Tayag vs. Tayag-Gallor Case Digest

Leonor v. Court of appeals Facts: Petitioner Virginia Leonor was married to private respondent Mauricio Leonor in San Carlos City. City. Mauricio became unfaithful unfaithf ul and lived with a certain Lynda Lynda Pond abroad. abroad. his induced petitioner to institute institute a civil action in !eneva" !eneva" Swit#erland Swit#erlan d for separation and alimony. alimony. Private responde respondent nt counter$sued counter$sued for divorce. divorce. Mauricio raised the issue of the alleged alleged non$e%istence non$e%istence of the marriage between between him and Virginia. Virginia. Meanwhile" Virgina Virgina learned learned that the solemni#ing o&cer in the Philippines failed to send a copy of their marriage contract to the Civil 'egistrar 'egistrar of San Carlos City for registration. registration. (ence" she applied for the late late registration registration of her marriage. marriage. Said application was granted.  he trial court declared declared said marriage null and void void for being sham and )ctitious. Virginia Virginia )led a petition for certiorari certiorari with the C* which dismissed dismissed the same. +ssue: ,id the court err in refusing to decide upon the merits of the case" that is" to declare whether or not the -udgment of the trial court is null and void 'uling :  he only errors errors that can be cancelled or corrected corrected under 'ule 'ule /01 are typographical of clerical errors" not material or substantial ones li2e the validity or nullity nullity of a marriage. 3here the e4ect e4ect of a correction correction in a civil registry will will change the civil status of petitioner and her children from legitimate" the same cannot be granted e%cept only in an adversarial proceeding. Further" Further" the respondent trial -udge gravely and seriously abused his discretion discretion in unceremoniously unceremoniously e%panding his very limited -urisdiction under such rule to hear evidence on such a controversial matter as nullity of a marriage under the Civil Code and5or a nd5or Family Family Code" a process that is proper only in ordinary adversarial proceedings under the 'ule. 'ule.

 *  *6*! V. V. *6*!$!*LL7'  !.'. 8o. /9;10" March <" <001

F*C:

7n /= >anuary <00/" respondent herein" Felicidad *. ayag$!allor" )led a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over the estate of +smael  ayag. 'espondent alleged in the petition that she is one of the three ?@A illegitimate children of the late +smael ayag and Bster C. *ngeles. he decedent was married to petitioner herein" Victoria C. ayag" but the two allegedly did not have any children of their own. 7n 9 September <000" +smael ayag died intestate" leaving behind two ?
Petitioner opposed the petition" asserting that she purchased the properties sub-ect of the petition using her own money. She claimed that she and +smael ayag got married in Las Vegas" 8evada" ES* on <= 7ctober /D9@" and that they have an adopted daughter" Carmela ayag" who is presently residing in the ES*. +t is allegedly not true that she is planning to sell the properties. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the suit because respondent failed to state a cause of action.  Petitioner reiterated her sole ownership of the properties and presented the transfer certi)cates of title thereof in her name. She also averred that it is necessary to allege that respondent was ac2nowledged and recogni#ed by +smael  ayag as his illegitimate child. here being no such allegation" the action becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father. he motion was denied by the trial court. C* a&rmed. he C* ruled that the allegation that respondent is an illegitimate child su&ces for a cause of action" without need to state that she had been recogni#ed and ac2nowledged as such. (owever" respondent still has to prove her allegation and" correspondingly" petitioner has the right to refute the allegation in the course of the settlement proceedings.

+SSEB:  3hether or not respondents petition for the issuance of letters of administration su&ciently states a cause of action considering that respondent merely alleged therein that she is an illegitimate child of the decedent" without stating that she had been ac2nowledged or recogni#ed as such by the latter

'EL+8!: Voluntary recognition must be e%press such as that in a record of birth appearing in the civil register" a )nal -udgment" a public instrument or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. he voluntary recognition of an illegitimate child by his or her parent needs no further court action and is" therefore" not sub-ect to the limitation that the action for recognition be brought during the lifetime of the putative parent. >udicial or compulsory recognition" on the other hand" may be demanded by the illegitimate child of his parents and must be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parents. 'espondent in this case had not been given the opportunity to present evidence to show whether she had been voluntarily recogni#ed and ac2nowledged by her deceased father because of petitioners opposition to her petition and motion for hearing on a&rmative defenses. here is" as yet" no way to determine if her petition is actually one to compel recognition which had already been foreclosed by the death of her father" or whether indeed she has a material and direct interest to maintain the suit by reason of the decedents voluntary ac2nowledgment or recognition of her illegitimate )liation.