Marquino vs IAC

Marquino vs. IAC

GR No. 72078, June 27, 1994

Eustiquio Marquino and Maria Terenal-Marquino (wife) survived by Luz Marquino, Ana Marquino and Eva Marquino “legitimate children” (Petitioners)

Bibiana Romano-Pagadora survived by Pedro, Emy, June, Edgar, May, Mago, Arden and Mars Pagadora (Respondents)

FACTS:

Respondent Bibiana filed action for Judicial Declaration of Filiation, Annulment of Partition, Support and Damages against Eutiquio.  Bibiana was born on December 1926 allegedly of Eutiquio and in that time was single.  It was alleged that the Marquino family personally knew her since she was hired as domestic helper in their household at Dumaguete.  She likewise received financial assistance from them hence, she enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child by direct and unequivocal acts of the father and his family.  The Marquinos denied all these.  Respondent was not able to finish presenting her evidence since she died on March 1979 but the sue for compulsory recognition was done while Eustiquio was still alive.  Her heirs were ordered to substitute her as parties-plaintiffs. 

Petitioners, legitimate children of Eutiquio, assailed decision of respondent court in holding that the heirs of Bibiana, allegedly a natural child of Eutiquio, can continue the action already filed by her to compel recognition and the death of the putative parent will not extinguish such action and can be continued by the heirs substituting the said deceased parent.

ISSUES:

1.  WON right of action for acknowledgment as a natural child be transmitted to the heirs and 

2.  WON Article 173 can be given retroactive effect.

HELD:

SC ruled that right of action for the acknowledgment as a natural child can never be transmitted because the law does not make any mention of it in any case, not even as an exception.  The right is purely a personal one to the natural child.  The death of putative father in an action for recognition of a natural child can not be continued by the heirs of the former since the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. 

Such provision of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect so as to apply in the case at bar since it will prejudice the vested rights of petitioners transmitted to them at the time of death of their father.

IAC decision was reversed and set aside.  Complaint against Marquinos dismissed.