Batapa-Sigue & Sigue Law Office

21/03/2026

SANDIGANBAYAN, NOT COURT OF APPEALS, HOLDS APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER GRAFT CONVICTIONS—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has vacated the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision convicting three former barangay officials in Manila for graft, emphasizing that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such cases.

In a 13-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has vacated the conviction of Barangay 526, Zone 52, District 4, Manila, former Chairman Aniceta Co, ex-Barangay Kagawad and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Chair Nestor Co, and Barangay Treasurer Emma Acebedo for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed from the questionable procurement of a barangay motor vehicle in 2014. The barangay officials sent out an Invitation to Bid to several suppliers. The contract was later awarded to Derexon Trading as the participant with the lowest bid.

Later, the Ombudsman found something anomalous with the transaction, as it discovered that the subject vehicle was formerly owned by the brother of Barangay Kagawad Nestor. It was also revealed that said vehicle was mortgaged to secure a loan.

During the trial, the accused denied knowledge of the prior ownership of the subject vehicle and claimed that the procurement and purchase thereof was regularly done pursuant to the proper procedure.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Chairman Aneceta, Kagawad Nestor, and Treasurer Emma guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 6 to 10 years. The said conviction was eventually affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In declaring the ruling void, the high court held that the CA lacks appellate jurisdiction over the case. It cited Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 10660, which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts, whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction," the Supreme Court said.

It also reaffirmed the principle laid down in the case of Munez vs. People, where the SC vacated the Court of Appeal's decision and held that it had no jurisdiction to review the regional trial court's conviction, since the appellate jurisdiction is properly lodged with the Sandiganbayan.

The high court remanded the case records to the Sandiganbayan and directed it to resolve the case with utmost dispatch.

21/03/2026

LAWYER FOR THE POOR! ⚖️👏

John Steven Usero studied with borrowed books, worked multiple jobs, and lost both parents along the way.

Still, he passed the Bar and refused to quit.

“Para sa nanay at tatay ko, abogado na ’ko. May abogado na kayo,” Usero said, dedicating his victory to his late parents.

Now, Atty. John Usero vows to serve the poor and give justice to those with no voice. ⚖️🇵🇭

👉Read full story: tinyurl.com/JohnUsero

20/03/2026

We congratulate our senior partner Atty. Jocelle Batapa-Sigue for successfully joining a global community of practitioners through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Academy’s face-to-face programme on AI governance in São Paulo, Brazil, in gaining practical knowledge that can help support the Philippines in building trustworthy and future-ready AI governance frameworks.

SÃO PAULO, 20 March 2026 — AI governance advocate Jocelle Batapa-Sigue has successfully completed the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Academy face-to-face training course on AI governan…

12/03/2026

JUST IN: Pres. Bongbong Marcos declares March 20 as a regular holiday in celebration of Eid’l Fitr.

"The Palace extends its greetings to the Muslim community in the Philippines and around the world as they prepare to celebrate Eid’l Fitr with their families and communities," Malacañang said.

27/02/2026

Celebrate successes, big or small.

16/02/2026

Our law office is closed on holidays but open on Saturdays by appointment only.

14/02/2026

We are proud and happy to welcome our new associates - Atty. Neska Centina of the University of Negros Occidental - College of Law and Atty. Katheryne Dizon of the University of St. La Salle - College of Law. Congratulations and we wish
you great success in your new journeys!

12/02/2026

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2180961/pnp-online-baby-selling

Philippine National Police chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr. — Photo from PNP/Facebook MANILA, Philippines — Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr. on

10/02/2026

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗘𝗖’𝘀 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗕𝗢𝗥 𝗪𝗲𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀

The Securities and Exchange Commission is hosting online sessions on the 𝗛𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 (𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗕𝗢𝗥)—the new system for submitting 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 information.

This shift is a major step forward for the Philippines. HARBOR enhances 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, supports 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶‑𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀, and aligns the country with 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 for financial integrity and responsible business. A stronger BO registry means a stronger, more trusted Philippine business environment.

Choose your preferred date, scan the QR code, and secure your slot.

Registration is open until 12:00 PM on 16 February 2026 or until slots are filled.

Attendance is on a 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁‑𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁‑𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗱 basis.

Let’s advance transparency and good governance together.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Aue5yVB2P/

🔎 𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗕𝗢𝗥

The Securities and Exchange Commission invites all concerned to a FREE webinar designed to guide corporations, compliance officers, and stakeholders on updated disclosure requirements.

Understand the Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Rules of 2026 and how the Hierarchical and Applicable Relations and Beneficial Ownership Registry (HARBOR) works.

📌 What you’ll learn:
• SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 2025
• Practical overview of HARBOR and beneficial ownership reporting

🗓 19 or 20 February 2026
⏰ 9:00 AM – 12:00 NN
💻 Via Zoom

📝 Pre-registration is required
⏳ Slots are first-come, first-served. Registration closes 12:00 NN on 16 February 2026 or once capacity is reached.

Read the full notice here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/notices/webinar-on-the-beneficial-ownership-disclosure-rules-of-2026-and-the-hierarchical-and-applicable-relations-and-beneficial-ownership-registry-harbor/

09/02/2026

Common Logical Fallacies Explained in Latin

06/02/2026

𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗮𝘁𝗵-𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Today marks not just the culmination of years of discipline, sacrifice, and perseverance, but the beginning of a lifelong commitment to justice, integrity, and service to the Filipino people. As you take your oath, you join a noble profession that carries both great privilege and profound responsibility.

As you enter the profession, you do so at a time when the public looks to the law—and to lawyers—for integrity, fairness, and accountability. While our society continues to face challenges, including corruption and abuse of power, your role is to help strengthen trust in our institutions by practicing the law with honesty, professionalism, and respect for ethical standards. The oath you have taken is a reminder that the law is meant to serve justice and the public good.

06/02/2026

𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Q18YpGHJC/

Surname of married woman's lover was used in the love child's birth certificate: Can the woman, who's separated in fact from her husband, have the child's surname changed to her maiden surname? | Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code | Supreme Court decision in "Ordoña vs. Pasig City Local Civil Registrar" (2021) | House Bill No. 7348 (20th Congress) filed by Rep. Sun J. Shimura of Cebu's 4th congressional district seeks to amend Article 167 of the Family Code by giving a mother the right to impugn — challenge or question — her child's legitimacy (in simpler terms, with the proposed amendment, a mother can declare that her child is illegitimate).

𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄:

𝗔. 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟰, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵 (𝟭) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀: "Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate."

In the 2005 "Gerardo Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals and Ma. Theresa Almonte" case, Gerardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Theresa on the ground that their marriage was bigamous. Ma. Theresa was already married to a certain Mario when they got married (and Mario was still alive and living in Quezon City). As a result, the Regional Trial Court declared their son Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child. When the court denied her motion to have Jose Gerardo's surname changed to her maiden surname, Ma. Theresa brought the case up to the Court of Appeals.

Ma. Theresa and Gerardo were shocked when the Court of Appeals ruled that, legally, Jose Gerardo was not their son but the son of Ma. Theresa and Mario (the first husband). The Court of Appeals ruling, later on affirmed by the Supreme Court, declared that every presumption must be in favor of legitimacy. You can read the full text of this case @ https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_123450_2005.html

𝗕. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲. It may be disputed based on the grounds and manner provided under Articles 166, 170, and 171.

𝗖. 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀: "The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress."

𝗗. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 "𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗼ñ𝗮 𝘃𝘀. 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗴 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗟𝗖𝗥 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟭)" 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. While working in UAE, she entered into a relationship with a man, with whom she later had a son. On the birth certificate, her son's surname is that of her lover's surname, instead of her husband's surname. Claiming that her son is illegitimate, she filed a petition under Rule 108 "Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry" to have her son's surname on the birth certificate changed from her lover's surname to her maiden surname.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲. The Court said that it's only the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs who can impugn (challenge or question) her son's legitimacy. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 "𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 [𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗻] 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 [𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲'𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿] 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄."

The Court addressed to Congress and the Senate the "absence of a remedy in favor of a mother in establishing the true filiation of her child."

𝗘. 𝗥𝗲𝗽. 𝗦𝘂𝗻 𝗝. 𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗮 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗲𝗯𝘂'𝘀 𝟰𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴, 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆. In simpler terms, with the proposed amendment, a mother can declare that her child is illegitimate.

𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀:

𝗔. You can read the full text of "Ordoña vs. Pasig City LCR (2021)" @ https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_215370_2021.html

Richelle Busque Ordoña (Richelle) was married to a certain Ariel O. Libut (Ariel) on October 10, 2000 in Las Piñas City. 𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟴 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗤𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗿, 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝘀𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲.

Richelle then worked in UAE where she met Allan D. Fulgueras (Allan), her former colleague in Qatar. She and Allan engaged in an intimate relationship, which resulted in her pregnancy. She went back to the Philippines sometime in 2009 and in early 2010 gave birth to a son in a hospital in Pasig City. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 "𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗼ñ𝗮 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀” 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 "𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀" 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿.

𝗕. 𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟭, 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟬𝟴 "𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆" 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:

(1) change of last name of Alrich Paul in Item 1 from "Fulgueras" to "Ordoña," her maiden name; and

(2) deletion of entries in the paternal information in Item Nos. 13 to 17.

𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁/𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 (𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁) 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹.

