G.R. No. 105625 January 24, 1994 xxx xxx xxx Certificate of Live Birth (Exh.

x Certificate of Live Birth (Exh. 3); (2) Baptismal

Certificate (Exh. 4); (3) Income Tax Returns and
MARISSA BENITEZ-BADUA, petitioner, 4. The decedent is survived by no Information Sheet for Membership with the
vs. other heirs or relatives be they GSIS of the late Vicente naming her as his
COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORIA ascendants or descendants, daughter (Exhs. 10 to 21); and (4) School
BENITEZ LIRIO AND FEODOR BENITEZ whether legitimate, illegitimate Records (Exhs. 5 & 6). She also testified that the
AGUILAR, respondents. or legally adopted; despite claims said spouses reared an continuously treated her
or representation to the contrary, as their legitimate daughter. On the other hand,
Reynaldo M. Alcantara for petitioner. petitioners can well and truly private respondents tried to prove, mostly thru
establish, given the chance to do testimonial evidence, that the said spouses failed
Augustus Cesar E. Azura for private so, that said decedent and his to beget a child during their marriage; that the
respondents. spouse Isabel Chipongian who late Isabel, then thirty six (36) years of age, was
pre-deceased him, and whose even referred to Dr. Constantino Manahan, a
estate had earlier been settled noted obstetrician-gynecologist, for treatment.
extra-judicial, were without issue Their primary witness, Victoria Benitez-Lirio,
PUNO, J.: and/or without descendants elder sister of the late Vicente, then 77 years of
whatsoever, and that one Marissa age,2 categorically declared that petitioner was
This is a petition for review of the Decision of Benitez-Badua who was raised not the biological child of the said spouses who
the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals in CA- and cared by them since were unable to physically procreate.
G.R. No. CV No. 30862 dated May 29, 1992.1 childhood is, in fact, not related to RTC
them by blood, nor legally On December 17, 1990, the trial court decided in
The facts show that the spouses Vicente Benitez adopted, and is therefore not a favor of the petitioner. It dismissed the private
and Isabel Chipongian owned various properties legal heir; . . . respondents petition for letters and
especially in Laguna. Isabel died on April 25, administration and declared petitioner as the
1982. Vicente followed her in the grave on On November 2, 1990, petitioner opposed the legitimate daughter and sole heir of the spouses
November 13, 1989. He died intestate. petition. She alleged that she is the sole heir of Vicente O. Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. The
the deceased Vicente Benitez and capable of trial court relied on Articles 166 and 170 of the
The fight for administration of Vicente's estate administering his estate. The parties further Family Code.
ensued. On September 24, 1990, private exchanged reply and rejoinder to buttress their CA
respondents Victoria Benitez-Lirio and Feodor legal postures. On appeal, however, the Decision of the trial
Benitez Aguilar (Vicente's sister and nephew, court was reversed on May 29, 1992 by the 17th
respectively) instituted Sp. Proc. No. 797 (90) The trial court then received evidence on the Division of the Court of Appeals. The dispositive
before the RTC of San Pablo City, 4th Judicial issue of petitioner's heirship to the estate of the portion of the Decision of the appellate court
Region, Br. 30. They prayed for the issuance of deceased. Petitioner tried to prove that she is the states:
letters of administration of Vicente's estate in only legitimate child of the spouses Vicente
favor of private respondent Aguilar. They Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. She submitted WHEREFORE, the decision
alleged, inter alia, viz.: documentary evidence, among others: (1) her appealed from herein is
 REVERSED and another one Family Code in this case and in Art. 164. Children conceived or
entered declaring that appellee adopting and upholding private born during the marriage of the
Marissa Benitez is not the respondent's theory that the parents are legitimate.
biological daughter or child by instant case does not involve an
nature of the spouse Vicente O. action to impugn the legitimacy Children conceived as a result of
Benitez and Isabel Chipongian of a child; artificial insemination of the wife
and, therefore, not a legal heir of with sperm of the husband or that
the deceased Vicente O. Benitez. 2. Assuming arguendo that of a donor or both are likewise
Her opposition to the petition for private respondents can question legitimate children of the husband
the appointment of an or impugn directly or indirectly, and his wife, provided, that both
administrator of the intestate of the legitimacy of Marissa's birth, of them authorized or ratified
the deceased Vicente O. Benitez still the respondent appellate such insemination in a written
is, consequently, DENIED; said Court committed grave abuse of instrument executed and signed
petition and the proceedings discretion when it gave more by them before the birth of the
already conducted therein weight to the testimonial child. The instrument shall be
reinstated; and the lower court is evidence of witnesses of private recorded in the civil registry
directed to proceed with the respondents whose credibility together with the birth certificate
hearing of Special proceeding and demeanor have not convinced of the child.
No. SP-797 (90) in accordance the trial court of the truth and
with law and the Rules. sincerity thereof, than the Art. 166. Legitimacy of child may
documentary and testimonial be impugned only on the
Costs against appellee. evidence of the now petitioner following grounds:
Marissa Benitez-Badua;
SO ORDERED. 1) That it was physically
3. The Honorable Court of impossible for the husband to
In juxtaposition, the appellate court held that the Appeals has decided the case in a have sexual intercourse with his
trial court erred in applying Articles 166 and 170 way not in accord with law or wife within the first 120 days of
of the Family Code. with applicable decisions of the the 300 days which immediately
supreme Court, more particularly, preceded the birth of the child
In this petition for review, petitioner contends: on prescription or laches. because of:

1. The Honorable Court of We find no merit to the petition. a) the physical

Appeals committed error of law incapacity of the
and misapprehension of facts Petitioner's insistence on the applicability of husband to have
when it failed to apply the Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family sexual intercourse
provisions, more particularly, Code to the case at bench cannot be sustained. with his wife;
Arts. 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the These articles provide:
 b) the fact that the the city or municipality where the A careful reading of the above articles will show
husband and wife birth took place or was recorded. that they do not contemplate a situation, like in
were living the instant case, where a child is alleged not to be
separately in such If the husband or, in his default, the child of nature or biological child of a certain
a way that sexual all of his heirs do not reside at the couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation
intercourse was place of birth as defined in the where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his own
not possible; or first paragraph or where it was a child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166, it is
recorded, the period shall be two the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of
c) serious illness years if they should reside in the said child by proving: (1) it was physically
of the husband, Philippines; and three years if impossible for him to have sexual intercourse,
which absolutely abroad. If the birth of the child with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300
prevented sexual has been concealed from or was days which immediately preceded the birth of the
intercourse. unknown to the husband or his child; (2) that for biological or other scientific
heirs, the period shall be counted reasons, the child could not have been his child;
2) That it is proved that for from the discovery or knowledge (3) that in case of children conceived through
biological or other scientific of the birth of the child or of the artificial insemination, the written authorization
reasons, the child could not have fact of registration of said birth, or ratification by either parent was obtained
been that of the husband except in which ever is earlier. through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or
the instance provided in the undue influence. Articles 170 and 171 reinforce
second paragraph of Article 164; Art. 171. The heirs of the husband this reading as they speak of the prescriptive
or may impugn the filiation of the period within which the husband or any of his
child within the period prescribed heirs should file the action impugning the
3) That in case of children in the preceding Article only in legitimacy of said child. Doubtless then, the
conceived through artificial the following case: appellate court did not err when it refused to
insemination, the written apply these articles to the case at bench. For the
authorization or ratification of 1) If the husband should die case at bench is not one where the heirs of the
either parent was obtained before the expiration of the period late Vicente are contending that petitioner is not
through mistake, fraud, violence, fixed for bringing his action; his child by Isabel. Rather, their clear submission
intimidation, or undue influence. is that petitioner was not born to Vicente and
2) If he should die after the filing Isabel. Our ruling in Cabatbat-Lim
Art. 170. The action to impugn of the complaint, without having vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 166 SCRA
the legitimacy of the child shall desisted therefrom; or 451, 457 cited in the impugned decision is
be brought within one year from apropos, viz.:
the knowledge of the birth or its 3) If the child was born after the
recording in the civil register, if death of the husband. Petitioners' recourse to Article
the husband or, in a proper case, 263 of the New Civil Code [now
any of his heirs, should reside in Article 170 of the Family Code]
 is not well-taken. This legal late Vicente O. Benitez took being the only boy and the
provision refers to an action to Marissa from somewhere while youngest of the children of their
impugn legitimacy. It is still a baby, and without he and widowed mother) through law
inapplicable to this case because his wife's legally adopting her school, and whom Vicente and
this is not an action to impugn the treated, cared for, reared, his wife highly respected and
legitimacy of a child, but an considered, and loved her as their consulted on family matters, that
action of the private respondents own true child, giving her the her brother Vicente and his wife
to claim their inheritance as legal status as not so, such that she Isabel being childless, they
heirs of their childless deceased herself had believed that she was wanted to adopt her youngest
aunt. They do not claim that really their daughter and entitled daughter and when she refused,
petitioner Violeta Cabatbat Lim is to inherit from them as such. they looked for a baby to adopt
an illegitimate child of the elsewhere, that Vicente found
deceased, but that she is not the The strong and convincing evidence referred to two baby boys but Isabel wanted
decedent's child at all. Being us are the following: a baby girl as she feared a boy
neither legally adopted child, nor might grow up unruly and
an acknowledged natural child, First, the evidence is very cogent uncontrollable, and that Vicente
nor a child by legal fiction of and clear that Isabel Chipongian finally brought home a baby girl
