RODOLFO S. AGUILAR, PETITIONER. VS. EDNA G. SIASAT, RESPONDENT.

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to set aside the August 30, 2006
Decision[2] and December 20, 2011 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CEB-CV No. 64229 affirming the August 17, 1999 Decision[4] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 49 in Civil Case No. 96-9591 and denying
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.[5]

Factual Antecedents

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar spouses) died,
intestate and without debts, on August 26, 1983 and February 8, 1994, respectively. 
Included in their estate are two parcels of land (herein subject properties) covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070 of the Registries of
Deeds of Bago and Bacolod (the subject titles).[6]

In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod City (Bacolod
RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages against respondent Edna G.
Siasat.  Docketed as Civil Case No. 96-9591 and assigned to Branch 49 of the Bacolod
RTC, the Complaint[7] alleged that petitioner is the only son and sole surviving heir of
the Aguilar spouses; that he (petitioner) discovered that the subject titles were missing,
and thus he suspected that someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen the same; that
he executed affidavits of loss of the subject titles and filed the same with the Registries
of Deeds of Bacolod and Bago; that on June 22, 1996, he filed before the Bacolod RTC
a Petition for the issuance of second owner’s copy of Certificate of Title No. T-25896,
which respondent opposed; and that during the hearing of the said Petition, respondent
presented the two missing owner’s duplicate copies of the subject titles.  Petitioner thus
prayed for mandatory injunctive relief, in that respondent be ordered to surrender to him
the owner’s duplicate copies of the subject titles in her possession; and that damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs of suit be awarded to him.

In her Answer,[8] respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole surviving
heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised by the Aguilar spouses
out of generosity and kindness of heart; that petitioner is not a natural or adopted child
of the Aguilar spouses; that since Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar, the latter inherited the conjugal share of the former; that upon the death
of Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as she had no
issue; and that the subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted to her for safekeeping by
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt.  By way of counterclaim, respondent prayed
for an award of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

During trial, petitioner testified and affirmed his relationship to the Aguilar spouses as
their son.  To prove filiation, he presented the following documents, among others:
1. His school records at the Don J.A. Araneta Elementary School, Purok No. 2, Bacolod-
Murcia Milling Company (BMMC), Bacolod City (Exhibit “C” and submarkings),
wherein it is stated that Alfredo Aguilar is petitioner’s parent;
2. His Individual Income Tax Return (Exhibit “F”), which indicated that Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar is his mother;
3. Alfredo Aguilar’s Social Security System (SSS) Form E-1 dated October 10, 1957
(Exhibit “G”), a public instrument subscribed and made under oath by Alfredo
Aguilar during his employment with BMMC, which bears his signature and thumb
marks and indicates that petitioner, who was born on March 5, 1945, is his son and
dependent;
4. Alfredo Aguilar’s Information Sheet of Employment with BMMC dated October 29,
1954 (Exhibit “L”), indicating that petitioner is his son;
5. Petitioner’s Certificate of Marriage to Luz Abendan (Exhibit “M”), where it is
declared that the Aguilar spouses are his parents; and
6. Letter of the BMMC Secretary (Exhibit “O”) addressed to a BMMC supervisor
introducing petitioner as Alfredo Aguilar’s son and recommending him for
employment.
7. Certification dated January 27, 1996 issued by the Bacolod City Civil Registry to the
effect that the record of births during the period 1945 to 1946 were “all destroyed by
nature,” hence no true copies of the Certificate of Live Birth of petitioner could be
issued as requested (Exhibit “Q”).[9]

Petitioner also offered the testimonies of his wife, Luz Marie Abendan-Aguilar
(Abendan-Aguilar), and Ester Aguilar-Pailano (Aguilar-Pailano), his aunt and sister of
Alfredo Aguilar.  Abendan-Aguilar confirmed petitioner’s identity, and she testified that
petitioner is the son of the Aguilar spouses and that during her marriage to petitioner, she
lived with the latter in the Aguilar spouses’ conjugal home built on one of the subject
properties.  On the other hand, 81-year old Aguilar-Pailano testified that she is the sister
of Alfredo Aguilar; that the Aguilar spouses have only one son – herein petitioner – who
was born at BMMC; that after the death of the Aguilar spouses, she and her siblings did
not claim ownership of the subject properties because they recognized petitioner as the
Aguilar spouses’ sole child and heir; that petitioner was charged with murder, convicted,
imprisoned, and later on paroled; and that after he was discharged on parole, petitioner
continued to live with his mother Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar in one of the subject
properties, and continues to live there with his family.[10]

For her evidence, respondent testified among others that she is a retired teacher; that she
does not know petitioner very well, but only heard his name from her aunt Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar; that she is not related by consanguinity or affinity to petitioner; that she
attended to Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar while the latter was under medication in a hospital
until her death; that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar’s hospital and funeral expenses were paid
for by Nancy Vingno; that Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar executed an affidavit to the effect
that she had no issue and that she is the sole heir to her husband Alfredo Aguilar’s estate;
that she did not steal the subject titles, but that the same were entrusted to her by
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar; that a prior planned sale of the subject properties did not push
through because when petitioner’s opinion thereto was solicited, he expressed
disagreement as to the agreed price.[11]

Respondent likewise offered the testimony of Aurea Siasat-Nicavera (Siasat-Nicavera),

74 years old, who stated that the Aguilar spouses were married on June 22, 1933 in
Miag-ao, Iloilo; that she is the sister of Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar; that she does not
know petitioner, although she admitted that she knew a certain “Rodolfo” whose
nickname was “Mait”; that petitioner is not the son of the Aguilar spouses; and that
Alfredo Aguilar has a sister named Ester Aguilar-Pailano.[12]

Respondent also offered an Affidavit previously executed by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar

(Exhibit “2”) announcing among others that she and Alfredo have no issue, and that she
is the sole heir to Alfredo’s estate.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 17, 1999, the Bacolod RTC issued its Decision, decreeing as follows:
From the evidence thus adduced before this Court, no solid evidence attesting
to the fact that plaintiff herein is either a biological son or a legally adopted
one was ever presented.  Neither was a certificate of live birth of plaintiff ever
introduced confirming his biological relationship as a son to the deceased
spouses Alfredo and Candelaria S. Aguilar.  As a matter of fact, in the affidavit
of Candelaria S. Aguilar (Exhibit 2) she expressly announced under oath that
Alfredo and she have no issue and that she is the sole heir to the estate of
Alfredo is (sic) concrete proof that plaintiff herein was never a son by
consanguinity nor a legally adopted one of the deceased spouses Alfredo and
Candelaria Aguilar.

This being the case, Petitioner is not deemed vested with sufficient interest in
this action to be considered qualified or entitled to the issuance of the writ of
mandatory injunction and damages prayed for.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff’s complaint

with cost.
 The counterclaim of the defendant is likewise dismissed for lack of legal
basis.

SO ORDERED.[13]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.[14]  Docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 64229,
the appeal essentially argued that petitioner is indeed the Aguilar spouses’ son; that
under Article 172 of the Family Code,[15] an admission of legitimate filiation in a
public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned
constitutes proof of filiation; that through the documentary evidence presented,
petitioner has shown that he is the legitimate biological son of the Aguilar spouses and
the sole heir to their estate.  He argued that he cannot present his Certificate of Live
Birth as all the records covering the period 1945-1946[16] of the Local Civil Registry of
Bacolod City were destroyed as shown by Exhibits “Q” to “Q-3”; for this reason, he
presented the foregoing documentary evidence to prove his relationship to the Aguilar
spouses.  Petitioner made particular reference to, among others, Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS
Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”), arguing that the same was made under oath and thus sufficient
under Article 172 of the Family Code to establish that he is a child and heir of the
Aguilar spouses.  Finally, petitioner questioned the trial court’s reliance upon Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar’s affidavit (Exhibit “2”) attesting that she and Alfredo have no children
and that she is the sole heir to the estate of Alfredo, when such piece of evidence has
been discarded by the trial court in a previous Order dated April 1, 1998, stating thus:
Except for defendant’s Exhibit “2”, all other Exhibits, Exhibits “1”, “3”, “4”
and “5”, together with their submarkings, are all admitted in evidence.[17]

On August 30, 2006, the CA issued the assailed Decision affirming the trial court’s
August 17, 1999 Decision, pronouncing thus:
The exhibits relied upon by plaintiff-appellant to establish his filiation with the deceased
spouses Aguilar deserve scant consideration by this Court.  The Elementary School
Permanent Record of plaintiff-appellant cannot be considered as proof of filiation.  As
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA
439:
“Student record or other writing not signed by alleged father do not
constitute evidence of filiation.”

As regards the Income Tax Return of plaintiff-appellant filed with the Bureau
of Internal Revenue, WE hold that it cannot be considered as evidence of
filiation.  As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Labagala vs. Santiago,
371 SCRA 360:
“A baptismal certificate, a private document is not conclusive proof of
filiation.  More so are the entries made in an income tax return, which only
shows that income tax has been paid and the amount thereof.”

With respect to the Certificate of Marriage x x x wherein it is shown that the

parents of the former are Alfredo and Candelaria Siasat Aguilar does not prove
filiation.  The Highest Tribunal declared that a marriage contract not signed by
the alleged father of bride is not competent evidence of filiation nor is a
marriage contract recognition in a public instrument.

The rest of the exhibits offered x x x, except the Social Security Form E-1
(Exhibit “G”) and the Information Sheet of Employment of Alfredo Aguilar
(Exhibit “L”), allegedly tend to establish that plaintiff-appellant has been and
is presently known as Rodolfo Siasat Aguilar and he has been bearing the
surname of his alleged parents.

WE cannot sustain plaintiff-appellant’s argument.  Use of a family surname

certainly does not establish pedigree.

Insofar as the SSS Form E-1 and Information Sheet of Employment of Alfredo
Aguilar are concerned, WE cannot accept them as sufficient proof to establish
and prove the filiation of plaintiff-appellant to the deceased Aguilar spouses. 
While the former is a public instrument and the latter bears the signature of
Alfredo Aguilar, they do not constitute clear and convincing evidence to show
filiation based on open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child.  Filiation is a serious matter that must be resolved according to the
requirements of the law.

All told, plaintiff-appellant’s evidence failed to hurdle the “high standard of

proof” required for the success of an action to establish one’s legitimate
filiation when relying upon the provisions regarding open and continuous
possession or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Having resolved that plaintiff-appellant is not an heir of the deceased spouses

Aguilar, thereby negating his right to demand the delivery of the subject TCTs
in his favor, this Court cannot grant the writ of mandatory injunction being
prayed for.

x x x x

In the present case, plaintiff-appellant failed to show that he has a clear and
unmistakable right that has been violated.  Neither had he shown permanent
 and urgent necessity for the issuance of the writ.

With respect to the damages prayed for, WE sustain the trial court in denying
the same.  Aside from the fact that plaintiff-appellant failed to show his clear
right over the subject parcels of land so that he has not sustained any damage
by reason of the withholding of the TCTs from him, there is no clear testimony
on the anguish or anxiety he allegedly suffered as a result thereof.  Well
entrenched in law and jurisprudence is the principle that the grant of moral
damages is expressly allowed by law in instances where proofs of the mental
anguish, serious anxiety and moral shock were shown.

ACCORDINGLY, in line with the foregoing disquisition, the appeal is hereby

DENIED.  The impugned Decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[19] but in a December 20, 2011

Resolution, the CA held its ground.  Hence, the present Petition.
Issues

In an August 28, 2013 Resolution,[20] this Court resolved to give due course to the
Petition, which raises the following issues:
In issuing the assailed DECISION affirming in toto the Decision of RTC
Branch 49, Bacolod City, and the Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible error
[in] not taking into consideration petitioner’s Exhibit “G” (SSS E-1
acknowledged and notarized before a notary public, executed by Alfredo
Aguilar, recognizing the petitioner as his son) as public document that satisfies
the requirement of Article 172 of the [Family] Code in the establishment of
the legitimate filiation of the petitioner with his father, Alfredo Aguilar.

The herein [P]etition raises the issue of pure question of law with respect to
the application of Article 172 of the Family Code particularly [paragraph] 3
thereof in conjunction with Section 19 and Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court relating to public document which is substantial enough to merit
consideration of this Honorable Court as it will enrich jurisprudence and
forestall future litigation.[21]

Petitioner’s Arguments

In his Petition and Reply[22] seeking to reverse and set aside the assailed CA
dispositions and praying that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to surrender the
owner’s duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462) 1070,
petitioner argues that Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”) satisfies the
requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article
172 of the Family Code.  Petitioner contends that said SSS Form E-1 is a declaration
under oath by his father, Alfredo Aguilar, of his status as the latter’s son; this recognition
should be accorded more weight than the presumption of legitimacy, since Article 172
itself declares that said evidence establishes legitimate filiation without need of court
action.  He adds that in contemplation of law, recognition in a public instrument such as
the SSS Form E-1 is the “highest form of recognition which partake (sic) of the nature of
a complete act of recognition bestowed upon” him as the son of the late Alfredo Aguilar;
that respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy and cannot collaterally
attack his legitimacy; that the action to impugn his legitimacy has already prescribed
pursuant to Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code;[23] and that having proved his
filiation, mandatory injunction should issue, and an award of damages is in order.

Respondent’s Arguments

In her Comment[24] and Memorandum,[25] respondent simply echoes the

pronouncements of the CA, adding that the Petition is a mere rehash of the CA appeal
which has been passed upon succinctly by the appellate court.
Our Ruling

The Court grants the Petition.

This Court, speaking in De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon,[26] has held that –

44 The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate

children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in
the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved
by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules
of Court and special laws.   45The due recognition of an
illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in
itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the
 child, and no further court action is required.  In fact,
any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for
compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary
recognition that does not require a separate action for
judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for recognition is
predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove
paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record or an authentic writing, judicial
action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential
in order to establish the child’s acknowledgment.
A scrutiny of the records would show that petitioners were born during the
marriage of their parents.  The certificates of live birth would also identify
Danilo de Jesus as being their father.

There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and

founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the
presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This
presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is
physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days
of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a)
the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such a way
that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband,
which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse.  Quite remarkably, upon the
expiration of the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article
171, of the Family Code (which took effect on 03 August 1988), the action to
impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible and the
status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable.
[27] (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, applying the foregoing pronouncement to the instant case, it must be concluded
that petitioner – who was born on March 5, 1945, or during the marriage of Alfredo
Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar[28] and before their respective deaths[29] – has
sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses.  As petitioner
correctly argues, Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”) satisfies the
requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article
172 of the Family Code; by itself, said document constitutes an “admission of legitimate
filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned.”

Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth since all the
records covering the period 1945-1946  of the Local Civil Registry of Bacolod City were
destroyed, which necessitated the introduction of other documentary evidence –
particularly Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit “G”) – to prove filiation.  It was
erroneous for the CA to treat said document as mere proof of open and continuous
possession of the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172
of the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof, the same
being an express recognition in a public instrument.

To repeat what was stated in De Jesus, filiation may be proved by an admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed
by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any authentic writing is, in itself, a
consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is
required. And, relative to said form of acknowledgment, the Court has further held that:
In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following
rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in
any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or
illegitimate child is made:

1)  Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to
prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same
must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

2)  Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and
competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been
made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such
other evidence.

Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the “paramount consideration” in
resolving questions affecting him. Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of a Child of which the Philippines is a signatory is similarly emphatic:
Article 3

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public

or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall
be a primary consideration.

It is thus “(t)he policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the
investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of
 illegitimate children x x x.”  Too, “(t)he State as parens patriae affords special
protection to children from abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial
to their development.”[30] (Emphasis supplied)

This case should not have been so difficult for petitioner if only he obtained a copy of
his Certificate of Live Birth from the National Statistics Office (NSO), since the
Bacolod City Civil Registry copy thereof was destroyed.  He would not have had to go
through the trouble of presenting other documentary evidence; the NSO copy would
have sufficed.  This fact is not lost on petitioner; the Certification dated January 27,
1996 issued by the Bacolod City Civil Registry (Exhibit “Q”) contained just such an
advice for petitioner to proceed to the Office of the Civil Registrar General at the NSO
in Manila to secure a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, since for every registered
birth in the country, a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is submitted to said office.

As to petitioner’s argument that respondent has no personality to impugn his legitimacy

and cannot collaterally attack his legitimacy, and that the action to impugn his
legitimacy has already prescribed pursuant to Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code,
the Court has held before that –
Article 263[31] refers to an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, to
assert and prove that a person is not a man’s child by his wife. However, the
present case is not one impugning petitioner’s legitimacy. Respondents are
asserting not merely that petitioner is not a legitimate child of Jose, but that
she is not a child of Jose at all.[32]

Finally, if petitioner has shown that he is the legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses,
then he is as well heir to the latter’s estate.  Respondent is then left with no right to
inherit from her aunt Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar’s estate, since succession pertains, in the
first place, to the descending direct line.[33]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.  The August 30, 2006 Decision and
December 20, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 64229,
as well as the August 17, 1999 Decision  of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City,
Branch 49 in Civil Case No. 96-9591 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  Respondent
Edna G. Siasat is hereby ordered to SURRENDER to the petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar
the owner’s duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-25896 and T-(15462)
1070.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* , Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

* Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-17.

[2] Id. at 21-36; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in

by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Romeo F. Barza.

[3] Id. at 51-52; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred

in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.

[4] CA rollo, pp. 41-47; penned by Judge Othello M. Villanueva.

[5] Rollo, pp. 37-44.

[6] Id. at 6, 22; CA rollo, p. 41.

[7] Records, pp. 1-6.

[8] Id. at 22-29.

[9] Id. at 203; rollo, pp. 29-30; CA rollo, pp. 43-44.

[10] Rollo, pp. 24-25; CA rollo, pp. 44-45.

[11] Id. at 26-27; id. at 45-46.

[12] Id. at 27; id. at 45.

[13] CA rollo, pp. 46-47.

[14] Id. at 23-40.

[15] Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
[16] Petitioner was born on March 5, 1945.

[17] CA rollo, p. 38.

[18] Rollo, pp. 31-35.

[19] Id. at 37-43.

[20] Id. at 72-73.

[21] Id. at 5-6.

[22] Id. at 67-69.

[23] Art. 170. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within
one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, if the
husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should reside in the city or municipality
where the birth took place or was recorded.

If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at the place of birth as
defined in the first paragraph or where it was recorded, the period shall be two years if
they should reside in the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child
has been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the period shall be
counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of the child or of the fact of
registration of said birth, whichever is earlier. (263a)

Art. 171. The heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the
period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases:

(1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his
action;
(2) If he should die after the filing of the complaint without having desisted therefrom;
or
(3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. (262a)

[24] Rollo, pp. 56-59.

[25] Id. at 84-91.

[26] 418 Phil. 768 (2001).

[27] Id. at 772-775.
[28] The Aguilar spouses were married on June 22, 1933.

[29] Alfredo Aguilar passed away on August 26, 1983; Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar died
on February 8, 1994.

[30] Dela Cruz v. Gracia, 612 Phil. 167, 179-180 (2009).

[31] Of the CIVIL CODE, now Art. 170 of the FAMILY CODE.

[32] Labagala v. Santiago, 422 Phil. 699, 708 (2001).

[33] CIVIL CODE, Article 978.