Bernabe v. Alejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son, Adrian Bernabe, with his secretary, Carolina Alejo. Adrian was born on September 18, 1981. Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, and his wife Rosalina died on December 3, 1993, leaving Ernestina Bernabe as the sole surviving heir. Procedural History: On May 16, 1994, Carolina, on behalf of Adrian, filed a complaint for declaration of Adrian as an acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and for partition of his estate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action was barred under the Family Code and the case of Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals. The RTC later granted Ernestina Bernabe’s Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating the dismissal and holding that since the putative father had not acknowledged Adrian in writing, the action should have been filed during his lifetime. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s dismissal, remanding the case for trial on the merits, ruling that Adrian's rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, allowing an action for recognition within four years after attaining majority, and that the Family Code did not extinguish this vested right. The Petition: Ernestina Bernabe filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the nullification of the CA Decision and Resolution, and the reinstatement of the RTC orders dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent has a cause of action to file a case against petitioner for recognition and partition with accounting after the putative father’s death in the absence of any written acknowledgment of paternity; and whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from the attainment of minority to file an action for recognition as provided in Article 285 of the Civil Code, disregarding its repeal by the Family Code and applicable jurisprudence. Whether the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner is fatally defective for failure to implead the Court of Appeals as a respondent.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution are affirmed. The case is remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first and second issues (Cause of Action and Period to File Action for Recognition): The Court held that the action for recognition of Adrian Bernabe is not barred. While the Family Code generally requires such an action to be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent, Article 255 of the Family Code provides that it shall have retroactive effect only insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. Adrian Bernabe was born in 1981, and his rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows an action for recognition to be filed within four years after attaining majority if the father died during the child's minority. This right had already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code. The Court distinguished this from cases where the right had not yet vested or where the plaintiff was already of age. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 285 of the Civil Code, which refers to 'natural' children, can be applied to 'spurious' children as well, citing Divinagracia v. Rovira, which held that the prescriptive period for filing an action for compulsory recognition in the case of natural children applies to spurious children. The Court emphasized the State's role as parens patriae in protecting the rights of minors, noting that Adrian was only twelve years old when his alleged father died and thus could not have filed the action himself during his father's lifetime. On the third issue (Failure to Implead the CA): The Court ruled that the petition is not fatally defective for failing to implead the Court of Appeals. Under Section 4(a) of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead lower courts or judges as parties. The procedure followed by the petitioner is correct.
Main Doctrine
The right of an illegitimate child, who was a minor at the time the Family Code took effect and whose putative father died during his minority, to file an action for recognition under Article 285 of the Civil Code is a vested right that cannot be impaired by the Family Code. Such action may be filed within four years from attaining majority age.