Richelle Busque Ordoña Vs.
The Local Civil Registrar of Pasig
City and Allan D. Fulgueras
G.R. No. 215370. November 9, 2021
FACTS:
Petitioner Richelle Ordoñ a and her husband Ariel were separated-in-fact. Petitioner
then met Allan Fulgueras. She and Allan engaged in an intimate relationship where she got
pregnant. On January 26, 2010, petitioner gave birth to a son. In the Certificate of Live
Birth, the child was given the name “Alrich Paul Ordona Fulgueras” with "Allan Demen
Fulgueras" as the purported father.
Thus, on September 7, 2011, petitioner filed before the RTC the Rule 108 petition
seeking the following corrections: (1) change of last name of Alrich Paul in Item No. 1 from
"Fulgueras" to "Ordona," petitioner's maiden name; and (2) deletion of entries in the
paternal. She alleged that it was not Allan who signed the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/
Admission of Paternity attached to the Certificate of Live Birth considering that Allan was
not in the Philippines when she gave birth to Alrich Paul.
ISSUE:
Who can impugn the child’s legitimacy?
RULING:
Petitioner is barred from impugning Alrich Paul's presumed legitimacy considering
the prohibition under Article 167 of the Family Code. Article 167 provides that "[t]he child
shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress." To elucidate, the presumption of
legitimacy under Article 164 of the Family Code is not conclusive. It may be disputed based
on the grounds and manner provided under Articles 166, 170, and 171 of the same law.
Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within
one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the husband
or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality where the birth
took place or was recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as defined in
the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should
reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been
concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be counted
from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of registration of said
birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)
Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the
period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:
(1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing
his action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted
therefrom; or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)
Petitioner's declaration in the birth certificate and in the Rule 108 petition that
Alrich Paul is illegitimate cannot be countenanced as it runs counter to Article 167 of the
Family Code. The presumption that Alrich Paul is legitimate stands in the absence of a
direct action timely filed by the proper party.
As a result, there is now an absurd and unremedied situation that Alrich Paul
remains to be illegitimate in the birth certificate and will use the surname of Allan while
possessing, at the same time, a legitimate status, one that is conferred on him by law. Giving
clarity to Alrich Paul's situation is attended by a scarcity of remedies. First, the mother who
was in a valid and subsisting marriage at the time of conception or giving birth to her child
is prohibited under Article 167 of the Family Code from impugning the legitimacy of her
child. The proscription remains even if the mother is an estranged wife. Second, the child
who was conceived or born during a valid and existing marriage has no right to impugn his
own legitimacy under the Family Code. He cannot choose his own filiation. Third, it is only
the father, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, who may impugn the child's
legitimacy on grounds provided under Article 166 of the Family Code within the periods
provided under Article 170 in relation to Article 171 of the Family Code. Upon the
expiration of the periods, the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and can
no longer be questioned.
The hands of the Court are tied as it may only entertain the impugnation of a child's
presumed legitimacy in a direct action filed by the proper party and within the prescribed
period under the law.
However, with the current state of the laws, an illegitimate child's true filiation may
never be recognized by law because the husband, who is already living separately from the
wife, may have no interest in filing the appropriate action even if he knows that his wife
gave birth to a child with another man.
* Case digest by April Rose B. Regañon, JD-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2022-2023.