𝗖. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴

𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲. Highlights of the RTC's ruling:

(𝟭) Alrich Paul is an illegitimate child considering that he was conceived and born outside a valid marriage. "Per his Certificate of Live Birth, his mother is petitioner [Richelle] married to Ariel, but his alleged father is Allan."

(𝟮) Under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act 9255, "illegitimate children shall use the surname and be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with the Family Code; however, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father."

(𝟯) "Thus, [Richelle] wanted to delete the entries in Item Nos. 13 to 17 in Alrich Paul's Certificate of Live Birth to do away with an embarrassing situation when he comes of age and attends school where he can be the object of ridicule and discriminatory remarks from his peers."

"𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿. 𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗡𝗼𝘀. 𝟭𝟯 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹; 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗶𝗳 𝗵𝗲, 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿; that the intended correction was only for the convenience of [Richelle], who is legally married to Ariel, but gave birth to Alrich Paul whose alleged father is Allan; and that the legitime of Alrich Paul might be affected if Item Nos. 13 to 17 were to be deleted." [Boldfacing supplied]

After the RTC denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Richelle appealed to the Court of Appeals.

𝗗. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀' 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:

𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲. 𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱.

"The CA explained that under Article 164 of the Family Code, 'children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.' It then noted that when Alrich Paul was born, [Richelle] was still married to Ariel.

"𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗔 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 [𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀] 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹, 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 '𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀.' Thus, contrary to what the RTC declared, it ruled that Alrich Paul cannot be deemed the illegitimate child of [Richelle] and Allan based solely on [Richelle's] admission; that the law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy; and that the status and filiation of the child cannot be compromised." [Boldfacing supplied]

"The CA further explained that the law sets who may dispute the legitimate status of the child, and that specifically, impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs."

"The CA added that it was not for the RTC to rule on the matter: should Ariel or his heirs file an action impugning the status of Alrich Paul as a legitimate child of Ariel, it should be threshed out in a different proceeding. It explained that the well settled rule is that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.

"Thus, the CA declared that the presumption that Alrich Paul is the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between petitioner and Ariel stands."

After the Court of Appeals denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Richelle appealed to the Supreme Court.

𝗘. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:

(𝟭) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 "𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵."

[Note: In simple terms, Rule 108 is not the proper remedy that Richelle should have taken since she was actually questioning her son's legitimacy.]

"Article 164 of the Family Code provides that 'children conceived or born during the marriage of the parties are legitimate.' Here, [Richelle] admitted to being in a valid and subsisting marriage with Ariel when she conceived and gave birth to Alrich Paul. Thus, Alrich Paul is presumed to be a legitimate child of petitioner and Ariel. However, looking at the Rule 108 petition in this case, [Richelle], mother of Alrich Paul, in effect declared against her child's legitimacy when she alleged that Alrich Paul was the child of Allan.

"Following the pronouncement in Miller, [Richelle's] collateral attack of Alrich Paul's filiation cannot be allowed in a Rule 108 proceeding. Thus, on this ground alone, the RTC should have dismissed the Rule 108 petition."

(𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿, 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲.

"Still, the rule is that the mother is barred from impugning or declaring against the legitimacy of her child, and only the father, or in exceptional instances, his heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife based on any of the grounds enumerated under Article 166 of the Family Code."

"Here, [Richelle's] declaration in the birth certificate and in the Rule 108 petition that Alrich Paul is illegitimate cannot be countenanced as it runs counter to Article 167 of the Family Code. The presumption that Alrich Paul is legitimate stands in the absence of a direct action timely filed by the proper party."

(𝟯) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗱𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱.

"The hands of the Court are tied as it may only entertain the impugnation of a child's presumed legitimacy in a direct action filed by the proper party and within the prescribed period under the law.

"In light of these, the Court finds the present case as an opportune moment to highlight the absence of a remedy in favor of a mother in establishing the true filiation of her child. Ultimately, the Court's observations are directed to the Legislature inasmuch as the Court is careful not to tread on the realm of judicial legislation."

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴 (𝟮𝟬𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀) 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆

Rep. Sun J. Shimura of Cebu's 4th congressional district filed House Bill No. 7348 on January 26, 2025; you can download it fromhttps://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB07348.pdf

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 (boldfacing supplied):

"Art. 167. Legitimate children may impugn the legitimacy of their filiation only upon reaching the age of majority, and solely on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law.

"In addition, the following may likewise impugn the legitimacy of a child in the cases and in the manner authorized by law:

"(a) The husband, in accordance with Articles 166, 170, and 171 of this Code; and

"(𝗯) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱/𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱’𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗗𝗡𝗔 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.

"𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟲 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟳𝟭 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀."

𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲:

You can read the full text of Articles 164, 167, and related articles of the Family Code @ https://familymatters.netlify.app/family%20code/fc%20title%20vi%20paternity%20and%20filiation