Tags: Paternity and Filiation > Illegitimate Children > Proof of Filiation
Facts:
Petitioners, the legitimate children, opposed the complaint for compulsory recognition by respondent Antonia and alleged sister Evelyn, on the ground that the advent of the Family Code on Aug 1988 caused the prescription of their claim as illegitimate children. On March 7, 1983, respondent Antionia filed for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights, represented by their father. Petitioners opposed on the said ground, arguing that, “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.”
Issue:
Whether or not the Family Code may be given a retroactive effect so as to deprive private respondent of her right to institute the case for compulsory recognition
Ruling:
No. The action brought by private respondent Antonia was filed prior to the advent of the Family Code (1983), must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The right was vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the Civil Code. the fact that it was brought when the putative father was already deceased, since private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed, an exception to the general rule provided under Article 285 of the Civil Code.
Difference with Uyguanco: Respondent was a minor when case was filed.
Old Civil Code 285 No longer available 172 in Family Code – an illegitimate child can no longer claim filiation
English