Esperanza Cabatbat, Violeta is never became pregnant and, and told his elder sister Victoria
not a legal heir of the deceased. therefore, never delivered a child. he would register the baby as his
Isabel's own only brother and and his wife's child. Victoria
We now come to the factual finding of the sibling, Dr. Lino Chipongian, Benitez Lirio was already 77
appellate court that petitioner was not the admitted that his sister had years old and too weak to travel
biological child or child of nature of the spouses already been married for ten years and come to court in San Pablo
Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. The and was already about 36 years City, so that the taking of her
appellate court exhaustively dissected the old and still she has not begotten testimony by the presiding judge
evidence of the parties as follows: or still could not bear a child, so of the lower court had to be held
that he even had to refer her to the at her residence in Parañaque,
. . . And on this issue, we are late Dr. Constantino Manahan, a MM. Considering, her advanced
constrained to say that appellee's well-known and eminent age and weak physical condition
evidence is utterly insufficient to obstetrician-gynecologist and the at the time she testified in this
establish her biological and blood OB of his mother and wife, who case, Victoria Benitez Lirio's
kinship with the aforesaid treated his sister for a number of testimony is highly trustworthy
spouses, while the evidence on years. There is likewise the and credible, for as one who may
record is strong and convincing testimony of the elder sister of the be called by her Creator at any
that she is not, but that said couple deceased Vicente O. Benitez, time, she would hardly be
being childless and desirous as Victoria Benitez Lirio, who then, interested in material things
they were of having a child, the being a teacher, helped him (he anymore and can be expected not
to lie, especially under her oath as The facts of a woman's becoming health and even life? How come,
a witness. There were also several pregnant and growing big with then, that as appearing in
disinterested neighbors of the child, as well as her delivering a appellee's birth certificate,
couple Vicente O. Benitez and baby, are matters that cannot be Marissa was supposedly born at
Isabel Chipongian in Nagcarlan, hidden from the public eye, and the Benitez home in Avenida
Laguna (Sergio Fule, Cecilia so is the fact that a woman never Rizal, Nagcarlan, Laguna, with
Coronado, and Benjamin C. became pregnant and could not no physician or even a midwife
Asendido) who testified in this have, therefore, delivered a baby attending?
case and declared that they used at all. Hence, if she is suddenly
to see Isabel almost everyday seen mothering and caring for a At this juncture, it might be meet
especially as she had drugstore in baby as if it were her own, to mention that it has become a
the ground floor of her house, but especially at the rather late age of practice in recent times for people
they never saw her to have been 36 (the age of Isabel Chipongian who want to avoid the expense
pregnant, in 1954 (the year when appellee Marissa Benitez and trouble of a judicial adoption
appellee Marissa Benitez was was allegedly born), we can be to simply register the child as
allegedly born, according to her sure that she is not the true mother their supposed child in the civil
birth certificate Exh. "3") or at of that baby. registry. Perhaps Atty. Benitez,
any time at all, and that it is also though a lawyer himself, thought
true with the rest of their Second, appellee's birth that he could avoid the trouble if
townmates. Ressureccion A. certificate Exh. "3" with the late not the expense of adopting the
Tuico, Isabel Chipongian's Vicente O. Benitez appearing as child Marissa through court
personal beautician who used to the informant, is highly proceedings by merely putting
set her hair once a week at her questionable and suspicious. For himself and his wife as the
(Isabel's) residence, likewise if Vicente's wife Isabel, who parents of the child in her birth
declared that she did not see wads already 36 years old at the certificate. Or perhaps he had
Isabel ever become pregnant, that time of the child's supposed birth, intended to legally adopt the child
she knows that Isabel never was truly the mother of that child, when she grew a little older but
delivered a baby, and that when as reported by Vicente in her birth did not come around doing so
she saw the baby Marissa in her certificate, should the child not either because he was too busy or
crib one day she went to Isabel's have been born in a hospital under for some other reason. But
house to set the latter's hair, she the experienced, skillful and definitely, the mere registration
was surprised and asked the latter caring hands of Isabel's of a child in his or her birth
where the baby came from, and obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. certificate as the child of the
"she told me that the child was Constantino Manahan, since supposed parents is not a valid
brought by Atty. Benitez and told delivery of a child at that late age adoption, does not confer upon
me not to tell about it" (p. 10, tsn, by Isabel would have been the child the status of an adopted
Nov. 29, 1990). difficult and quite risky to her child and the legal rights of such
child, and even amounts of explained that he signed said and in the same handwritten note, she
simulation of the child's birth or document without understanding even implored her husband —
falsification of his or her birth completely the meaning of the
certificate, which is a public words "descendant and that any
document. ascendant" (p. 21, tsn, Nov. 22, inheritance due
1990). This we cannot believe, him from my
Third, if appellee Marissa Benitez Dr. Chipongian being a practicing property — when
is truly the real, biological pediatrician who has even gone to he die — to make
daughter of the late Vicente O. the United States (p. 52, tsn, Dec. our own daughter
Benitez and his wife Isabel 13, 1990). Obviously, his sole heir. This
Chipongian, why did he and Dr. Chipongian was just trying to do [sic] not mean
Isabel's only brother and sibling protect the interests of appellee, what he legally
Dr. Nilo Chipongian, after the foster-daughter of his owns or his
Isabel's death on April 25, 1982, deceased sister and brother-in- inherited property.
