G.R. No. 49041; March 20, 1944
CONCHA C. APACIBLE and ESPERANZA AGUILAR, petitioners, vs. MARIA CASTILLO, respondent.

FACTS

This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming an order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The order declared Maria Castillo a duly acknowledged natural child of the deceased Vicente Castillo in his intestate proceedings. Maria Castillo was born on July 22, 1915, to Vicente Castillo and Juana Malayto, who lived together but were not married. Five months after her birth, on December 23, 1915, Vicente Castillo married petitioner Esperanza Aguilar. Vicente Castillo reported Maria’s birth to the Bureau of Health on August 21, 1915, subscribing to a birth certificate where he identified himself as the father and signed as “the father.” He also enrolled and paid for her education at St. Theresa’s College, signed her report cards as her father, and appeared with her and her mother in a graduation recital picture. The lower courts held that this constituted a voluntary acknowledgment under Article 131 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether the certificate of birth and the subsequent acts of Vicente Castillo constitute a valid voluntary acknowledgment of Maria Castillo as his natural child under Article 131 of the Civil Code, despite petitioners’ contentions that: (1) there is no proof Maria was a “natural” child; (2) the certificate lacks an unequivocal expression of intent to acknowledge; and (3) the acknowledgment lacked court approval as required by Article 133.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision, holding that Maria Castillo was validly acknowledged.
1. On the status as a natural child: The Court, citing Jayme vs. Gamboa, held that from the fact Vicente Castillo lawfully married another woman months after Maria’s birth, it may be presumed he was unmarried and without a disabling relationship of consanguinity with Juana Malayto at the time of conception and birth. The capacity of both parents to marry is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
2. On the sufficiency of the acknowledgment in the public document: The Court, citing Javelona vs. Monteclaro, distinguished between compulsory acknowledgment (under Article 135), which requires express recognition, and voluntary acknowledgment (under Article 131), which may be incidental. The birth certificate signed by Vicente Castillo is a public document. His act of subscribing to it, filling in his details as the father, and signing as “the father” constitutes a clear and unequivocal admission of paternity, sufficient for voluntary acknowledgment. The law does not require the document to be exclusively for acknowledgment or to contain the specific words “natural child.”
3. On the lack of court approval: The Court held that while Article 133 requires court approval for acknowledging a minor, the lack of such approval can be supplied by the child’s consent after reaching majority. Maria Castillo gave this consent by continuing to accept her status as an acknowledged child after majority and by expressly petitioning the court to be recognized as an heir in her father’s intestacy.
The judgment was affirmed.