Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    PFR50 38. Clemena Vs Clemena

    Uploaded by

    Zonix Lomboy
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1969 regarding whether an illegitimate child can bring an action to establish paternity after the death of the alleged father. The Court had previously ruled that such actions cannot be brought if the child is over 21 at the time of the father's death. Given this, the Court found that the trial court judge had gravely abused his discretion by denying a motion to dismiss a case filed by a man claiming to be the illegitimate child of a deceased man, since the Court had already declared he had no legal interest in the estate. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted to set aside the order and prohibit further proceedings in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PFR50 38. Clemena Vs Clemena

    Uploaded by

    Zonix Lomboy
    67 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1969 regarding whether an illegitimate child can bring an action to establish paternity after the death of the alleged father. The Court had previously ruled that such actions cannot be brought if the child is over 21 at the time of the father's death. Given this, the Court found that the trial court judge had gravely abused his discretion by denying a motion to dismiss a case filed by a man claiming to be the illegitimate child of a deceased man, since the Court had already declared he had no legal interest in the estate. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted to set aside the order and prohibit further proceedings in the case.

    Original Description:

    mmnmnmnmm

    Original Title

    PFR50 38. Clemena vs Clemena

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1969 regarding whether an illegitimate child can bring an action to establish paternity after the death of the alleged father. The Court had previously ruled that such actions cannot be brought if the child is over 21 at the time of the father's death. Given this, the Court found that the trial court judge had gravely abused his discretion by denying a motion to dismiss a case filed by a man claiming to be the illegitimate child of a deceased man, since the Court had already declared he had no legal interest in the estate. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted to set aside the order and prohibit further proceedings in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views4 pages

    PFR50 38. Clemena Vs Clemena

    Uploaded by

    Zonix Lomboy
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1969 regarding whether an illegitimate child can bring an action to establish paternity after the death of the alleged father. The Court had previously ruled that such actions cannot be brought if the child is over 21 at the time of the father's death. Given this, the Court found that the trial court judge had gravely abused his discretion by denying a motion to dismiss a case filed by a man claiming to be the illegitimate child of a deceased man, since the Court had already declared he had no legal interest in the estate. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted to set aside the order and prohibit further proceedings in the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Clemeña vs.

    Clemeña

    May 22, 1969

    Facts: Agustin Engracio Clemeña respondent, claiming to be decedent’s illegitimate


    (not natural) child, submitted written opposition, alleging wrong venue, because at
    his death the decedent was a resident of Rizal. Administratrix objected on the ground
    that oppositor had no legal interest, not having been recognized by the decedent,
    either voluntarily or compulsorily; that said Agustin’s action to establish his
    illegitimate paternity was already barred, since, by his own admission, he was born
    on 28 August 1928, and was, therefore, past the age of majority when the alleged
    father died on 26 September 1964; that no action to establish illegitimate filiation was
    receivable after the death of the alleged illegitimate progenitor.

    Issue: Whether or not an alleged illegitimate child not natural (vulgarly designated as
    “spurious”) may still bring an action or proceeding in court for the purpose of
    establishing his illegitimate paternity even after the death of the person he claims to
    have been his father, when on the date of such death the claimant is already over 21
    years of age.

    Ruling: No. Such action would place an alleged illegitimate child on equal footing
    with the legitimate children and would place such child at a more advantageous
    position when the law already provides that the greatest preferential rights pursuant
    to Article 174 are given to legitimate children. Therefore, such action shall not be
    instituted by the respondent, Agustin.
    Republic of the Philippines
    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-24739 May 22, 1969

    ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA and LYDA, ALICIA and OLGA, all
    surnamed CLEMEÑA, petitioners,
    vs.
    AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA and HON. JUDGE PEDRO C. NAVARRO,
    JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH II, respondents.

    Rafael Dinglasan for petitioners.