state in the extrajudicial law, as against those of the latter's I leave him to
settlement collateral blood relatives. decide for himself
Exh. "E" that they executed her regarding those.
estate, "that we are the sole heirs Fourth, it is likewise odd and
of the deceased ISABEL strange, if appellee Marissa (Exhs. "F-1", "F-1-A" and "F-1-
CHIPONGIAN because she died Benitez is really the daughter and B")
without descendants or only legal heir of the spouses
ascendants?" Dr. Chipongian, Vicente O. Benitez and Isabel We say odd and strange, for if
placed on a witness stand by Chipongian, that the latter, before Marissa Benitez is really the
appellants, testified that it was his her death, would write a note to daughter of the spouses Vicente
brother-in-law Atty. Vicente O. her husband and Marissa stating O. Benitez and Isabel
Benitez who prepared said that: Chipongian, it would not have
document and that he signed the been necessary for Isabel to write
same only because the latter told even without any and plead for the foregoing
him to do so (p. 24, tsn, Nov. 22, legal papers, I requests to her husband, since
1990). But why would Atty. wish that my Marissa would be their legal heir
Benitez make such a statement in husband and my by operation of law. Obviously,
said document, unless appellee child or only Isabel Chipongian had to implore
Marissa Benitez is not really his daughter will and supplicate her husband to
and his wife's daughter and inherit what is give appellee although without
descendant and, therefore, not his legally my own any legal papers her properties
deceased wife's legal heir? As for property, in case I when she dies, and likewise for
Dr. Chipongian, he lamely die without a will, her husband to give Marissa the
 properties that he would inherit Civil Code, however, "the books making up the
from her (Isabel), since she well Civil Registry and all documents relating thereto
knew that Marissa is not truly shall be considered public documents and shall
their daughter and could not be be prima facie evidence of the facts therein
their legal heir unless her stated." As related above, the totality of contrary
(Isabel's) husband makes her so. evidence, presented by the private respondents
sufficiently rebutted the truth of the content of
Finally, the deceased Vicente O. petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth. of said
Benitez' elder sister Victoria rebutting evidence, the most telling was the Deed
Benitez Lirio even testified that of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the
her brother Vicente gave the date Deceased Isabel Chipongian (Exh. "E") executed
December 8 as Marissa's birthday on July 20, 1982 by Vicente Benitez, and
in her birth certificate because Dr. Nilo Chipongian, a brother of Isabel. In their
that date is the birthday of their notarized document, they stated that "(they) are
(Victoria and Vicente's) mother. the sole heirs of the deceased Isabel Chipongian
It is indeed too much of a because she died without descendants or
coincidence for the child Marissa ascendants". In executing this Deed, Vicente
and the mother of Vicente and Benitez effectively repudiated the Certificate of
Victoria to have the same Live Birth of petitioner where it appeared that he
birthday unless it is true, as was petitioner's father. The repudiation was
Victoria testified, that Marissa made twenty-eight years after he signed
was only registered by Vicente as petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth.
his and his wife's child and that
they gave her the birth date of IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition for review is
Vicente's mother. dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against
petitioner.
We sustain these findings as they are not
unsupported by the evidence on record. The SO ORDERED.
weight of these findings was not negated by
documentary evidence presented by the
petitioner, the most notable of which is her
Certificate of Live Birth (Exh. "3") purportedly
showing that her parents were the late
Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian. This
Certificate registered on December 28, 1954
appears to have been signed by the deceased
Vicente Benitez. Under Article 410 of the New