Rule 105

SPECIAL PROCEEDING
Submitted by
Mika Abigail G. Lee
RULE 105
JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION OF MINOR
CHILDREN
1. JESUS GUARIA vs. AGUEDA GUARIA-CASAS
G.R. No. L-15707. October 31, 1960
Voluntary acknowledgment of natural children made in a public
instrument is enforceable even if the instrument is not approved by the
Court. The judicial approval of the instrument is meant for the benefit
of the minor which the latter may raise of waive.
2. LIGAYA GAPUSAN-CHUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 46746. March 15, 1990
a. Recognition of natural children may be voluntary or compulsory.
Voluntary recognition, it has been said, "is an admission of the fact of
paternity or maternity by the presumed parent, expressed in the form
prescribed by the Civil Code. Its essence lies in the avowal of the
parent that the child is his; the formality is added to make the
admission incontestable, in view of its consequences." The form is
prescribed by Article 278 of the Civil Code, earlier adverted to; it
provides that a voluntary recognition "shall be made in the record of
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic
writing." Compulsory recognition is sometimes also called judicial
recognition, to distinguish it from that which is a purely voluntary act of
the parent. It is recognition decreed by final judgment of a competent
court. It is governed by Articles 283 and 284, setting forth the cases in
which the father or mother, respectively, is obliged to recognize a
natural child, and Article 285, providing that generally, the action for
recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime
of the presumed parents.
b. The matter of whether or not judicial approval is needful for the
efficacy of voluntary recognition is dealt with in Article 281 of the Civil
Code. ART. 281. A child who is of age cannot be recognized without his
consent. When the recognition of a minor does not take place in a
record of birth or in a will, judicial approval shall be necessary. A minor
can in any case impugn the recognition within four years following the
attainment of his majority. In other words, judicial approval is not
needed if a recognition is voluntarily made 1) of a person who is of
age, only his consent being necessary; or 2) of a minor whose

acknowledgment is effected in a record of birth or in a will. It is
admitted on all sides that no judicial action or proceeding was ever
brought during the lifetime of Felisa to compel her to recognize Ligaya
as her daughter. It is also evident that Ligaya's recognition as Felisa's
daughter was not made in a record of birth or a will, a circumstance
which would have made judicial approval unnecessary, only her own
consent to the recognition being required. The acknowledgment was
made in authentic writings, and hence, conformably with the legal
provisions above cited, judicial approval thereof was needed if the
writings had been executed during Ligaya's minority. In other words,
the question of whether or not the absence of judicial approval
negated the effect of the writings as a mode of recognition of Ligaya is
dependent upon the latter's age at the time the writings were made.
c. Judicial approval is needful if the recognition of the minor is effected,
not through a record of birth or in a will but through a statement in a
court of record or an authentic document. In any case the individual
recognized can impugn the recognition within four years
d. The consent required by Article 281 of a person of age who has been
voluntarily recognized may be given expressly or tacitly. Assuming
then that Ligaya was of age at the time of her voluntary recognition,
the evidence shows that she has in fact consented thereto. Her
consent to her recognition is not only implicit from her failure to
impugn it at any time before her mother's death, but is made clearly
manifest and conclusive by her assertion of that recognition in the
judicial proceeding for the settlement of her mother's estate as basis
for her rights thereto. Assuming on the other hand, that she was a
minor at the time of her recognition, and therefore judicial approval of
the recognition was necessary, the absence thereof was cured by her
ratification of that recognition, after having reached the age of
majority, by her initiation of the proceedings for the settlement of her
deceased mother's estate on the claim precisely that she was the
decedent's acknowledged natural daughter.
e. The requirement of judicial approval imposed by Article 281 is
clearly intended for the benefit of the minor. "The lack of judicial
approval can not impede the effectivity of the acknowledgment made.
The judicial approval is for the protection of the minor against any
acknowledgment made to his prejudice." "Therefore, the lack or
insufficiency of such approval is NOT a defect available to the
recognizing parent but one which the minor may raise or waive. If after
reaching majority the minor consents to the acknowledgment, the lack
of judicial approval should make no difference. Implied consent to the
acknowledgment may be shown (e.g.,) by such acts as keeping, even
after reaching the age of majority, the acknowledgment papers and
the use of the parent's surname.
3. MAXIMINO A. GARCIA vs. PATROCINIO PONGAN

G.R. No. L-4362 August 31, 1951.]
But in the present case, not only the appellant father, but also the
respondent mother have recognized the minor child, the former by
judgment of the court, and the latter by voluntarily testifying or stating
under oath before the Court of First Instance in this case, that said
child is her natural child, which is a new means of voluntary
recognition of a natural child by his father or mother under article 278
of the new Civil Code, which says the "Recognition shall be made in the
record or in any authentic writing." Such voluntary recognition does not
require judicial approval according to article 281 of the same Code.
4. CONCHA C. APACIBLE and ESPERANZA AGUILAR vs. MARIA
CASTILLO
G.R. No. 49041. March 20, 1944
1. It is also contended that the mere admission of paternity made by
Vicente Castillo in the certificate of birth without expressly stating
therein that he recognized the child as his natural daughter, is not
sufficient; in other words, that the acknowledgment must be made
expressly and not incidentally. This same contention has also been
decided by us adversely to the petitioners in the case of Javelona vs.
Monteclaro, G. R. No. 48464 (promulgated October 4, 1943).
2. We hold that altho the second paragraph of article 133 of the Civil
Code is still in force and the court's approval of the acknowledgment of
a minor child may be obtained thereunder, the lack of such approval
may be supplied by the child's consent given after reaching majority,
and that in the present case such consent was given by Maria Castillo
not only by continuing to accept the status of an acknowledged natural
daughter of Vicente Castillo after she had reached majority but also by
expressly petitioning the court to consider her as such and to allow her
to intervene in his intestacy as an heir of his.

Rule 105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 105

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 105

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL PROCEEDING

2. LIGAYA GAPUSAN-CHUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

age, only his consent being necessary; or 2) of a minor whose

the use of the parent's surname.

3. MAXIMINO A. GARCIA vs. PATROCINIO PONGAN

You might also like