dela cruz vs gracia digest

8/16/2019 Dela Cruz vs Gracia Digest

1/4

G.R. No. 177728 July 31, 2009

JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ and m no! C"RIS#IAN DELA CRUZ $A%UIN&,$ !'(!')'n*'d +yJENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ, Petitioners,vs.R&NALD AUL S. GRACIA, n - ) a(a *y a) C *y C / l R' )*!a! o An* (olo C *y, Respondent.

D&C#RINE

In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rulesrespecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any privatehandwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

! "here the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence su#mitted to provefiliation, there should #e strict compliance with the requirement that the same must #e signed#y the acknowledging parent$ and

%! "here the private handwritten instrument is accompanied #y other relevant and competentevidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein #e shown to have #een made andhandwritten #y the acknowledging parent as it is merely corro#orative of such other evidence.

&ur laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall #e the 'paramount consideration' in resolvingquestions affecting him. %%

AC#S

(or several months in %))*, the petitioner, +enie an +uan -ela Cru /+enie!, and Christian-ominique to 0omas 1quino /-ominique! lived together as a couple without the #enefit of marriage.0hey resided in the house of -ominique2s parents at Pulang3lupa, -ulum#ayan, 0eresa, Ri al.

&n eptem#er 4, %))*, -ominique died. &n 5ovem#er %, %))*, +enie, who continued to live with-ominique2s parents, gave #irth to her herein co3petitioner minor child Christian -ela Cru '1quino' atthe 1ntipolo -octors 6ospital, 1ntipolo City.

+enie applied for registration of the child2s #irth, using -ominique2s surname 1quino, with the &ffice of the City Civil Registrar, 1ntipolo City, in support of which she su#mitted the child2s Certificate of 7ive8irth, % 1ffidavit to 9se the urname of the (ather /19 (! which she had executed and signed, and

1ffidavit of 1cknowledgment executed #y -ominique2s father. 4 8oth affidavits attested that during thelifetime of -ominique, he had continuously acknowledged his yet un#orn child, and that his paternityhad never #een questioned. +enie attached to the 19 ( a document entitled '190&8I&;R1P6


2/4

I2> C6RI 0I15 -&>I5I=9? 0&. 0&>1 1=9I5&, @


3/4

"6?06?R &R 5&0 06? 95 I;5?- 615-"RI00?5 010?>?50 &( 06? -?C?1 ?- (106?R&( >I5&R C6RI 0I15 -?71 CR9A C15 8? C&5 I-?R?- 1 1 R?C&;5I0I&5 &(P10?R5I0< I5 1 'PRIB10? 615-"RI00?5 I5 0R9>?50' "I06I5 06? C&50?>P710I&5 &(

1R0IC7? D &( 06? (1>I7< C&-?, 1 1>?5-?- 8< R.1. @%**, "6IC6 ?50I07? 06? 1I->I5&R 0& 9 ? 6I (106?R2 9R51>?

RULING

ES . 1rticle D of the (amily Code, as amended #y R.1. @%**, permits an illegitimate child to usethe surname of hisFher father if the latter had expressly recogni ed himFher as his offspring throughthe record of #irth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission made in a pu#lic or privatehandwritten instrument. 0he recognition made in any of these documents is, in itself, a consummatedact of acknowledgment of the child2s paternity$ hence, no separate action for Gudicial approval isnecessary. @

1rticle D of the (amily Code, as amended, does not, indeed, explicitly state that the privatehandwritten instrument acknowledging the child2s paternity must #e signed #y the putative father. 0hisprovision must, however, #e read in conGunction with related provisions of the (amily Code whichrequire that recognition #y the father must #ear his signature, thus:

1rt. D*. Illegitimate children may esta#lish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the sameevidence as legitimate children.

x x x x

1rt. D%. 0he filiation of legitimate children is esta#lished #y any of the following:

/ ! 0he record of #irth appearing in the civil register or a final Gudgment$ or

/%! 1n admission of legitimate filiation in a pu#lic document or a private handwritteninstrument and ) n'd #y the parent concerned.

x x x x /?mphasis and underscoring supplied!

0hat a father who acknowledges paternity of a child through a written instrument must affix hissignature thereon is clearly implied in 1rticle D of the (amily Code. Paragraph %.%, Rule % of 1.&.5o. , eries of %))4, merely articulated such requirement$ it did not 'unduly expand' the import of

1rticle D as claimed #y petitioners.

In the present case, however, special circumstances exist to hold that -ominique2s 1uto#iography,though unsigned #y him, su#stantially satisfies the requirement of the law.

(irst, -ominique died a#out two months prior to the child2s #irth. econd, the relevant matters in the 1uto#iography, unquestiona#ly handwritten #y -ominique, correspond to the facts culled from thetestimonial evidence +enie proffered. %) 0hird, +enie2s testimony is corro#orated #y the 1ffidavit of

1cknowledgment of -ominique2s father -omingo 1quino and testimony of his #rother +oseph 8utch 1quino whose hereditary rights could #e affected #y the registration of the questioned recognition of

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_177728_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_177728_2009.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_177728_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_177728_2009.html#fnt20


4/4

the child. 0hese circumstances indicating -ominique2s paternity of the child give life to his statementsin his 1uto#iography that '+?5I? -?71 CR9A' is '>

dela cruz vs gracia digest

Documents