Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 761 views

    Aruego vs. CA Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Brian Balio
    1) Private respondent Antonia Aruego filed a petition in trial court to compel recognition as an illegitimate heir of deceased Jose Aruego based on open and continuous possession as his child. 2) The trial court ruled in private respondent's favor. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Family Code now applied. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding the case was filed before the Family Code so private respondent had a vested right to have it decided under the prior Civil Code article. Applying the Family Code retroactively would prejudice that right.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aruego vs. CA Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Brian Balio
    761 views2 pages
    1) Private respondent Antonia Aruego filed a petition in trial court to compel recognition as an illegitimate heir of deceased Jose Aruego based on open and continuous possession as his child. 2) The trial court ruled in private respondent's favor. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Family Code now applied. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding the case was filed before the Family Code so private respondent had a vested right to have it decided under the prior Civil Code article. Applying the Family Code retroactively would prejudice that right.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Private respondent Antonia Aruego filed a petition in trial court to compel recognition as an illegitimate heir of deceased Jose Aruego based on open and continuous possession as his child. 2) The trial court ruled in private respondent's favor. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Family Code now applied. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding the case was filed before the Family Code so private respondent had a vested right to have it decided under the prior Civil Code article. Applying the Family Code retroactively would prejudice that right.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    761 views2 pages

    Aruego vs. CA Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Brian Balio
    1) Private respondent Antonia Aruego filed a petition in trial court to compel recognition as an illegitimate heir of deceased Jose Aruego based on open and continuous possession as his child. 2) The trial court ruled in private respondent's favor. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Family Code now applied. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding the case was filed before the Family Code so private respondent had a vested right to have it decided under the prior Civil Code article. Applying the Family Code retroactively would prejudice that right.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATION

    TOPIC: ARTICLE IV OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE


    ARUEGO VS. CA The present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. The courts response in the petitioner contention that the Family Code should be applied in the instant case. Ponente: Justice HERMOSISIMA, JR., 1996 FACTS: Private respondent Antonia & Evelyn Aruego, as represented by her mother Fabian, filed a petition, in the RTC, compelling the Aruego children of Torres to recognize and acknowledge them as compulsory heirs of the deceased Jose. M. Aruego; on the grounds that they possess an open and continuous possession of the status of illegitimate children to wit: (a) The plaintiffs' father, Jose M. Aruego, acknowledged and recognized the herein plaintiffs as his children verbally among plaintiffs' and their mother's family friends, as well as by myriad different paternal ways. (b) The plaintiffs are thus, in continuous possession of the status of (illegitimate) children of the deceased Jose M. Aruego who showered them, with the continuous and clear manifestations of paternal care and affection as above outlined. Petitioner denied all these allegations. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondent, declaring Antonia Aruego as illegitimate daughter of Jose M. Aruego. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration alleging that the trial court lost its jurisdiction over the complaint by virtue of the passage of Family Code of the Philippines. The motion was denied the lower court. Petitioner filed a petition for Prohibition and Certiorari with prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Respondent Court of Appeals. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the respondent court.

    ISSUES: Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court. W/N the provisions of the Family Code be applied. W/N the application of the Family Code in this case impairs nay vested rights of the private respondent such that it should not be given retroactive effect. DECISION: The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The action brought by private respondent Antonia Aruego for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was filed prior to the advent of the Family Code, must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like