Conde vs Abaya
CASE LIST #2 CASE NUMBER 1 Right of action to enforce recognition of its legitimacy last during the lifetime of such child, but right of a natural child to compel acknowledgement of its status continues only during the life of the alleged parents. The right of action for a declaration of legitimacy is transmitted to the heirs of the child only when the latter dies during minority or while insane or in case the action has already instituted. Action by a natural child can only be brought against the heirs of the parents in the event of the death of the parents during the minority of the child, or upon discovery of a document, after the death of the parents, expressly acknowledging such child. This right of action which the law concedes to this natural child is not transmitted to his ascendants or descendants. Conde vs. Abaya 13 Phil. 249 CJ Arellano FACTS: Casiano Abaya died intestate in 1899. In the intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Casiano, his brother Roman Abaya, who had been appointed administrator of the estate, filed a petition whereby he moved that he be declared as the sole heir of the decedent. Paula Conde, mother of Teopista and Jose, unacknowledged natural children of Casiano, opposed Roman's petition. She contended that the right of her two natural children by the decedent, and consequently,her rights as heir of such natural children, was superior to that of Roman. Teopista died in 1902 and Jose in 1903, after their father's death but before the institution of this action. ISSUE: Petitioner’s Claim: Her right is superior than Roman Abaya being the mother of the Casiano’s natural children and prayed that she be declared to have preferential right to the property left by Casiano. Respondent’s Claim: Being the nearest relative of Casiano, moved the he be declared as the sole heir to the exclusion of others, and to be entitled to the possession of all Casiano’s property. Is the right of action on the part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation transmitted to his descendants? HELD: No. The right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child is, extinguished by his death, and cannot be transmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child. As legal basis, the Supreme Court made a comparison between an action to claim
the legitimacy, and one to enforce acknowledgment. “ Art.118.Theactiontoclaimitslegitimacymaybebroughtbythechildatany time of its lifetime and shall be transmitted to its heirs, should it die during minority or in a state of insanity. In such cases the heirs shall be allowed a period of five years in which to institute the action. “ The action already instituted by the child is transmitted by its death to the heirs, if it has not lapsed before then. “ Art.137. The actions for the acknowledgment of natural children can be instituted only during the life of the presumed parents, except in the following cases: “ 1.If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may institute the action before the expiration of the first four years of its majority. “ 2.If, after the death of the father or mother, some instrument, before unknown, should be discovered in which the child is expressly acknowledged. “ In this case the action must be instituted within the six months following the discovery of such instrument. ” From the express and precise precepts of the code the following conclusions are derived: The right of action that devolves upon the child to claim his legitimacy lasts during his whole life, while the right to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child lasts only during the life of his presumed parents. Inasmuch as the right of action accruing to the child to claim his legitimacy lasts during his whole life, he may exercise it either against the presumed parents, or their heirs; while the right of action to secure the acknowledgment of a natural child, since it does not last during his whole life, but depends on that of the presumed parents, as a general rule can only be exercised against the latter. An action for the acknowledgment of a natural child may, as an exception, be exercised against the heirs of the presumed parents in two cases: first, in the event of the death of the latter during the minority of the child, and second, upon the discovery of some instrument of express acknowledgment of the child, executed by the father or mother, the existence of which was unknown during the life of the latter. But as such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child can only be exercised by him. It cannot be transmitted to his descendants, or to his ascendants. NOTE: Another issue, first issue, was raised in the petition, however none was discussed, the case only referred to it as “This court has decided the present question in the manner shown in the case of Pimentel vs Palanca” Question is whether an action to enforce acknowledgement of natural child of a person from whom the inheritance is derived be set up in a special proceeding for the administration and distribution of an intestate estate. The doctrine in Pimentel vs Palanca is “While an estate is in the course of settlement in a special proceeding, no ordinary action can be maintained by a person claiming to be an heir, against the executor or administrator, for the purpose of having his rights in the estate determined.