Republic v. Boquiren

 

Republic v. Boquiren

G.R. No. 250199

February 13, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Oliver and Roselyn Boquiren were born out of wedlock to Oscar and Rosalinda Macaraeg on October 8, 1997 and November 20, 1997, respectively. Their births were registered with the Local Civil Registry on April 16, 2002 then Oscar and Rosalinda got married two days after. The Certificates of Live Birth contain the following annotation: “LATE REGISTRATION, LEGITIMATED BY SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE OF PARENTS on 4-18- 2002 at Mal. Pang.” In 2016, Oliver and Roselyn (the children) filed with the RTC a petition for correction of entries seeking the cancellation of the annotation. RTC ruled that respondents cannot be legitimated because at the time they were born, Oscar had a subsisting marriage with another woman. CA affirmed the RTC’s grant of the petition for correction of entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of respondents Oliver and Roselyn.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the legitimation of children can be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of entries.

 

HELD:

                NO. The legitimation of children can be impugned only in a direct proceeding for that purpose. Under Article 178 of the Family Code, legitimation shall take place by the subsequent valid marriage between the illegitimate child's biological parents who were under no legal impediment to marry at the time of the child's conception. After legitimation, "legitimated" children shall enjoy the same rights as "legitimate" children with its effects retroacting to the time of the child's birth. Legitimation, therefore, equalizes children born out of wedlock with legitimate children and puts a legitimated child completely and fully on equal footing with children born in lawful wedlock. As such, the presumption of legitimacy also applies to a legitimated child in the sense that he or she is considered a product of the lawful marriage of the parents. It stands to reason that, similar to legitimate children, the status of legitimated children cannot be collaterally attacked. The respondent are not the proper parties to impugn their own legitimation. the express provisions of law identify the proper parties who can impugn a child's legitimated status. Article 182 of the Family Code provides that, "Legitimation may be impugned only by those who are prejudiced in their rights, within five years from the time their cause of action accrues." The Court agrees with petitioner's asseveration that respondents cannot claim to be prejudiced parties of their own legitimation consequent to the subsequent marriage of their parents, considering that the legal effect of legitimation is to improve their rights — from those accorded to illegitimate children to those accorded to the legitimate children of their parents. The persons whose rights may be prejudiced under Article 182 of the Family Code and who are given the right to impugn an erroneous legitimation are those who stand to suffer economic or material injury by reason of the improper legitimation, such as the heirs of the parents of legitimated children. It is plain that respondents are not the proper parties contemplated.