Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Concepcion V CA

This case involved a dispute over the legitimacy and surname of a child, Jose Gerardo. Gerardo Concepcion filed for annulment of his marriage to Ma. Theresa Almonte on the basis of her prior marriage to Mario Gopiao. The trial court annulled the marriage and declared the child illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals found that Ma. Theresa's marriage to Mario was valid and ongoing, so her marriage to Gerardo was void from the beginning, meaning the child was legitimate to Ma. Theresa and Mario. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and held that as the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario, Jose Gerardo has the right to use their s

Uploaded by

Maverick Jann Esteban
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
1K views2 pages

Concepcion V CA

This case involved a dispute over the legitimacy and surname of a child, Jose Gerardo. Gerardo Concepcion filed for annulment of his marriage to Ma. Theresa Almonte on the basis of her prior marriage to Mario Gopiao. The trial court annulled the marriage and declared the child illegitimate. However, the Court of Appeals found that Ma. Theresa's marriage to Mario was valid and ongoing, so her marriage to Gerardo was void from the beginning, meaning the child was legitimate to Ma. Theresa and Mario. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and held that as the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario, Jose Gerardo has the right to use their s

Uploaded by

Maverick Jann Esteban
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

Concepcion v CA

GR No. 123450, 31 Aug. 2005


Corona, J
FACTS:
Petitioner Gerardo Concepcion and private respondent Ma. Theresa Almonte
were married on 29 Dec. 1989 and on 8 Dec. 1990, Ma. Theresa gave birth to Jose
Gerardo. In 1991, petitioner filed a petition to have their their marriage annunlled on
the ground of Bigamy, alleging that Ma. Theresa married Mario Gopiao sometime in
1980 and was never annulled. Although Ma. Theresa never denied marrying the latter,
she averred that the marriage was a sham and she never lived with Mario. The trial
court ruled in favour of Gerardo and declared his marriage with Ma. Theresa annulled
for being bigamous. This, then, declared Jose Gerardo as an illegitimate child and the
custody was awarded to Ma. Theresa while Gerardo was granted visitation rights.
Also, it allowed the child to use Concepcion as his surname.
Feeling betrayed and humiliated, Ma. Theresa appealed, to revoke the visitation
rights of Gerardo and to change the surname of the child from Concepcion to Almonte.
Denied, she elevated the case to the CA, assigning as error the ruling of granting
visitation rights to Gerardo and the continued use of Gerardo’s surname.
CA ruled that Jose Gerardo was not the illegitimate son of Ma. Theresa by
Gerardo, but the legitimate son of Mario during her first marriage considering the fact
that the second marriage was void from the beginning. Therefore, the child Jose
Gerardo is the child of the legal and subsisting marriage between Ma. Theresa and
Mario Gopiao.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Jose Gerardo is the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and Mario
Gopiao.

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that Jose Gerardo is the legitimate child of Ma. Theresa and
Mario. The status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised aas per art. 164 which
states that “a child who is conceived or born during the marriage of his parents is
legitimate.” It is supported by art. 167, “the child shall be considered legitimate
although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been
sentenced as an adulteress.” Considering that Ma. Theresa’s marriage with Gerardo was
void ab initoi, the latter never became the former’s husband and never acquired any right
to impugn the legitimacy of the child. Ma. Theresa’s contention was to have Jose
Gerardo be declared as not the legitimate child of her and Mario but here illegitimate
child with Gerardo. In this case the mother has no right to disavow a child because
maternity is never uncertain. Hence, she is not permitted by law to question the son’s
legitimacy. Having the best interest of the child in mmind, the presumption of his
legitimacy was upheld by the Court. As a legitimate child, the son shall have the right
to bear the surnames of Mario and Ma. Theresa, in conformity with the provisions of
Civil Code on surnames. Gerardo cannot then impose his surname to be used by the
child, since in the eyes of the law, the child is not related to him in any way.

You might also like