GR 272006; (February, 2025) (Digest)
G.R. No. 272006 , February 5, 2025
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LINNEY JEAN L. TANGARORANG AND RAMER R. TANGARORANG, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents Linney Jean L. Tangarorang and Ramer R. Tangarorang had a child, Sharemahlyne, born on September 9, 2006, prior to their marriage on April 12, 2007. Linney filed a Petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Ramer on the ground of his psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, declaring the marriage void ab initio. In the same Decision, the RTC declared Sharemahlyne to be the illegitimate child of the respondents pursuant to Article 165 of the Family Code. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, contesting only the declaration of Sharemahlyne’s illegitimacy. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that Sharemahlyne remained illegitimate as she was born before the marriage and there was no annotation of legitimation on her birth certificate. The OSG filed the present Petition, arguing that Sharemahlyne was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of her parents and retains that status despite the declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court erroneously declared Sharemahlyne L. Tangarorang an illegitimate child of respondents Linney Jean L. Tangarorang and Ramer R. Tangarorang.
RULING
Yes. The Petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC gravely erred in declaring Sharemahlyne an illegitimate child. The Court clarified that the civil status of children is not a mere collateral issue but a legal consequence of marriage that can be resolved in a petition for declaration of nullity. Applying Article 54 of the Family Code, the Court held that a child conceived or born before the marriage of his parents, who would have been legitimate had the marriage been valid, shall be considered legitimate. Since Sharemahlyne was born to parents who, at the time of her conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, she was legitimated by their subsequent marriage. The declaration of nullity of that marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 does not affect her legitimated status. The effects of legitimation retroact to the time of the child’s birth. Therefore, Sharemahlyne retains her status as a legitimated child. The applicable provision is Article 54, not Article 165, of the Family Code.