    F. W. Lustre and M. C. R. Domingo for respondents.

    RESOLUTION

    FERNANDO, J.:

    On July 13, 1965, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition was filed by
    petitioners Adela Ongsiaco Vda. de Clemeña, the widow, and Lyda, Alicia and Olga
    Clemeña, the children of the deceased Engracio Clemeña. An order of respondent
    Judge Pedro C. Navarro denied a motion to dismiss filed by the other respondent
    Agustin Engracio Clemeña, who claimed to be an illegitimate child of the aforesaid
    Engracio Clemeña. In such pending case for partition, inventory, accounting and
    delivery of share, 1 respondent Agustin Engracio Clemeña, as plaintiff, sought that
    after due hearing the defendant therein, now petitioner Adela Ongsiaco Vda. de
    Clemeña, be ordered to submit a true inventory of the conjugal properties; to submit
    an accounting of the income of the conjugal properties as well as her paraphernal
    properties from the time she took administration of the same by reason of the
    sickness of the deceased; to submit a project of partition of the estate left by the
    deceased and to deliver to plaintiff his legal share.

    Respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners before us on the
    ground that the suit before him was instituted before the special proceeding for
    settlement and distribution of the estate filed in the Court of First Instance of
    Manila, 2 and that there was no pendency of another action, as what was sought in
    his court was the inventory, accounting and delivery of the share as inheritance
    which respondent Agustin Engracio Clemeña claimed as his by virtue of his being an
    illegitimate child of the deceased. To show that there was either lack or excess of
    jurisdiction or that there was grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
    challenged order, petitioners before us would stress that the Court of First Instance
    of Manila, wherein the intestate proceeding was instituted, had exclusive jurisdiction
    of the settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased. Respondent Judge
    ought to have, in their opinion, dismissed the case then.

    The writ must be granted but not by virtue of such a plea. For in a decision rendered
    by us on August 22, 1968, 3 the opinion being penned by Justice J. B. L. Reyes, it
    was held that the action of Agustin Engracio Clemeña as an alleged illegitimate child,
    not natural, to secure a judicial investigation and declaration of his paternity may not
    be instituted beyond the time limits prescribed by Article 285 of the Civil Code which
    deals with the compulsory acknowledgment of natural children.

    As set forth in the opinion: "Thus, to hold with the court below that an illegitimate
    child not natural, already over 21 years of age at the death of its alleged parent, may
    still implead the latter's legal heirs or representatives to obtain a declaration that the
    deceased is his progenitor is certainly to upset the carefully categorized scheme of
    rights ordained by the Civil Code for the various classes of children. Because such a
    holding would not only place the spurious child on a more advantageous position vis-
    a-vis the illegitimate but natural child, but actually place him on an equal footing with
    legitimates, whose paternity suits last as long as they live; and this advantage would
    be granted to the illegitimates not natural children on no other basis than the mere
    silence of the Code, when the right of legitimate sons and daughters to file paternity
    suits despite the death of their progenitors had to be expressly conferred by Article
    268. In our opinion, the ruling under appeal goes against the spirit, the system, and
    the logic of the Civil Code."lawphi1.ñet

    The dispositive portion of our decision reads thus: "[In view of the foregoing], the
    ruling of the Court of First Instance of Manila admitting evidence of the paternity of
    the private respondent, over and against the objections of the legal representative of
    the deceased alleged parent, is in grave abuse of discretion, and is hereby set aside;
    hence, said respondent must be declared without legal interest in the estate of the
    decedent. The records of the case are ordered remanded to the court of origin for
    further proceedings conformably to this opinion. No costs."

    It being clear, therefore, that respondent Agustin Engracio Clemeña had been
    judicially declared by us to be without legal interest in the estate of the decedent, no
    useful purpose would be served by his pending action in the sala of respondent
    Judge Navarro for partition, with inventory, accounting and delivery of shares.
    Accordingly, the order of respondent Judge refusing to dismiss such a case would
    clearly appear, under the circumstances, to be devoid of any support in law and
    amount to a grave abuse of discretion.

    WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for to set aside such order denying the
    motion to dismiss as well as the writ of prohibition prayed for to command
    respondent Judge from proceeding further in the aforesaid Civil Case No. 8538
    pending before him are granted. With costs against respondent Agustin Engracio
    Clemeña.

    You might also like