Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Case Digest Persons

    Uploaded by

    Jack Capo
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of deceased spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. Marissa Benitez-Badua claims she is the legitimate child and sole heir of the spouses. However, the relatives of Vicente argue that the spouses were unable to procreate and that Marissa is not their biological child. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the relatives, finding that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply because the issue is whether Marissa was born to the spouses, not the legitimacy of a child. The Court determines that Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest Persons

    Uploaded by

    Jack Capo
    43 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of deceased spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. Marissa Benitez-Badua claims she is the legitimate child and sole heir of the spouses. However, the relatives of Vicente argue that the spouses were unable to procreate and that Marissa is not their biological child. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the relatives, finding that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply because the issue is whether Marissa was born to the spouses, not the legitimacy of a child. The Court determines that Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses.

    Original Description:

    PFR Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the estate of deceased spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. Marissa Benitez-Badua claims she is the legitimate child and sole heir of the spouses. However, the relatives of Vicente argue that the spouses were unable to procreate and that Marissa is not their biological child. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the relatives, finding that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply because the issue is whether Marissa was born to the spouses, not the legitimacy of a child. The Court determines that Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views3 pages

    Case Digest Persons

    Uploaded by

    Jack Capo
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of deceased spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. Marissa Benitez-Badua claims she is the legitimate child and sole heir of the spouses. However, the relatives of Vicente argue that the spouses were unable to procreate and that Marissa is not their biological child. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the relatives, finding that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply because the issue is whether Marissa was born to the spouses, not the legitimacy of a child. The Court determines that Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    De Asis vs CA

    GR No. 127578, February 15, 1999

    FACTS:
    Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action in
    1988 for maintenance and support against the alleged father Manuel De Asis
    who failed to provide support and maintenance despite repeated demands.
    Vircel later on withdrew the complaint in 1989 for the reason that Manuel
    denied paternity of the said minor and due to such denial, it seems useless to
    pursue the said action. They mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the
    complaint with the condition that Manuel will not pursue his counter claim.
    However in 1995, Vircel filed a similar complaint against the alleged father, this
    time as the minor’s legal guardian/mother. Manuel interposed maxim of res
    judicata for the dismissal of the case. He maintained that since the obligation to
    give support is based on existence of paternity between the child and putative
    parent, lack thereof negates the right to claim support.

    ISSUE:
    WON the minor is barred from action for support.

    HELD:
    The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a
    third person. The original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial
    complaint was in the nature of a compromise regarding future support which is
    prohibited by law. With respect to Manuel’s contention for the lack of filial
    relationship between him and the child and agreement of Vircel in not pursuing
    the original claim, the Court held that existence of lack thereof of any filial
    relationship between parties was not a matter which the parties must decide
    but should be decided by the Court itself. While it is true that in order to claim
    support, filiation or paternity must be first shown between the parties, but the
    presence or lack thereof must be judicially established and declaration is vested
    in the Court. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties. Hence,
    the first dismissal cannot bar the filing of another action asking for the same relief
    (no force and effect). Furthermore, the defense of res judicata claimed by
    Manuel was untenable since future support cannot be the subject of any
    compromise or waiver.
    De Asis vs CA
    GR No. 127578, February 15, 1999

    FACTS:
    Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian had various properties. They
    both died intestate. The special proceedings for administration of the properties
    were filed with the trial court. Vicente's sister Victoria B. Lirio filed for issuance of
    letters of administration in favor of the nephew. Marissa opposed the petition,
    saying that she is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and that she is capable of
    administering his estate. She submitted the pieces of documentary evidence
    and testified that the spouses treated her as their own daughter. The relatives of
    Vicente tried to prove through testimonial evidence, that the spouses failed to
    beget a child during their marriage. Victoria categorically declared that Marissa
    was not the biological child of the spouses who were unable to physically
    procreate.

    Trial court relied on Arts. 166 and 170 of the Family Code and ruled in favor of
    Marissa. On appeal, the CA reversed the lower court decision and declared
    Marissa Benitez-Badua is not the biological child of the late spouses.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Marissa Benitez-Badua is the legitimate child and the sole heir of
    the late spouses.

    HELD:
    No. The SC find no merit to the petition.

    Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case
    at bar. The above provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is
    alleged not to be the biological child of a certain couple.

    In Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of the child by:
    (1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual intercourse, with his wife
    within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of
    the child;
    (2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been
    his child;
    (3) that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written
    authorization or ratification by either parent was obtained through mistake,
    fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence.

    Articles 170 and 171 speak of the prescription period within which the husband
    or any of his heirs should file an action impugning the legitimacy of the child. In
    this case, it is not where the heirs of the late Vicente are contending that Marissa
    is not his child or a child by Isabel, but they are contending that Marissa was not
    born to Vicente and Isabel.

    Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses. Marissa's Certificate of
    Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate
    of the late Isabel by Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole
    heirs of the estate.

    You might also like