G.R. No. L-17463; May 16, 1967
TEODORO SUMALJAG BONGAL with his guardian ad litem and natural mother, SEVERINA SUMALJAG, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BARBARA P. VDA. DE BONGAL, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On February 1, 1960, Teodoro S. Bongal, represented by his mother Severina Sumaljag, filed an action for acknowledgment, partition, and damages against Barbara P. Bongal, the surviving spouse of the late Zosimo Bongal. The complaint alleged that from 1938 to 1940, Zosimo Bongal and Severina Sumaljag, without legal impediment to marry, cohabited as husband and wife in Ormoc City, resulting in Teodoro’s birth. Zosimo later married Barbara. Upon Zosimo’s intestate death on November 7, 1959, leaving properties but no legitimate issue, Teodoro demanded partition, which Barbara refused. Barbara’s answer denied the allegations, asserted Zosimo’s sterility, and claimed the action was barred by a prior judgment in Special Proceedings No. 111-0, wherein the Court of First Instance of Leyte had granted Zosimo and Barbara’s petition to adopt one Rustico Bongal in an order dated November 29, 1955. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint adding Dalmacia Ruiz Vda. de Bongal, Zosimo’s mother, as an additional plaintiff. Defendant moved to dismiss, primarily on the ground of res judicata due to the adoption decree. The lower court granted the motion, holding that the adoption proceeding, wherein plaintiff did not oppose, conclusively established that Zosimo had no acknowledged natural child, thereby barring the present action.

ISSUE

Whether the present action for compulsory recognition and partition is barred by the final judgment in the adoption proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 111-0).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The Court clarified that plaintiff’s action was not for enforcement of a prior voluntary acknowledgment but was a complex action for compulsory recognition based on evidence of filiation (e.g., birth and school records) under Article 283 of the Civil Code. At the time of the adoption decree, plaintiff did not possess the status of an “acknowledged natural child” of Zosimo. Therefore, Article 335 of the Civil Code, which prohibits adoption by one who has acknowledged natural children, was not an impediment to the adoption of Rustico. Consequently, plaintiff had no legal personality to intervene in or oppose that adoption proceeding and was not bound by its decree regarding his own status. The adoption of Rustico did not extinguish plaintiff’s separate right to seek compulsory recognition in a proper action. Even assuming plaintiff had been voluntarily acknowledged, such status is permanent and is not lost merely because the natural father subsequently adopts another child. Any challenge to plaintiff’s filiation (e.g., based on non-compliance with legal conditions for recognition under Articles 269 and 286 of the Civil Code) is a matter of defense to be resolved during trial.