The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case where Marissa Benitez-Badua claims to be the biological child and heir of Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez. These articles govern situations where a husband denies paternity of his wife's child, but here Vicente's relatives allege Marissa is not the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. While Marissa presented a birth certificate listing Vicente and Isabel as her parents, the court found the totality of contrary evidence presented by Vicente's relatives showed Isabel did not become pregnant. The court also noted a document where Vicente
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case where Marissa Benitez-Badua claims to be the biological child and heir of Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez. These articles govern situations where a husband denies paternity of his wife's child, but here Vicente's relatives allege Marissa is not the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. While Marissa presented a birth certificate listing Vicente and Isabel as her parents, the court found the totality of contrary evidence presented by Vicente's relatives showed Isabel did not become pregnant. The court also noted a document where Vicente
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case where Marissa Benitez-Badua claims to be the biological child and heir of Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez. These articles govern situations where a husband denies paternity of his wife's child, but here Vicente's relatives allege Marissa is not the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. While Marissa presented a birth certificate listing Vicente and Isabel as her parents, the court found the totality of contrary evidence presented by Vicente's relatives showed Isabel did not become pregnant. The court also noted a document where Vicente
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case where Marissa Benitez-Badua claims to be the biological child and heir of Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian-Benitez. These articles govern situations where a husband denies paternity of his wife's child, but here Vicente's relatives allege Marissa is not the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. While Marissa presented a birth certificate listing Vicente and Isabel as her parents, the court found the totality of contrary evidence presented by Vicente's relatives showed Isabel did not become pregnant. The court also noted a document where Vicente
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
G.R. No.
105625 January 24, 1994 Are Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code applicable in this case? MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA, petitioner, vs. HELD: COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORIA BENITEZ LIRIO AND FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, respondents. No. Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not contemplate a situation, like in the Reynaldo M. Alcantara for petitioner. instant case, where a child is alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain Augustus Cesar E. Azura for private respondents. couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said PUNO, J.: child.
FACTS: As regards the Birth Certificate which lists Marissa
as the child of Isabel and Vicente, the court said Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian- that it is highly questionable and suspicions. Under Benitez owned various properties in Laguna. Isabel Article 410 of the New Civil Code, is states that, died in 1982 while Vicente died in 1989. Vicente "the books making up the Civil Registry and all died intestate. documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence After Vicente’s death, his sister and nephew filed a of the facts therein stated." The totality of contrary case for issuance of letters of administration of evidence presented by the sister and nephew of Vicente's estate. They claim that Isable and Vicente Vicente show that Isabel did not become pregnant were childless and that one Marissa Benitez-Badua as testified to by the witnesses. Also the Deed of who was raised and cared by them since childhood Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the is not their child and was not legally adopted by Deceased Isabel Chipongian executed by Vicente them. himself and by Isabel’s brother, stated that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Isabel Chipongian Marissa opposed the petition and alleged that she because she died without descendants or is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and capable of ascendants". In executing this Deed, Vicente administering his estate. She presented Certificate effectively repudiated the Certificate of Live Birth of of Live Birth, as one of her evidences to prove her Marissa where it appeared that Vicente was claim. Marissa’s father.
The trial court decided in favor of Marissa and Therefore, Marissa’s petition before the Supreme dismissed the petition of Vicente’s sister and Court was dismissed. nephew. The trial court relied on Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code on impugning the legitimacy of the child.
The appellate court reversed the trial court ad held
that Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code are not applicable.
