This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term legitimate merely addresses the dependent child's status in relation to his/her parents. In Angeles v. Maglaya,[27] we have expounded on who is a legitimate child, viz: A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the element of lawful union and there is strictly no legitimate filiation between parents and child. Article 164 of the Family Code cannot be more emphatic on the matter: "Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate." (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| While under the Family Code, filiation can be established by, among others, the record of birth appearing in the civil register,[80] yet the rule is where the birth certificate presented was not signed by the father against whom filiation is asserted, such may not be accepted as evidence of the alleged filiation. In Angeles v. Maglaya,[81] we held: x x x Such certificate, albeit considered a public record of a private document is, under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, evidence only of the fact which gave rise to its execution: the fact of birth of a child. Jurisprudence teaches that a birth certificate, to be considered as validating proof of paternity and as an instrument of recognition, must be signed by the father and mother jointly, or by the mother alone if the father refuses. x x x[82] In Angeles v. Maglaya, we refused to give evidentiary weight to the birth certificate as proof of filiation in a case for settlement of estate to support a claim of legitimacy because the same was unsigned by the alleged father. With more reason we should not accord value to the birth certificate in this case considering that its effect would be to increase the penalty to be imposed on the appellant. This is a criminal case wherein an interpretation unfavorable to the accused is generally unacceptable. | |||||