GR 49542; (September, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49542 September 12, 1980
ANTONIO MACADANGDANG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ELIZABETH MEJIAS, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Elizabeth Mejias, a married woman to Crispin Anahaw, filed a complaint for recognition and support against petitioner Antonio Macadangdang, alleging that minor Rolando was his illegitimate son. She claimed an illicit encounter with Macadangdang in March 1967 and gave birth to Rolando on October 30, 1967. The Court of First Instance of Davao dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring Rolando as Macadangdang’s illegitimate son and ordering monthly support. The appellate court based its finding partly on Mejias’s testimony that she and her husband separated in 1965. Macadangdang elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the child Rolando is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the spouses Elizabeth Mejias and Crispin Anahaw, and whether Mejias can institute an action to bastardize the child without joining her husband.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the child Rolando is conclusively presumed legitimate under Article 255 of the Civil Code, as he was born within 300 days from the alleged separation of the spouses. The Court found the appellate court’s factual finding—that Mejias and her husband separated in 1965—to be grounded on speculation and misapprehension. It emphasized that Mejias’s own testimony in the lower court indicated the separation occurred in 1967 after the alleged affair with Macadangdang. Therefore, the birth in October 1967 fell within the 300-day period from the dissolution of the marriage cohabitation, giving rise to the conclusive presumption of legitimacy. An action to impugn this legitimacy cannot be maintained by the mother alone without joining the husband, the presumed father, as an indispensable party. The Court further noted the policy favoring the legitimacy of children and the solidarity of the family, as enshrined in Article 220 of the Civil Code. It condemned the attempt to bastardize a child for monetary gain at the expense of family stability and morality.