[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
97 views1 page

Benitez-Badua vs. CA

This case involved a dispute over the inheritance of properties owned by a married couple who died intestate. The couple's nephew filed to be administrator of the estate, while Marissa claimed to be the sole heir as the adopted daughter. The trial court ruled in Marissa's favor, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Marissa was not the biological child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family code provisions on legitimacy did not apply because relatives contested that Marissa was born to the couple at all. Since Marissa's birth certificate was repudiated, she was found not to be the biological child and not entitled to inheritance.

Uploaded by

Jack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97 views1 page

Benitez-Badua vs. CA

This case involved a dispute over the inheritance of properties owned by a married couple who died intestate. The couple's nephew filed to be administrator of the estate, while Marissa claimed to be the sole heir as the adopted daughter. The trial court ruled in Marissa's favor, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Marissa was not the biological child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family code provisions on legitimacy did not apply because relatives contested that Marissa was born to the couple at all. Since Marissa's birth certificate was repudiated, she was found not to be the biological child and not entitled to inheritance.

Uploaded by

Jack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Benitez-Badua vs CA

GR No. 105625, January 24, 1944

FACTS:
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian had various properties. They both died intestate.
The special proceedings for administration of the properties were filed with the trial court.
Vicente's sister Victoria B. Lirio filed for issuance of letters of administration in favor of the
nephew. Marissa opposed the petition, saying that she is the sole heir of deceased Vicente and
that she is capable of administering his estate. She submitted the pieces of documentary evidence
and testified that the spouses treated her as their own daughter. The relatives of Vicente tried to
prove through testimonial evidence, that the spouses failed to beget a child during their marriage.
Victoria categorically declared that Marissa was not the biological child of the spouses who were
unable to physically procreate.

Trial court relied on Arts. 166 and 170 of the Family Code and ruled in favor of Marissa. On
appeal, the CA reversed the lower court decision and declared Marissa Benitez-Badua is not the
biological child of the late spouses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Marissa Benitez-Badua is the legitimate child and the sole heir of the late
spouses.

HELD:
No. The SC find no merit to the petition.

Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. The
above provisions do not contemplate a situation where a child is alleged not to be the biological
child of a certain couple.

In Article 166, it is the husband who can impugn the legitimacy of the child by:
(1) it was physically impossible for him to have sexual intercourse, with his wife within the first
120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child;
(2) that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been his child;
(3) that in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or
ratification by either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue
influence.

Articles 170 and 171 speak of the prescription period within which the husband or any of his
heirs should file an action impugning the legitimacy of the child. In this case, it is not where the
heirs of the late Vicente are contending that Marissa is not his child or a child by Isabel, but they
are contending that Marissa was not born to Vicente and Isabel.

Marissa was not the biological child of the dead spouses. Marissa's Certificate of Live Birth was
repudiated by the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Isabel by Vicente,
saying that he and his brother-in-law are the sole heirs of the estate.

You might also like