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

Aruego vs. Court of Appeals

In the case of Aruego Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Antonia Aruego's action for compulsory recognition of her status as an illegitimate child must be governed by the Civil Code rather than the Family Code, as her case was filed before the latter's enactment. The court determined that the Family Code could not be applied retroactively to deprive her of her rights, as she was a minor at the time of filing. Consequently, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the case despite the death of the alleged father.

Uploaded by

Phearl Urbina
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
24 views2 pages

Aruego vs. Court of Appeals

In the case of Aruego Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Antonia Aruego's action for compulsory recognition of her status as an illegitimate child must be governed by the Civil Code rather than the Family Code, as her case was filed before the latter's enactment. The court determined that the Family Code could not be applied retroactively to deprive her of her rights, as she was a minor at the time of filing. Consequently, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the case despite the death of the alleged father.

Uploaded by

Phearl Urbina
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

Aruego vs.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 112193 (March 13,


1996)

CASE DIGEST: ARUEGO JR. V. COURT OF APPEALS, A. ARUEGO


Published by bigboy on January 15, 2014 | Leave a response
Aruego Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, A. Aruego
G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996
FACTS:

On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition


and enforcement of successional rights was filed before RTC Manila by the
minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister Evelyn Aruego represented by their
mother Luz Fabian. The complaint was opposed by the legitimate children of Jose
Aruego, who died on March 30, 1982. Their claim there is open
and continuous possession of status of illegitimate children of Jose who had an amorous
relationship with their mother Luz Fabian until the time of his death. The court declared
that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter of the deceased with Luz Fabian while
Evelyn is not. Antonia Aruego was declared entitled to a share equal to 1/2 portion of
share of the legitimate children of Jose Aruego. Petitioners, on the other hand, submit
that with the advent of the New Family Code on August 3, 1988, the trial court lost
jurisdiction over the complaint of private respondent on the ground of prescription,
(Prescription is either acquisitive, in that an individual is allowed, after a specified period
of time, to acquire title, or extinctive—i.e., barring for a period of time certain court actions
(see limitation, statute of). considering that under Article 175, paragraph 2, in relation to
Article 172 of the New Family Code, 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Family Code may be given a retroactive effect so as to deprive
private respondent of her right to institute the case for compulsory recognition

RULING:

No. The action brought by private respondent Antonia Aruego for


compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was filed prior
to the advent of the Family Code, must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and
not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given
retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as its application will
prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article
285 of the Civil Code.( ARTICLE 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be
brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:.) The right
was vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the Civil Code.
Prescinding from this, the conclusion then ought to be that the action was not
yet barred, notwithstanding the fact that it was brought when the putative father was
already deceased, since private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed,
an exception to the general rule provided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. Hence,
the trial court, which acquired jurisdiction over the case by the filing of the complaint,
never lost jurisdiction over the same despite the passage of E.O. No. 209, also known as
the Family Code of the Philippines.

You might also like