In continuation of the previous article discussing the case James Cua Ko v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 210984), the Supreme Court, or SC, also explained that while a putative father’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child must necessarily be dismissed for lack of standing, such dismissal is not without prejudice to the child’s right to establish his/her filiation to his/her father, should he/she wish to do so.
To recall, the case involved a Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child by petitioner James Cua Ko to recognize a minor child, Jamie Shaye, whose birth certificate indicated him as the father.
The SC found that James, not being the husband, has no right under the law to impugn Jamie Shaye’s legitimacy by filing the Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.
The High Court, however, also clarified that while the petition must necessarily be dismissed, such dismissal is not without prejudice to Jamie Shaye’s right to establish her filiation to James, should she wish to do so.
Penned by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the High Court ruled that while the law grants the husband the sole right to impugn his child’s legitimacy, the same child may bring an action to establish that he/she is not filiated to his/her mother’s husband.
The Court cited provisions in the Family Code, which provide that filiation is established in the same manner, whether a child’s parents were married when they had them. According to the SC, the action to establish filiation may be brought during the lifetime of the child, with the right of action transferrable to their heirs should they die during minority or be afflicted with insanity.
In contrast, in the case of establishing “illegitimate filiation,” the action must be brought during the lifetime of the parent if the ground for bringing the action is either the open and continuous possession of status as a nonmarital child or by another means established by law or the Rules of Court.
The SC explained that legitimacy and filiation are two different concepts. This right to establish filiation is consistent with Article 164 of the Family Code and the presumption of legitimacy. The concept of legitimacy is straightforward: it is a civil status established if the person is born during the subsistence of marriage.
According to the SC, filiation, on the other hand, is a relationship, the state of being someone’s offspring, which is determined mainly by biology. The Court emphasized that it may be the law that solely declares who are legitimate children, but in no way can it alter blood relationships.
The Court explained that confusion arises because our legal concept of legitimacy assumes filiation when legitimacy and filiation are two different concepts. To recall, Article 164 of the Family Code provides that “children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.”
The SC noted that while Article 164 of the Family Code assumes: (1) that the child was born during the subsistence of a marriage; and (2) that this subsisting marriage is the marriage of their parents, the reality, however, “is that a child can be born during the subsistence of a marriage, but not necessarily that of their biological parents.”
The High Court cited the case of Concepcion v. Court of Appeals (505 Phil. 529-546, 2004), which explained that children born under similar circumstances would be legitimate, but doubts about their filiation and identity will persist. For this reason, the Court ruled that children should be allowed to establish their filiation as the law allows them, notwithstanding the presumption of legitimacy.
The SC also cited the case of Estate Ong v. Diaz (565 Phil. 215, 2007), where a legitimate child was allowed to establish her filiation to a person, not her mother’s husband. Thus, the High Court ruled that Jamie Shaye should likewise be allowed to establish her filiation to James.
However, the Court stressed that the choice to do so would be hers and hers alone. After all, the Court emphasized that it is her interests that would be affected by such action.
