Rule 105

RULE 105, 1997 RULES OF COURT
Judicial Approval of
Voluntary Recognition of
Minor Natural Children

RULE 105
Voluntary Recognition – It is an
admission of the fact of paternity or
maternity by the presumed parent,
expressed in the form prescribed by the
Civil Code. Its essence lies in the avowal
of the parent that the child is his; the
formality is added to make the admission
incontestable, in view of the
consequences. (Gapusan Chua vs. CA,
183 SCRA 160)

WITH THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE, WHAT
CHANGES WERE MADE?
Art. 172 of the Family Code- Filiation of
legitimate children is established by any
of the following :
1. The record of birth appearing in a civil
register or a final judgment; or
2. An admission of legitimate filiation in
a public document or a private
document handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned.

RULE 105
In the absence of the foregoing
evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
1. The open and continuous possession
of the status of a legitimate child; or
2. Any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws.

RULE 105
Judicial Approval of Voluntary
Recognition of Minor Natural Children
In effect : Judicial approval of voluntary
recognition is required only where
filiation is proved by :
1. The record of birth appearing in a civil
register or a final judgment; or
2. Any other means allowed by the Rules
of Court and special laws.

RECOGNITION OF NATURAL CHILD :
Only evidence accepted
1. Record of birth
2. Will
3. Statement before court of
record
4. any authentic writing
XXXX

CASE : LIGAYA GAPUSAN-CHUA VS CA, 1990
Facts :
o Felisa Gapusan Parcon died intestate on
April 6, 1966.
oPetitioner Ligaya Gapusan-Chua, claiming
to be an acknowledged natural daughter of
the deceased, instituted judicial proceedings
for the settlement of the latter’s estate.
oThe Court appointed Ligaya as Special
Administratrix of Felisa Parcon’s estate.
oProspero Parcon, Felisa’s surviving
husband denied that Ligaya was an
acknowledged natural child of the deceased
wife.

Facts :
oLigaya presented among other proofs, the
following documents:
a) Felisa’s sworn statement of assets and
liabilities wherein Ligaya was named and
described as daughter of Felisa;
b) Felisa’s application for GSIS life
insurance in which Ligaya is set out as
her daughter;
c) GSIS check in the sum of P505.50 paid to
Ligaya as her share in the death benefits
due the heirs of Felisa;
d) a family photograph, showing Ligaya
beside the deceased.

Responded averred that : petitioner cannot claim
that she was acknowledged as a natural child of the
deceased as she was named by the same a “adopted
daughter” in various documents.
The probate court ruled in favor of Ligaya while the
Court of Appeals set the lower court’s decision aside.

ISSUE :
Whether or not Felisa's sworn
statement of assets and liabilities and her
application for insurance are "authentic
writings" which effectively operated as a
recognition of Ligaya Gapusan-Chua as her
natural child, even if no action was brought
by the latter to compel the former, during
her lifetime, to recognize her as such.

RULING :
Ligaya Gapusan Chua must be held to be a
voluntarily acknowledged natural child of Felisa.

(Cont. )
RULING :
o Recognition of natural children may be voluntary or
compulsory.
Judicial approval is not needed if a recognition is
voluntarily made —1) of a person who is of age, only his
consent being necessary; or2) of a minor whose
acknowledgment is effected in a record of birth or in a will.
o On the other hand, judicial approval is needful if the
recognition of the minor is effected, not through a record of
birth or in a will but through a statement in a court of record
or an authentic document. In any case the individual
recognized can impugn the recognition within four years
following the attainment of his majority.

(Cont. )
RULING :
o Each of these writings is undoubtedly an "authentic writing"
within the contemplation of Article 278. "An authentic writing'
for purposes of voluntary recognition . . . (is) understood as
a genuine or indubitable writing of the father" (or mother),
including "a public instrument" (one acknowledged before a
notary public or other competent official with the formalities
required by law) and, of course, a public or official document
in accordance with Section20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
o The acknowledgment was made in authentic writings , and
hence, conformably with the legal provisions above cited,
judicial approval thereof was needed if the writings had been
executed during Ligaya's minority. In other words, the question
of whether or not the absence of judicial approval negated the
effect of the writings as a mode of recognition of Ligaya is
dependent upon the latter's age at the time the writings were
made.

(Cont. )
RULING :
o The consent required by Article 281 of a person of age who
has been voluntarily recognized may be given expressly or
tacitly. Assuming then that Ligaya was of age at the time of
her voluntary recognition, the evidence shows that she has in
fact consented thereto. Her consent to her recognition is not
only implicit from her failure to impugn it at any time before
her mother's death, but is made clearly manifest and
conclusive by her assertion of that recognition in the
judicial proceeding for the settlement of her
mother's estate as basis for her rights thereto. Assuming on
the other hand, that she was a minor at the time of her
recognition, and therefore judicial approval of the recognition
was necessary, the absence thereof was cured by her
ratification of that recognition, after having reached the age of
majority, by her initiation of the proceedings for the settlement
of her deceased mother's estateon the claim precisely that
she was the decedent's acknowledged natural daughter.

CASE : UYGANGCO VS. CA, 1989
Facts :
Apolinario Uyguangco died intestate in 1975, leaving his
wife, four legitimate children and properties which
theydivided among themselves. Graciano Uyguangco filed
a complaint for partition against the petitioners, claiming
that as the illegitimate son of the deceased and a
Anastacia Bacjao, he must not be left out of the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. He also claims that
he received support from his father while in high school
and was also assigned by his father as storekeeper at the
Uyguangco store. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case
on the ground that Graciano could not prove his alleged
filiation having none of the documents required in Art. 278
of the NCC (i.e. record of birth, a will, a statement before a
court of record or in any authentic writing. Neither may he
resort to Art. 285 of the NCC because he was already an
adult when his alleged dad died.

Facts :
Graciano insists however, that he is ―in
continuous possession of the status of a child of his
alleged father by the direct
acts of the latter or of his family as is under Art. 283 of the
NCC.

ISSUE :
Whether or not Graciano may adequately prove filiation.

HELD :
No .
RATIO : The Civil Code provisions they invoke have been superseded or at least modified by the
corresponding articles nthe FC. Since illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation
in the same way and on the same evidenceas legitimate children (Art 175), Graciano may
establish his filiation by the means given in Art. 172. Thus while he has norecord of birth
appearing in the civil registrar or a final judgment or an admission of legitimate filiation in a
publicdocument or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, he
insists that he has nevertheless
been ―in an open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, which
is admissible as evidence of
filiation under Art. 172.As proof to this open and continuous possession
—
he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, receivedsupport from him, used the
name Uyguangco without objection, a special power of attorney executed in his favor by
Apolinario‘s wife, and another one by Suplcio Uyg
uangco, shared in the profits of the copra family business of the
Uyguangco‘s and was even given a share in his deceased father‘s estate as found in the
addendum to the original
extrajudicial settlement concluded by the petitioners.However, since his father has already died,
his action is now barred as Art. 172 specifically requires that when theaction is based on other
proofs of filiation such as open and continuous possession, the action must be brought duringthe
lifetime of the alleged parent

Rule 105

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Rule 105

More from Vinz Savando

Recently uploaded

Rule 105