You're currently signed in as:
User

GERARDO B. CONCEPCION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

2014-06-09
MENDOZA, J.
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Department of Education (DepEd) assails the January 31, 2013 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in GR. SP No. 123450 which dismissed DepEd's petition for review.
2009-09-18
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is settled, then, in law and jurisprudence, that the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised. Public policy demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child.[22] Paternity and filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially established, and it is for the Court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties.[23]
2009-07-31
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the "paramount consideration" in resolving questions affecting him.[22] Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child of which the Philippines is a signatory is similarly emphatic: Article 3
2008-12-16
REYES, R.T., J.
It is stressed that Felicidad's declaration against the legitimate status of Teofilo II is the very act that is proscribed by Article 167 of the Family Code. The language of the law is unmistakable. An assertion by the mother against the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a valid marriage.[37]
2006-02-27
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs.[47] In this case, there is no showing that Pablo challenged the legitimacy of Jeylnn during his lifetime. Hence, Jeylnn's status as a legitimate child of Pablo can no longer be contested.