View full case

MARIA ROSARIO DE SANTOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES

FACTS:

Dr. Antonio de Santos and Sofia Bona were married in 1941 and had a daughter, Maria Rosario de Santos. Their marriage broke down, and in 1949, Antonio obtained a divorce decree from a Nevada court, despite divorces not being recognized in the Philippines. In 1951, Antonio then married Conchita Talag in Japan, with whom he had been living since his separation from Sofia. They had eleven children together. Sofia passed away in 1967, and less than a month later, Antonio and Conchita got married in the Philippines. Antonio died intestate in 1981, leaving properties worth P15,000,000. Conchita filed a petition for letters of administration, stating that Antonio had twelve legitimate heirs. Maria Rosario intervened in the proceedings after six years and argued that Conchita's children were illegitimate. The trial court declared Conchita's children legitimated and the heirs of Antonio de Santos. Maria Rosario sought reconsideration but was denied, prompting her to file a petition for certiorari. She contended that only natural children can be legitimated, and the trial court incorrectly declared her half-siblings as legitimated children.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the half-siblings of the petitioner can rise to her level by the fact of being legitimized.

  2. Whether natural children by legal fiction have the right to be legitimated.

  3. Whether natural children by legal fiction can be legitimized.

  4. Whether the offspring of a subsequent marriage can be legitimized when the legally existing marriage between the children's father and his estranged first wife effectively barred a "subsequent marriage" between their parents.

RULING:

  1. The half-siblings of the petitioner cannot rise to her level by the fact of being legitimized because they failed to meet the requirement of being natural children under Article 269 of the Civil Code.

  2. Natural children by legal fiction cannot demand to be legitimated simply because legitimation is one of the rights enjoyed by acknowledged natural children.

  3. Natural children by legal fiction cannot be legitimized. Legitimation is a privilege available only to natural children proper, as defined under Article 269 of the Civil Code. The benefits of legitimation do not extend, nor were they intended to extend, to children conceived or born out of illicit relations.

  4. The offspring of a subsequent marriage cannot be legitimized when the legally existing marriage between the children's father and his estranged first wife effectively barred a "subsequent marriage" between their parents.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Legitimate children and legitimated children are entitled to use the surname of the father, support from legitimate ascendants and descendants, and legitime consisting of one-half of the hereditary estate of both parents.

  • Natural children recognized by both parents and natural children by legal fiction are also entitled to use the surname of the father, support from the parent recognizing them, and legitime equivalent to one-half of that of each legitimate child or descendant of the recognizing parent, to be taken from the free disposable portion of the estate.

  • Recognized illegitimate children other than natural or spurious issues are under the parental authority of their mothers, take the mother's surname, and are entitled to support from the recognizing parent, as well as legitime consisting of four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child or two-fifths that of each legitimate child.

  • Unrecognized illegitimate children are not entitled to the rights mentioned above.

  • Legitimation is a right vouchsafed to acknowledged natural children, but not to natural children by legal fiction.

  • Legitimation is a privilege, not a right, and is only available to natural children proper as defined under the law.

  • Natural children by legal fiction cannot be legitimized as the benefits of legitimation do not extend to them.

  • The hierarchy of children and the gradation of their rights as established by law may be disrupted by elevating natural children by legal fiction, who are illegitimate, to the same level as natural children proper.

  • The provisions of law must be interpreted based on their simple and unmistakable language, and when there is an intent to favor legitimacy over illegitimacy.

  • The case was decided under the provisions of the Civil Code, not the Family Code which recognizes only two classes of children: legitimate and illegitimate.