Persons and Family Relations

Filiation
James Cua Ko V Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 210984, April 12, 2023

In 2003, Shalimar Abellera filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Kerwin Cruz. In the course of the trial, she admitted that they have been separated since 1999.
During the pendency of the petition she gave birth to a baby girl named Jamie Shaye, in her birth
certificate it is indicated that her father is James Cua Ko. James executed an Affidavit of
Acknowledgement/Admission to support the entry of his name in Jamie Shaye’s birth certificate.
In 2006 Shalimar’s marriage to Kerwin was voided by RTC Paranaque and subsequently in 2008
Jamie Shaye’s surname was changed from “Punzalan” to “Ko” in the local civil registrar. James
filed a petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child before
the RTC “to secure the best interest of Jamie Shaye” but such was denied, he then filed an appeal
to the CA to which the latter also denied the petition and upheld the decision of the trial court
saying that Jamie Shaye having been born during a valid marriage, is a legitimate child whose
status as such is more favorable to her, to grant the petition was for the CA to impugn a favorable
status to the detriment of Jamie Shaye.
Did the CA erred in denying the Jame’s petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary
Recognition of a Minor Natural Child for being contrary to the presumption of legitimacy and
the best interest of the child rule?

The CA was correct in denying the petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary
Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.
Article 146 of the Family Code provides that “children conceived or born during the
marriage are legitimate”. This means that legitimacy as a status attaches once when a person is
born within wedlock. There is no dispute that Jamie Shaye was born before the marriage between
Shalimar and Kerwin was voided. She is therefore deemed born within wedlock, and is
considered a legitimate child.
The presumption of legitimacy was expounded in Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, where
the child was declared legitimate by virtue of the mother's first marriage, this despite the
mother's declaration that her child was not fathered by her first husband. In that case, this Court
prohibited the putative father from impugning the legitimacy of the child because he is not the
husband allowed by law to do so.
 Similar to the chiId in Concepcion, Jamie Shaye retains her legitimate status despite the
entries in her birth certificate and the declaration of her mother, Shalimar, that her father is not
Kerwin but petitioner. Furthermore, not being the husband, petitioner has no right under the law
to impugn Jamie Shaye's legitimacy by filing the Petition for voluntary recognition. Hence, the
Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner's Petition.
Obligations and Contracts
Novation
Buyayo Aliguyon V Jeffrey Dummang, Johnny Dummang, Minda Dummang and Donato
Dummang
G.R. No. 259469 , August 30,2023

Buyayo is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva
Viscaya covered by OCT No. P-10995. He averred that in 1968, he allowed Kiligge Dummang,
the father of the Jeffrey, Johnny and Donato Dummang, to occupy a portion of the land covered
by OCT No. P-10995. After some time the Dummang’s left the property. Later on the
Dummang’s returned and asked from, Robert, the son of Buyayo, for permission to occupy a
one-hectare portion of the property. They were permitted by Robert to do so but nonetheless
Buyayo was not present to give his permission. Buyayo claimed that he only learned of the
agreement between his son and the Dummang’s when the latter sued Robert for breach of
contract to convey a one-hectare portion of the land as payment for Robert’s alleged
indebtedness. Buyayo instituted a complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages.
In their answer the Dummang’s narrated that in 1983, Robert received 72 grams of gold
from Jeffrey and promised to return the same quantity and quality of gold within a reasonable
time. However, despite repeated demand, Robert failed to return the gold. When Jeffrey went to
collect from Robert, Buyayo offered to give the subject land (one-hectare) as payment for
Robert’s indebtedness provided that Jeffrey would give an additional P8,000. Jeffrey agreed but
asked for some time to produce the amount. In April or May 1986, the agreement was settled in
the presence of elders of the Twali-Ifugao tribe. Likewise, the metes and bounds of the area were
established and Dummang, et al., have been in possession of the one-hectare portion of the
subject land since then. Jeffrey, who is illiterate and served as the father of his siblings, now
occupies the subject land in the concept of an owner with his siblings Donato, Johnny, and
Johnny's wife, Minda Dummang (Minda).
A written agreement was prepared by a member of the council, Josephine
Ansibey (Ansibey), and the money was handed to Buyayo. Allegedly, the document evidencing
the agreement was lost. Thereafter, Jeffrey filed a Complaint with the barangay to compel the
segregation of the subject land from the rest of OCT No. P-10995, but the conciliation
proceedings failed.
The RTC held that while Robert was not the owner of the property and could not, alienate
it on his own, it was actually Buyayo who sold the property to Dummang, et al. The RTC found
that Buyayo bound himself to give the creditors of his son a one-hectare portion of his own
property in exchange for the extinguishment of his son's debt and an additional
PHP8,000.00. The RTC likewise determined that Buyayo had no cause of action against
Dummang, et al., because he failed to act on his claim that he did not consent to give the one-
hectare portion of the subject land as payment for the debt of Robert since the time Dummang, et
al., took possession of the subject property in 1986. For the RTC, Buyayo slept on his rights and
allowed Dummang, et al., to possess the property exclusively, peacefully, and publicly in the
concept of an owner. In its decision the RTC dismissed the complaint of Buyayo and ruled in
favor of the Dummang’s counterclaim and ordered Buyayo to convey a proper deed for the one-
hectare parcel of land.
Petitioner appealed to the CA but the same was denied. The CA held that Buyayo failed
to prove his title over the one-hectare portion of the subject land. From the testimonies adduced
during trial, the CA found that Robert failed to return the 72 grams of gold he borrowed from
Jeffrey. Buyayo agreed to convey the subject land in favor of Dummang, et al., to extinguish his
son's debt. The CA further held that there was novation when the contract of loan between
Robert and Jeffrey was modified into a contract of sale between Buyayo and Jeffrey due to the
agreement of Buyayo, Robert, and Jeffrey in 1986 to substitute the debtor. The CA explained that
Buyayo substituted the person of the debtor and changed the object of the obligation. Despite
being a third party to Robert's loan, Buyayo took it upon himself to sell the subject land to
Jeffrey to extinguish Robert's obligation to return the gold.
Did the CA erred in declaring that there was a valid novation on the contract between
Buyayo and Dummang.
There was a valid novation when Buyayo assumed the debt of the original debtor, Robert.
Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation through its modification and
replacement by a subsequent one. An obligation may be modified by: (1) changing its object or
principal conditions; (2) substituting the person of the debtor; or (3) subrogating a third person in
the rights of the creditor. In any of the enumerated instances, "the obligation ceases to exist as a
new one — bearing the modifications agreed upon — takes its place.
Novation of an obligation through the substitution of the person of the debtor releases the
debtor from the original obligation. However, in order to validly effect the novation, the debtor
cannot merely assign their debt to a third person, or the latter cannot simply assume the debt of
the former. Article 1293 of the Civil Code requires that the creditor must consent to the
substitution, as stated below:
Article 1293. Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the
original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not
without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned
in Articles 1236 and 1237.
 Substitution of the debtor may take place with or without the knowledge of the debtor but
consent of the creditor is always required. If done without the knowledge of the debtor,
the novation effected is called expromision. On the other hand, if substitution takes place when
the debtor offers and the creditor accepts a third party who assumes the obligation of the debt,
this is called delegacion.
In the present case, while no written agreement was presented to prove the intention of
the parties to substitute Buyayo as the new debtor in the obligation originally obtained by Robert,
it is clear from the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties that novation of the original
agreement to return the gold that Roberto took from Dummang, et al., was the objective of the
parties. To recall, Jeffrey gave the additional payment for the portion of the subject land and this
was accepted by Buyayo. Dummang, et al., were allowed to take possession of and introduce
improvements on the subject land. The subsequent agreement, which involved Buyayo
conveying a one-hectare portion of the land covered by OCT No. P-10995 in exchange for the
extinguishment of Robert's obligation and PHP8,000.00, is incompatible and inconsistent with
Robert's original obligation. Thus, novation was established.