Concepcion vs. Almonte

A child conceived or born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate, and this presumption cannot be impugned by the putative father or the mother, as the right to contest legitimacy is strictly personal to the lawful husband or his heirs.

Gerardo Concepcion and Ma. Theresa Almonte married on December 29, 1989, despite Ma. Theresa’s prior undissolved marriage to Mario Gopiao in 1980. Jose Gerardo was born on December 8, 1990. Gerardo subsequently filed a petition to annul his marriage to Ma. Theresa on the ground of bigamy.

• Prior Marriage: Ma. Theresa married Mario Gopiao in 1980 but claimed it was a sham and that they never lived together.
• Second Marriage and Birth: She married Gerardo in 1989. Jose Gerardo was born in 1990.
• Annulment Proceedings: Gerardo filed for annulment due to bigamy. The RTC annulled the marriage, declared the child illegitimate, and granted Gerardo visitation rights.
• Contention over Rights: Ma. Theresa opposed the visitation rights and the child's use of the surname "Concepcion," arguing that the putative father has no visitation rights under the law and an illegitimate child must use the mother's surname.
• Appellate Reversal: On reconsideration, the CA applied Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code. It held that because Ma. Theresa was still validly married to Mario when Jose Gerardo was born, the child was legitimate and not the illegitimate son of Gerardo. Consequently, Gerardo had no right to custody, visitation, or to impose his surname.

• Standing to Impugn Legitimacy: Petitioner invoked Article 166(1)(b) of the Family Code, arguing that Ma. Theresa’s admission that she never lived with Mario proved the physical impossibility of sexual intercourse between them.
• Judicial Admission: Petitioner maintained that both parties admitted Jose Gerardo was their son; therefore, filiation was not an issue and should not have been altered by the CA.
• Evidentiary Value of Birth Certificate: Petitioner relied on the birth certificate, which listed him as the father, to support his claim of filiation.

• Visitation Rights: Respondent countered that no law grants visitation rights to the putative father of an illegitimate child.
• Use of Surname: Respondent argued that an illegitimate child must use the mother's surname under the Family Code.
• Presumption of Legitimacy: Respondent asserted that the child is legitimate under the law because he was born during a valid marriage, and his legitimacy cannot be compromised by the parents' stipulations or the mother's declarations.

• Legitimacy and Filiation: Whether Jose Gerardo is the illegitimate child of Gerardo or the legitimate child of Mario.
• Standing to Impugn: Whether Gerardo, as the putative father in a void marriage, has the legal standing to impugn the legitimacy of the child.
• Visitation Rights: Whether Gerardo is entitled to visitation rights over the child.
• Use of Surname: Whether Gerardo can impose his surname on the child.

• Legitimacy and Filiation: Jose Gerardo is the legitimate child of Mario. A child conceived or born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. This presumption is quasi-conclusive and may be refuted only by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the physical impossibility of coitus between the spouses. Ma. Theresa and Mario both resided in Quezon City during the period of conception, and no evidence disproved personal access.
• Standing to Impugn: Gerardo lacks standing to impugn the child's legitimacy. The right to impugn is strictly personal to the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. Because Gerardo's marriage to Ma. Theresa was void ab initio, he never acquired the right to contest the legitimacy of her child. Furthermore, the mother’s declaration against the child's legitimacy is proscribed by Article 167 of the Family Code.
• Visitation Rights: Visitation rights were properly denied. Such rights flow from the natural right of a parent and child to each other's company, a relationship that does not legally exist between Gerardo and Jose Gerardo.
• Use of Surname: Gerardo cannot impose his surname on the child. As a legitimate child, Jose Gerardo has the right to bear the surnames of his father Mario and mother Ma. Theresa. A change of name and correction of entries in the civil register must be threshed out in a separate proceeding.

• Presumption of Legitimacy — A child conceived or born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. The presumption is quasi-conclusive and may be rebutted only by evidence of physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the period of conception, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Applied to uphold the legitimate status of Jose Gerardo, the lawful husband having been in geographic proximity to the mother during conception.
• Strictly Personal Right to Impugn Legitimacy — The right to impugn the legitimacy of a child belongs exclusively to the husband or, in proper cases, his heirs. A putative father in a void marriage lacks the standing to contest the child's legitimacy. Applied to deny Gerardo's attempt to impugn the child's legitimacy.
• Indefeasibility of Legitimacy by Mother's Declaration — Under Article 167 of the Family Code, a child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy. Public policy prohibits the mother from disavowing the child or declaring them illegitimate. Applied to nullify Ma. Theresa's assertion that Jose Gerardo was her illegitimate son with Gerardo.

• "The law and only the law determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for one’s legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be compromised."
• "Since the marriage of Gerardo and Ma. Theresa was void from the very beginning, he never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child."
• "Between the certificate of birth which is prima facie evidence of Jose Gerardo’s illegitimacy and the quasi-conclusive presumption of law (rebuttable only by proof beyond reasonable doubt) of his legitimacy, the latter shall prevail."

• Cabatania v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004 — Followed. Explained the rationale for the presumption of legitimacy as grounded on natural justice, the supposed virtue of the mother, and the policy to protect offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.
• Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980 — Followed. Established that only the husband or his heirs can impugn the legitimacy of a child.
• Liyao, Jr. v. Liyao, 428 Phil. 628 (2002) — Followed. Reiterated that impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs.

• Article 164, Family Code — Defines legitimate children as those conceived or born during a valid marriage. Applied to declare Jose Gerardo legitimate, having been born during the valid marriage of Ma. Theresa and Mario Gopiao.
• Article 167, Family Code — Provides that a child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy. Applied to nullify Ma. Theresa's declaration that Jose Gerardo was her illegitimate son with Gerardo.
• Article 166(1)(b), Family Code — Provides that legitimacy may be impugned on the ground of physical impossibility of sexual intercourse due to the spouses living separately. Interpreted to require proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was lacking due to the proximity of the spouses' residences.
• Article 170 and 171, Family Code — Prescribe the period and the persons who may impugn legitimacy. Applied to deny Gerardo standing, as he is not the husband.
• Article 49, Family Code — Grants visitation rights to a parent deprived of custody in cases of annulment or nullity. Held inapplicable because no parent-child relationship exists between Gerardo and Jose Gerardo.
• Article 8, PD 603 — States that the child's welfare is paramount. Applied to uphold the child's legitimate status, which is more favorable to his best interests.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Garcia.