View full case

ERNESTINA BERNABE v. CAROLINA ALEJO

FACTS:

The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe, who was alleged to have a son with his secretary Carolina Alejo, died on August 13, 1993. Carolina filed a complaint on behalf of their son Adrian on May 16, 1994, seeking his recognition as the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and claiming his share in Fiscal Bernabe's estate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that it was already barred under the provisions of the Family Code. However, the trial court later granted Ernestina Bernabe's Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the dismissal of the Complaint, stating that the death of Fiscal Bernabe had barred the action.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and held that Adrian should be allowed to prove his filiation as the illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe. The Court of Appeals cited Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after the child has reached the age of majority, as the governing law for Adrian's rights. It stated that the enactment of the Family Code did not take away Adrian's right to file an action for recognition.

Several issues were raised by the petitioner, including whether the action for recognition should have been filed during the putative father's lifetime and whether the Family Code should take precedence over the provisions of the Civil Code.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Adrian's right to file an action for recognition had already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code

  2. Whether Article 285 of the Civil Code, which grants the right to file an action for recognition, applies only to natural children

  3. Whether the rules on voluntary and compulsory recognition of natural children can be applied to spurious children.

  4. Whether the prescriptive period for filing an action for compulsory recognition of natural children applies to spurious children.

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals should have been impleaded in the petition.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Adrian's right to file an action for recognition had already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code. Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law that gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. Therefore, the Family Code cannot impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment.

  2. No, Article 285 of the Civil Code, which grants the right to file an action for recognition, is not limited to natural children. The Court has previously frowned upon a strict and literal interpretation of Article 285 and allowed minors to file a case for recognition even if their parents were disqualified from marrying each other. Therefore, the provision can be availed of by Adrian, even if his parents were impeded from marrying each other at the time of his conception.

  3. Yes, the rules on voluntary and compulsory recognition of natural children can be applied to spurious children.

  4. Yes, the prescriptive period for filing an action for compulsory recognition of natural children applies to spurious children.

  5. The failure to implead the Court of Appeals as a party is not a reversible error.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Vested rights - A vested right is absolute, complete, and unconditional, not dependent on a contingency, and immediate and perfect in itself. It cannot be impaired or prejudiced by subsequent laws or legal provisions.

  • Distinction between substantive and procedural law - Substantive law refers to the part of the law that creates, defines, and regulates rights, while procedural law pertains to the methods of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. Procedural rules do not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights, and they operate as a means of implementing existing rights.

  • Interpretation of Article 285 of the Civil Code - A strict and literal interpretation of Article 285, which grants the right to file an action for recognition, is not favored. The provision has been interpreted to allow minors to file a case for recognition even if their parents were disqualified from marrying each other.

  • The rules on voluntary and compulsory recognition of natural children can be applied to spurious children.

  • The prescriptive period for filing an action for compulsory recognition of natural children applies to spurious children.

  • Illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect and whose putative parent died during their minority have the right to seek recognition for a period of up to four years from attaining majority age.

  • The State, as parens patriae, should protect a minor's right.