REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND IRENE FERNANDEZ VDA. DE ESPIRITU, FOR HIMSELF AND IN BEHALF OF THE MINORS MANUEL AND JOSE,…

Gregorio H. Espiritu died of pulmonary tuberculosis contracted while
working as letter-carrier in the post office of Libmanan, Camarines
Sur. Upon claim duly filed,
compensation benefits were granted to his widow, Irene Fernandez, and to two
minors, Manuel and Jose Espiritu, alleged illegitimate
(spurious) children of the deceased by another woman. The award is as follows:

“1. To pay the heroin claimants,
thru this Commission, the amount of THREE THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE PESOS AND 12/100
(P3.045.12) as compensation;

2. To reimburse the widow the
amount of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P3,450.00) for
medical and burial expenses incurred; and

3. To pay to this Commission the
amount of P36.00 as fees (including the P5.00 fee for this review) pursuant to
Section 55 of Act 3428, us
amended.”

In due time the
Government filed the instant petition for review.

Neither the compensability of
Espiritu’s death nor the award to his widow is
disputed. What appellant objects to is the extension of
death benefits to the two minors. The objection is based on two grounds, the
first of which is that not being acknowledged natural children they are not
dependents within the meaning of Section 9 and 11 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Law, Act No. 3428, as amended.

Among the persons enumerated in
Section 9 as entitled to compensation is “a son or daughter, if under eighteen
years of age or incapable of supporting him or herself, and unmarried, whether
actually dependent on the deceased or not.” Section 11 in turn provides that the
words “son,” “daughter” or “children” include “illegitimate children
acknowledged by and dependent upon the deceased before the injury was
contracted.” The contention is that according to this Court (Madueño vs. Cabanatuan Lumber Co., 73 Phil. 356) only natural children
may be acknowledged and hence considered as “dependents” under the Workmen’s
Compensation Law. It should be noted, however, that the said case was decided
under the regime of the old Civil Code, according to which recognition could be
extended only to natural children and not to children of adulterous
relationship. Appellant admits that in the new Civil Code (Art. 287 and 291)
illegitimate children other than natural are given greater rights than before,
among them the right of succession from their parents. But appellant maintains
that said rights have nothing to do with the benefits granted by the Workmen’s
Compensation Act.

We do not consider it necessary
to resolve this particular issue, for the claim in behalf of the two minors must
fail on the other ground invoked by appellant, namely, that their filiation has not been established. This Court, construing
the various pertinent provisions of the Civil Code concerning illegitimate
children, has held that an illegitimate (spurious) child, to be entitled to
support and successional rights from his parents, must
prove his filiation, and this may be done by means of
voluntary or compulsory recognition of the relationship. For this purpose the
provisions concerning natural children are held applicable. Thus recognition is
voluntary when made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court
of record, or in any authentic writing (Article 278) ; and compulsory when made
by means of a court action in the cases enumerated in Articles 283 and 284.
(Pauline vs. Paulino, 113 Phil. 697).

In the case at bar, the minors
Espiritu have not been voluntarily recognized as his
by the deceased Gregorio H. Espiritu. The only
evidence adduced below consists of baptismal certificates; but these are not the
records of birth referred to in Article 278. (Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of Appeals, 91 Phil. 492;
Capistrano vs. Cabino, 8 Phil. 135). Neither do
they constitute “authentic writing.” They are proof only of the act to which the
priest may certify by reason of his personal knowledge an act done by himself or
in his presence” particularly the administration of the sacrament of baptism on
the stated day; they are not proof of the truth of the declarations therein with
respect to the parentage of the baptized children (Adriano vs. De Jesus, 23
Phil. 350).

The fact that the minors had been
living with Gregorio H. Espiritu and were supported by
him during his lifetime may be a ground for compulsory recognition (Article
283), but it does not appear that the children ever instituted a suit to that
end a suit that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts and not of
respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

The decision appealed from is
modified by eliminating the award of compensation to the two minors. Under
Section 8, paragraph (a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, the widow is
entitled to 45% of the deceased’s weekly salary of P29.28 (P1,522.80 per annum) for a period of 208 weeks, or a total of
P2,741.44. Appellant should pay this amount to the widow only instead of P3,045.12 to the widow and the minor children. In all other
respects the decision is affirmed. Without
costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.