G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996
JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIA ARUEGO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Antonia Aruego, represented by her mother Luz Fabian, filed a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional Rights on March 7, 1983. She alleged being an illegitimate child of the deceased Jose M. Aruego, Sr., born from his extramarital relationship with Fabian. The complaint asserted her open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, supported by acts of paternal acknowledgment and support from Aruego, Sr. during his lifetime. Petitioners, the legitimate heirs, denied these allegations. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on June 15, 1992, declaring Antonia an illegitimate daughter entitled to a share in the estate.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction due to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. They contended that under its Article 175, an action for compulsory recognition based on continuous possession of status must be filed during the lifetime of the putative parent, a condition not met here as Aruego, Sr. died in 1982. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioners’ appeal was deemed filed out of time, prompting them to file a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Hence, this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the complaint for compulsory recognition upon the effectivity of the Family Code, which allegedly prescribes a different period for filing such action.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The trial court did not lose jurisdiction. The action was filed in 1983 under the regime of the Civil Code, specifically Article 285, which governed the prescription of actions for recognition of natural children. Under Article 285, the action must generally be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except if the parent died during the child’s minority, in which case the child may file within four years from attaining majority. Antonia filed the action while still a minor, which is an exception under the Civil Code.
The Court applied the doctrine in Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, which held that the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to impair vested rights. A right is vested when there is a completed, consummated right that is absolute and unconditional. Antonia’s right to file the action under the Civil Code’s provisions vested upon the filing of her complaint in 1983, prior to the Family Code’s effectivity. Applying the Family Code’s Article 175 retroactively would prejudice this vested right by imposing a new condition—that the action be filed during the putative parent’s lifetime—which was not required under the Civil Code exception she properly invoked.
Consequently, the trial court correctly applied Article 285 of the Civil Code and retained jurisdiction until its final disposition of the case. Jurisdiction, once attached, is not ousted by subsequent events, including the passage of a new law.