Liyao, Jr. vs. Tanhoti-Liyao

A child born within a valid marriage cannot impugn his own legitimacy to claim filiation from his mother's paramour; the right to impugn legitimacy is strictly personal to the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs.

Corazon Garcia was legally married to Ramon Yulo but had been living separately from him for over ten years. From 1965 until his death in 1975, Garcia cohabited with William Liyao, a married man. On June 9, 1975, Garcia gave birth to William Liyao, Jr. Following the elder Liyao's death, Garcia, acting as guardian ad litem for her son, sought to have the child recognized as the illegitimate son of the deceased.

• The Cohabitation and Birth: Corazon Garcia, despite her subsisting marriage to Ramon Yulo, lived with William Liyao from 1965 to 1975. They resided in a succession of rented houses in Quezon City and Manila, along with Garcia's two children from her marriage to Yulo. Liyao's legitimate children were aware of the arrangement, as they worked at the family company where Liyao and Garcia served as president and vice president, respectively. On June 9, 1975, Garcia gave birth to William Liyao, Jr.
• The Putative Father's Acts: Petitioner presented evidence that Liyao paid the hospital expenses, directed his secretary to secure the birth certificate, opened a bank account for the child, and introduced the child as his son to colleagues and legitimate daughters. Photographs of Liyao carrying the child and socializing with Garcia were also presented. Witnesses testified that Liyao referred to the child as his son and planned a lavish baptism.
• The Legitimate Family's Defense: Respondents countered that Liyao lived with his legal family in Makati and suffered two strokes in 1974, which severely limited his physical capabilities and business activities. Witnesses for the respondents testified that Garcia and Yulo were seen together on occasion during the period of cohabitation. Furthermore, Liyao's signature did not appear on the child's birth or baptismal certificates, nor on the bank passbook presented.

• Continuous Possession of Status: Petitioner argued that he had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of an acknowledged child, supported by the direct and overt acts of the deceased, such as providing sustenance and publicly introducing him as his son.
• Physical Impossibility of Paternity by the Husband: Petitioner maintained that his mother had been separated from her legal husband for over ten years, making it physically impossible for the husband to have fathered the child, a fact corroborated by a "Contract of Separation" executed by Yulo.

• Presumption of Legitimacy: Respondent countered that the law favors legitimacy and the presumption can only be thwarted by proof of the physical impossibility of marital intimacy under the Civil Code.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that the birth and baptismal certificates lacking the putative father's signature, family photographs, and a bank passbook without the father's name are incompetent proof of filiation.

• Impugnation of Legitimacy: Whether a child born within a valid marriage can impugn his own legitimacy to claim recognition as the illegitimate child of his mother's paramour.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to establish filiation with the deceased.

• Impugnation of Legitimacy: The petition cannot prosper because a child born within a valid marriage cannot impugn his own legitimacy. The right to impugn legitimacy is strictly personal to the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs, as he is the one directly confronted with the scandal of infidelity. The child's status is fixed if the husband does not impugn it; the child cannot choose to be the child of his mother's paramour.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found no reason to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence, given the legal barrier of the presumption of legitimacy. It was noted, however, that no clear, competent, and positive evidence of admission or recognition by the putative father was presented.

• Presumption of Legitimacy — Children born after 180 days following the celebration of marriage and before 300 days following its dissolution are presumed legitimate. This presumption is grounded in natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother, designed to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. It applies even if the mother declares against the child's legitimacy or is convicted of adultery.
• Strictly Personal Right to Impugn Legitimacy — The right to impugn the legitimacy of a child belongs exclusively to the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs. This is because the husband is the one directly affected by the wife's infidelity and must decide whether to expose or conceal it. Outside of these parties, no one, not even the child himself, can impugn legitimacy.

• "If the husband, presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mother’s alleged paramour."
• "It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law."

• Macadangdang v. CA, 100 SCRA 73 (1980) — Cited as authority for the principle that impugning legitimacy is a strictly personal right of the husband, who is directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule of the wife's infidelity.

• Article 255, Civil Code — Establishes the presumption of legitimacy and restricts the evidence admissible to overthrow it to physical impossibility of access. Applied to emphasize that even if physical impossibility existed, the petitioner lacked the personality to invoke it.
• Article 256, Civil Code — Provides that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy. Applied to bar the mother's petition from overturning the child's legitimacy.
• Article 262, Civil Code — Allows the husband's heirs to impugn legitimacy in exceptional cases. Applied to clarify that the petitioner, not being the husband's heir acting in a proper case, cannot impugn legitimacy.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena.