Scribd
Upload
115 views1 page

Benitez-Badua V CA

The Court ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case because those provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child's biological parentage is disputed. The relatives claimed the deceased spouses were unable to procreate so Marissa could not be their biological child. The Court determined Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses based on evidence they did not have a child together and documents showing other heirs, not Marissa. Therefore, Marissa was not the legitimate child and sole heir of the estates.

Uploaded by

Grace Ann Tamboon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views1 page

Benitez-Badua V CA

The Court ruled that Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code do not apply in this case because those provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child's biological parentage is disputed. The relatives claimed the deceased spouses were unable to procreate so Marissa could not be their biological child. The Court determined Marissa was not the biological child of the deceased spouses based on evidence they did not have a child together and documents showing other heirs, not Marissa. Therefore, Marissa was not the legitimate child and sole heir of the estates.

Uploaded by

Grace Ann Tamboon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Benitez-Badua vs.

CA 229 SCRA 468

Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case at bar
because said provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the
biological child of a certain couple.

Facts:

Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian had various properties. They both died
intestate. The special proceedings for administration of the properties were Bled with the trial
court. Vicente’s sister, Victoria Lirio, Bled for issuance of letters of administration in favor of
the nephew. Marissa Badua opposed the petition, saying that she is the sole heir of deceased
Marissa and that she can administer his estate. She submitted the pieces of documentary
evidence and testified that the spouses treated her as their own daughter. The relatives of
Vicente tried to prove through testimonial evidence, that the spouses failed to beget a child
during their marriage. Victoria categorically declared that Marissa was not the biological child
of the spouses who were unable to physically procreate. The RTC relied on Arts. 166 and 170
of the Family Code and ruled in favor of Marissa. On appeal, the CA reversed the lower court
decision and declared Marissa Benitez-Badua is not the biological child of the late spouses.

Issue:

Whether or not Marissa is the legitimate child and the sole heir of the late spouses.

Ruling:

NO. Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case
at bar. The above provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be
the biological child of a certain couple. In Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the
legitimacy of the child by: (1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual intercourse,
with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth
of the child; (2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been his
child; and (3)n that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written
authorization or ratification by either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence,
intimidation or undue influence. Articles 170 and 171 speak of the prescription period within
which the husband or any of his heirs should file an action impugning the legitimacy of the
child. In this case, it is not where the heirs of the late Benitez are contending that Marissa is
not his child or a child by Isabel, but they are contending that Marissa was not born to Vicente
and Isabel. Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses. Marissa's Certificate of
Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the late
Isabel by Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole heirs of the estate.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy