JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 112193 | March 31, 1996

JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 112193, March 31, 1996 
 
Facts

In 1959, Jose M. Aruego Sr., a married man, had an amorous relationship with Luz M. Fabian until his death on March 30, 1982. Out of this relationship were born Antonio Aruego and Evelyn F. Aruego. On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights was filed by the minors, Antonia and Evelyn. However, Jose Aruego Jr., and the petitioners also filed a complaint to declare the private respondents as illegitimate children of their defunct father. The lower court decided that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter or Jose Aruego Sr., and Luz M. Fabian and that she is entitled to a share of equal to one-half portion of share of the legitimate. So the petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration alleging loss of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court over the complaint by virtue of the passage of E.O. 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines. It was denied, hence this petition for review. 
 
Issue

Whether or not the provisions of the Family Code be applied retroactively. 
 
Ruling

Private respondent‘s action for compulsory recognition as an illegitimate child was brought under Book I, Title VIII of the Civil Code on Persons under Art. 285 thereby stating that the recognition of natural children is brought only the lifetime of the presumed parents except when the parents die during the minority of the child. Petitioners, on the other hand submit that with the New Family Code on August 31, 1988, the trial court lost jurisdiction on the ground of prescription. Further, the Family Code provides that it shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not impair the vested right of others. The Supreme Court held that the present law which is the Family Code cannot be applied retroactively because its application will impair the vested right of the respondent to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code which has vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the Civil Code. 
 
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927  Facts Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.  Issue Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition.  Ruling Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance wit...
Read more

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006    Facts On October 29, 1992, Sima Wei died in Makati City leaving an estate valued 10 million more or less. His known heirs are his spouse Shirley Guy with their children five children. On June 13, 1997, private respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei represented by their mother Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court alleging that they are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. However, petitioner and co-heirs alleged that private respondent‘s claim had been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by Remedios‘ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational support received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei and any and all liabilities.   The petition was denied in the lower court and the motion for reconsidered dis...
Read more

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE | GR. No. 165842 | November 29, 2005

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE GR. No. 165842, November 29, 2005    Facts This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.    Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in BaguioCity without Gandalera‘s knowledge of Manuel‘s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter‘s defense being that his decla...
Read more