FACTS:
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian had various properties. They both died intestate. The special proceedings for administration of the properties were filed with the trial court. Vicente's sister Victoria B. Lirio filed for issuance of letters of administration in favor of the nephew. Marissa opposed the petition, saying that she is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and that she is capable of administering his estate. She submitted the pieces of documentary evidence and testified that the spouses treated her as their own daughter. The relatives of Vicente tried to prove through testimonial evidence, that the spouses failed to beget a child during their marriage. Victoria categorically declared that Marissa was not the biological child of the spouses who were unable to physically procreate.
Trial court relied on Arts. 166 and 170 of the Family Code and ruled in favor of Marissa. On appeal, the CA reversed the lower court decision and declared Marissa Benitez-Badua is not the biological child of the late spouses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Marissa Benitez-Badua is the legitimate child and the sole heir of the late spouses.
RULING:
No. The SC find no merit to the petition.
Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. The above provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the biological child of a certain couple.
In Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of the child by:
(1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual
intercourse, with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child;
(2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the
child could not have been his child;
(3) that in case of children conceived through artificial
insemination, the written authorization or ratification by either parent was
obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence.
Articles 170 and 171 speak of the prescription period within which the husband or any of his heirs should file an action impugning the legitimacy of the child. In this case, it is not where the heirs of the late Vicente are contending that Marissa is not his child or a child by Isabel, but they are contending that Marissa was not born to Vicente and Isabel.
Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses. Marissa's Certificate of Live Birth was repudiated by the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Isabel by Vicente, saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole heirs of the estate.
