In a recently decided case involving a putative father’s petition to recognize a minor child whose birth certificate indicated him as the father, the Supreme Court expressly ruled that “while the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.”
The recently decided case of James Cua Ko v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 210984) 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.
In 2003, Shalimar Abellera filed a petition for a declaration of nullity of her marriage with Kerwin Cruz Par. In 2004, while the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was still pending in court, Shalimar gave birth to a baby girl named “Jamie Shaye.”
In Jamie Shaye’s certificate of live birth, Shalimar indicated “James Cua Ko” as the name of Jamie Shaye’s father. James executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgement/Admission to support the entry of his name in Jamie Shaye’s certificate of live birth.
Eventually, in 2006, Shalimar’s marriage to Kerwin was voided by the regional trial court. Two years later, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Muntinlupa City changed Jamie Shaye’s surname in her certificate of live birth from “Punzalan” to “Ko.”
James subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child before the trial court “to secure the best interest of Jamie Shaye.” However, the trial court denied the petition.
This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that Jamie Shaye, having been born during a valid marriage between Abellera and Par, is a legitimate child whose status as such is more favorable to her.
When the case reached the SC, the High Court, penned by Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, ruled that the CA was correct in denying James’ Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.
The SC cited Article 164 of the Family Code, which provides that children conceived or born during the marriage are legitimate. Such presumption of legitimacy is for the child’s best interest, said the Court. According to the SC, this means that legitimacy attaches once a person is born within wedlock.
Here, the SC found no dispute that Jamie Shaye was born before the marriage between her mother, Shalimar, and Kerwin was declared void. Thus, Jamie Shaye is considered a legitimate child since she was born during the marriage between Abellera and Par.
The High Court further explained that Article 170 of the Family Code requires direct action to challenge a child’s legitimacy. Thus, to grant James’ Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child would, in effect, collaterally attack Jamie Shaye’s legitimate status, contrary to Article 170.
The same provision of the Family Code also states that only the husband and, in some instances, his heirs can bring such direct action only on specified grounds. In fact, the SC explained that even the mother is legally prohibited from declaring against her child’s legitimacy.
The Court also cited the case of Concepcion v. Court of Appeals (505 Php. 529, 2005), where the child was declared legitimate by virtue of the mother’s first marriage, despite the mother’s declaration that her child was not fathered by her first husband.
In that case, the SC explained that it prohibited the putative father from impugning the legitimacy of the child because he is not the husband allowed by law to do so.
Applying the case of Concepcion, the SC held that Jamie Shaye retains her legitimate status despite the entries in her birth certificate and her mother’s declaration that her father is not Kerwin but James.
The SC also 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.
