[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
400 views2 pages

Aruego v. CA (G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Family Code did not apply retroactively to deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over a case filed prior to the Code's effectivity. The private respondent filed a complaint in 1983 under Article 285 of the Civil Code to recognize her as an illegitimate child entitled to inheritance. While the case was still pending, the Family Code took effect in 1988, imposing different rules on prescription periods. However, the Court held that applying the Code would prejudice the private respondent's vested right under the Civil Code to have her case decided under those rules. As such, the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to decide the case, and the Family Code did not apply.

Uploaded by

Lorie Jean Udarbe
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
400 views2 pages

Aruego v. CA (G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Family Code did not apply retroactively to deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over a case filed prior to the Code's effectivity. The private respondent filed a complaint in 1983 under Article 285 of the Civil Code to recognize her as an illegitimate child entitled to inheritance. While the case was still pending, the Family Code took effect in 1988, imposing different rules on prescription periods. However, the Court held that applying the Code would prejudice the private respondent's vested right under the Civil Code to have her case decided under those rules. As such, the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to decide the case, and the Family Code did not apply.

Uploaded by

Lorie Jean Udarbe
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/ 2

G.R. No.

112193, March 13, 1996


JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., SIMEONA SAN JUAN ARUEGO, MA. IMMACULADA T. ALANON, ROBERTO A.
TORRES, CRISTINA A. TORRES, JUSTO JOSE TORRES and AGUSTIN TORRES, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DIVISION and ANTONIA ARUEGO, respondents.
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil cases, once attached cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance, and it retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

FACTS:
 March 7, 1983 – A complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional Rights
was filed before the RTC–Manila by the private respondent and her alleged sister, Evelyn Aruego,
praying that they'd be declared illegitimate children of the deceased Jose M. Aruego, Sr.; that
herein petitioners be compelled to recognize and acknowledge them as the compulsory heirs of the
deceased Jose M. Aruego; that their share and participation in the estate of their deceased father be
determined and ordered delivered to them.
 The complaint was based on their open and continuous possession in the status of illegitimate
children.
RTC:
 Only Antonia Aruego was declared as ilegitimate child; not Evelyn “Fabian”.
 Antonia is entitled to ½ portion of share of the legitimate children of Jose Aruego;
 Partial MR alleging that RTC has no jurisdiction by virtue of the passage of the FC which took effect
on August 3, 1988 – DENIED.
 Hence, petition for prohibition and certiorari with prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
filed before the CA.

CA:
 DISMISSED. Lack of merit.
 MR denied, hence, this petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45)

ISSUES:
1. WON the FC is the proper law to be applied?

HELD: NO.
Petitioners:
 The RTC has lost jurisdiction over the complaint on the ground of prescription.
 Pursuant to Art. 175 par. 2, in relation to Art. 172 of the FC, it is provided that an action for
compulsory recognition of illegitimate filiation, if based on the "open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child," must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent
without any exception, otherwise the action will be barred by prescription.
 Died – March 30, 1982.
 Even if it was filed prior to the effectivity of the FC, the law must be applied retroactively as long as it
does not prejudice or impair vested of acquired rights. (Art. 256-FC)
The action was brought under Art. 285 of the Civil Code (PERSONS):
GR: Filing of an action for the recognition of natural children which may be brought only during the
lifetime of the presumed parents.
XPN: (1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter may file
the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority…
COURT: The action has not yet prescribed.
Note: Vested or acquired rights:
The right of action of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in court under the
regime of the Civil Code and prior to the effectivity of the FC. (Tayag v. CA) The fact of filing of the
petition already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the same proceed to final
adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the time, and such right can no longer be prejudiced
or impaired by the enactment of a new law. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Art. 285 – proper; Art. 175, FC – inapplicable.


 Since it will prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article
285 of the Civil Code.
 Hence, the RTC never lost jurisdiction over the case despite passage of EO 209 (FC)

DENIED.

You might also like