Code, in complete disregard of its repeal by the [express] provisions of the Family Code and the applicable jurisprudence as held by the Honorable Court of Appeals. – YES.

(3) WON Article 285 as petitioner contends, cannot be availed of by respondent, because at the time of his conception, his parents were impeded from marrying each other. In other words, he is not a natural child. - NO

(4) WON the petition for certiorari filed by the petition[er] is fatally defective for failure to implead the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents. - NO

 

Held:

(1). NO

Illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect and whose putative parent died during their minority are given the right to seek recognition (under Article 285 of the Civil Code) for a period of up to four years from attaining majority age. This vested right was not impaired or taken away by the passage of the Family Code.

Period to File Action for Recognition

Article 285 of the Civil Code provides the period for filing an action for recognition as follows:

ART. 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:

(1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority;

(2) xxx

Notably, the two exceptions provided under the Civil Code have been omitted by Articles 172, 173 and 175 of the Family Code.

Under the Family Code, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. The Family Code makes no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus, the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute the claim, considering that "illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their existence. x x x The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child's filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.

 

(2) NO.

Retroactive Application of the Family Code (Non-Impairment of Vested Rights)

A caveat is provided under Article 255 of the Family Code which states that, “This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws."

A vested right is defined as "one which is absolute, complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency.”

Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, as it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. Therefore, the Family Code cannot impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment. Born in 1981, Adrian was only seven years old when the Family Code took effect and only twelve when his alleged father died in 1993.

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer. This is distinguished from the adjective or remedial (procedural) law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion.

 

(3) NO.

Natural Children vs Spurious Children

A "natural child" is one whose parents, at the time of conception, were not disqualified by any legal impediment from marrying each other.

Spurious children, or illegitimate children other than natural children, commonly known as bastards, include those adulterous children or those born out of wedlock to a married woman cohabiting with a man other than her husband or to a married man cohabiting with a woman other than his wife.

Petitioner contends that Article 285 of the Civil Code refers to the action for recognition of "natural" children. Hence, the provision cannot be availed of by Adrian, because at the time of his conception, his parents were impeded from marrying each other. In other words, he is not a natural child, but a spurious child.

Under the Civil Code, natural children have superior successional rights over spurious ones. However, the law treats them as equals with respect to other rights, including the right to recognition granted by Article 285. In the earlier case Divinagracia v. Rovira, the Court said that the rules on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment of natural children, as well as the prescriptive period for filing such action (for recognition), may likewise be applied to spurious children.

 

(4) NO.

Under Section 4 (a) of Rule 45 of the current Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead “the lower courts or judges x x x either as petitioners or respondents.” Under Section 3, however, the lower tribunal should still be furnished a copy of the petition. Hence, the failure of petitioner to implead the Court of Appeals as a party is not a reversible error; it is in fact the correct procedure.