G.R. No. L-24845 August 22, 1968
ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA, petitioner, vs. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Adela Ongsiaco Vda. de Clemeña, the surviving spouse, instituted Special Proceeding No. 59712 in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of the estate of the late Engracio Clemeña and was appointed Special Administratrix. Respondent Agustin Engracio Clemeña, claiming to be the decedent’s illegitimate (not natural) child, filed a written opposition alleging wrong venue. The Administratrix objected to Agustin’s intervention on the grounds that he had no legal interest as he had not been recognized by the decedent, and that his action to establish paternity was barred because he was born on August 28, 1928, was past the age of majority when the alleged father died on September 26, 1964, and no such action could be brought after the alleged parent’s death. The respondent judge required the oppositor to produce evidence of his filiation over the Administratrix’s objection. After three witnesses testified, the Administratrix moved to suspend the hearing and objected to further evidence, but the court overruled the objection, citing an absence of settled jurisprudence. Reconsideration was denied, prompting the Administratrix to petition the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari and prohibition, alleging abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether an alleged illegitimate child not natural (spurious) may still bring an action or proceeding to establish paternity after the death of the alleged father when the claimant is already over 21 years of age on the date of such death.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the action of an illegitimate child not natural to secure a judicial investigation and declaration of paternity may not be instituted beyond the time limits prescribed by Article 285 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Court held that such an action is subject to the same limitations as actions for compulsory recognition of natural children. The reasons include: (a) both actions are substantially identical in nature and purpose; (b) considerations of fairness and justice underlying the time limit for natural children are fully applicable, if not more, to spurious children, as legitimate families are not in a position to explain or contradict circumstances of procreation after the parent’s death; (c) allowing such actions after the putative parent’s death could facilitate blackmailing suits; and (d) it would upset the carefully categorized scheme of rights ordained by the Civil Code for different classes of children, improperly placing spurious children on a more advantageous footing than natural illegitimate children. The respondent judge’s ruling admitting evidence over objection was declared a grave abuse of discretion, set aside, and the respondent was declared without legal interest in the estate. The records were remanded for further proceedings.