G.R. No. 2205
September 7, 1905

FACTS:
Conrado Cerrudo was born on November 13, 1884, to Dolores Cerrudo. Telesforo Chuidian died on April 11, 1903. On December 8, 1903, Conrado Cerrudo, through his guardian Emilio Buenaventura, filed an action against the heirs of Telesforo Chuidian to compel recognition as the natural child of the deceased. The complaint was based on Article 135, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Civil Code. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, relying on paragraph 2 of Article 135. The defendants appealed.

The plaintiff argued that the applicable law should be the law in force at the time of his birth in 1884, which was Law 11 of Toro. This law required a voluntary recognition by the father for a child to acquire the status of a natural child. The defendants contended that the Civil Code, which took effect in December 1889, governed the case.

The evidence showed that any acts of recognition by Telesforo Chuidian occurred primarily after 1889. These acts included visiting the child’s mother, providing financial support, paying school fees, securing employment for the child, and being addressed as “Papa.” However, the plaintiff never lived in Telesforo’s house, and in his 1897 will, Telesforo recognized two other natural children (Horacio and Beatriz Lopez) but not the plaintiff. A letter from Telesforo to Conrado in 1901, while in Telesforo’s handwriting, did not expressly state paternity.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the applicable law is Law 11 of Toro (pre-Civil Code) or the Civil Code.
2. Whether the acts performed by Telesforo Chuidian constituted sufficient recognition of Conrado Cerrudo as a natural child under Article 135 of the Civil Code.

RULING:
1. Applicable Law: The Supreme Court held that the Civil Code governed the case. The birth of the plaintiff before the Civil Code took effect did not confer a vested right to have the old law on recognition apply. Recognition by a father is a voluntary act, and the law in force at the time of the acts of recognition determines their sufficiency. Since the acts of recognition occurred after 1889, the Civil Code applied.

2. Sufficiency of Recognition: The Court ruled that the evidence failed to establish recognition under Article 135 of the Civil Code.
– Paragraph 1 (Express Recognition in Writing): The unsigned 1901 letter from Telesforo to Conrado did not contain an express and deliberate statement of paternity, as required by the law.
– Paragraph 2 (Continuous Possession of Status): The acts of support and acknowledgment by Telesforo were insufficient to prove that Conrado “continuously possessed the status of a natural child.” The fact that Conrado never lived in Telesforo’s household, while two other natural children did, and Telesforo’s failure to recognize Conrado in his will, demonstrated that Telesforo never intended to confer such status publicly.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Article 135 was procedural and repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that it was substantive law defining the rights of illegitimate children.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court was REVERSED. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. No costs were awarded in the Supreme Court.

CONCURRING JUSTICES:
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit.