GR 210984; (April, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210984, April 12, 2023
James Cua Ko, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Sometime in 2003, Shalimar Abellera filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Kerwin Cruz Par. On January 23, 2004, while this petition was pending, Shalimar gave birth to Jamie Shaye. In the child’s certificate of live birth, Shalimar indicated James Cua Ko as the father, and James executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission to support this entry. On November 28, 2006, Shalimar’s marriage to Kerwin was voided by the Regional Trial Court. Later, on September 9, 2008, the Office of the Civil Registrar changed Jamie Shaye’s surname from “Punzalan” to “Ko.” James subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Court of Appeals held that Jamie Shaye, having been born during a valid marriage, is presumed legitimate, and granting James’s petition would impugn this favorable status. James filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner James Cua Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child for being contrary to the presumption of legitimacy and the best interest of the child rule.
RULING
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied. The Court of Appeals was correct in denying the petition. Under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage are legitimate. Jamie Shaye was born before the marriage between her mother and Kerwin was voided; thus, she is deemed born within wedlock and is considered a legitimate child. Granting the Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition would be a collateral attack against Jamie Shaye’s legitimate status, which is prohibited by Article 170 of the Family Code. The law requires a direct action to impugn legitimacy, and only the husband or, in some instances, his heirs can bring this action on specific grounds within prescribed periods. The mother is prohibited from declaring against her child’s legitimacy. The child’s legitimate status is fixed and unassailable upon the expiration of these periods. The law, not the parents, determines the status of a child. Therefore, the petition was properly denied for being a collateral attack against the child’s legitimacy. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.