DOMINGO ONG, JR., MINOR REP. BY DAISY MARTINEZ (NATURAL GUARDIAN), PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUSTINA, JOYCE, JULIE, DAISY AND MA. SOLEDAD ALL SURNAMED ONG, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Domingo Ong versus Ong

The Case

This is a case about two men who each claimed to be the son of the late Domingo Ong, and who each asked the court to give them a share of his estate. One was Domingo Martinez Ong Jr., a minor suing through his mother Daisy Martinez. The other was Domingo Abad Ong Jr., who intervened in the same suit. They sued Justina, Joyce, Julie, Daisy, and Ma. Soledad, all surnamed Ong, the widow and daughters of the deceased, for partition of the estate with a petition for administration and support pending litigation. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court protects the civil status of a child born in wedlock from any collateral attack, and how strictly it demands clear and convincing evidence before it will recognize an illegitimate child who relies on open and continuous possession of that status.

Procedural History

Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. filed the complaint for partition with petition for administration and support pending litigation before the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City. Domingo Abad Ong Jr. filed a motion for intervention, which the trial court granted, and then filed his complaint in intervention. The defendants answered both complaints, denying that the deceased had acknowledged either of the two as his son, and setting up their own counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees.

After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of both Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. and Domingo Abad Ong Jr. It declared them illegitimate children of the deceased and entitled to their lawful shares in his estate, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for damages, and dismissed all other claims and counterclaims. The defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that the claims were barred by prescription and that the birth certificates were not competent evidence. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the evidence of the two claimants was more credible and preponderant.

The defendants then appealed, assigning as errors the declaration that the two were illegitimate children of the deceased and the failure to award them damages. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which decided the case and reversed the trial court.

Facts

Domingo Ong Sr. died on 22 April 1997. After his death, two persons, both claiming to be his sons and both bearing the name Domingo Ong Jr., sought to partition his estate. Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. was born on 04 May 1982 to Daisy Martinez. He alleged that he was a minor, that he was one of the heirs of the deceased, and that the defendants persistently refused to give him his rightful share. Domingo Abad Ong Jr. was born on 19 November 1979 to Dolores Abad. He alleged that he too was an heir, and that his efforts to arrange a meeting for partition proved futile.

The defendants answered that they never knew the deceased had a son with Daisy Martinez. They insisted that the birth certificate presented by Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. came from his mother alone, without any acknowledgment by the deceased. They likewise argued that Domingo Abad Ong Jr. had to prove his filiation first, that his birth certificate was not signed by the deceased, and that the suit was barred by prescription. They claimed that the properties in their possession were products of their own labor and never part of the estate.

At trial, Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. presented his birth certificate, photographs of himself with the deceased, a report card and a reservation slip bearing the deceased's signature, a Christmas letter from the deceased, an insurance policy naming him as beneficiary, and the testimonies of a retired mailman and the deceased's longtime driver and bodyguard. Domingo Abad Ong Jr. presented his birth certificate and the testimonies of his grandmother, his mother, and the same driver, who testified that he regularly delivered financial support to him. The defendants, for their part, testified that they felt humiliated by the suit and suffered sleepless nights.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. an illegitimate child of the deceased, and thus entitled to a share in the estate, when his mother was validly married to another man at the time of his birth.
• Whether or not the action of Domingo Abad Ong Jr. to establish his filiation had prescribed under the Family Code.
• Whether or not Domingo Abad Ong Jr. proved his filiation to the deceased by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not the defendants were entitled to damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 172 of the Family Code provides:

The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

This provision supplies the two means of proving filiation that the Court weighs: a record of birth or signed admission under the first paragraph, and open and continuous possession of status under the second.

Article 175 of the Family Code provides:

Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

This provision makes the means of proof in Article 172 available to illegitimate children, and it is the provision under which both claimants sought recognition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the trial court erred. The legitimate status of a child cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. The presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil status for a child born in wedlock, and only the father, or in exceptional instances his heirs, can contest that legitimacy in an appropriate action. Here it was proved that Daisy Martinez was married to a certain Pimentel, that the marriage was valid and existing when Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. was born, and that Pimentel was still alive during the trial. The claimant himself admitted that his three sisters carried the surname Pimentel because their father was Pimentel, and that his mother was married to that man. The Court held that the question of whether he is the illegitimate child of the deceased cannot be adjudicated without an action first instituted to impugn his status as the child of Daisy and Pimentel, born in lawful wedlock. A child born in wedlock shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the action of Domingo Abad Ong Jr. had not prescribed. He was born on 19 November 1979, while the New Civil Code was still in effect. When the Family Code took effect on 03 August 1988, and when the deceased died on 22 April 1997, he was still a minor, only seventeen years old. Illegitimate children who were still minors when the Family Code took effect, and when the putative parent died, retain the right to seek recognition granted by the New Civil Code, and that right cannot be impaired. They have four years from reaching the age of majority within which to file the action. He intervened in the suit in March 1999, when he was nineteen years old, well within the four-year period.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that Domingo Abad Ong Jr. failed to prove his filiation. His birth certificate fell under the first paragraph of Article 172, but the deceased did not sign it, and it was not shown that the deceased had a hand in its preparation, so it had no probative value. He presented no other public or private document signed by the deceased acknowledging him. What remained was the second paragraph of Article 172, open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child. The Court held that this requires the father to have treated the child as his own spontaneously and without concealment, showing a permanent intention to consider the child as his own through continuous and clear manifestations of paternal affection and care. A high standard of proof is required, and recognition and support must be granted only if paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by preponderance of evidence. The Court found that Domingo Abad Ong Jr. did not meet this standard.

On the fourth issue, since the complaint of Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. could not prosper and the claim of Domingo Abad Ong Jr. was not proven, the counterclaim for damages was properly dismissed.

Doctrine

First, the legitimate status of a child born in wedlock cannot be attacked collaterally. It can only be repudiated or contested in a direct suit brought specifically for that purpose, and only by the father or, in exceptional instances, his heirs. Until legitimacy is successfully impugned, the paternity of the husband cannot be rejected.

Second, under Article 172 in relation to Article 175 of the Family Code, filiation may be proved by a record of birth or a signed admission under the first paragraph, or by open and continuous possession of status under the second. A birth certificate not signed by the putative father, and not shown to have been prepared with his participation, has no probative value.

Third, open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child demands clear and convincing evidence, amounting to overwhelming evidence of the father's permanent intention to treat the child as his own, shown by spontaneous and continuous manifestations of paternal affection and care.

Fourth, illegitimate children who were still minors when the Family Code took effect and when the putative parent died retain the right to seek recognition under the New Civil Code, and have four years from reaching the age of majority within which to file the action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the trial court, and held that neither Domingo Martinez Ong Jr. nor Domingo Abad Ong Jr. was shown to be an illegitimate child of the deceased entitled to a share in his estate.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: legitimacy is a civil status that the law presumes and that no court may set aside in a collateral proceeding, and illegitimate filiation by open and continuous possession must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Examiners like to use this case on the presumption of legitimacy and collateral attack, and on the standard of proof for proving filiation under Article 172 of the Family Code.