Articles 177, 178, 19 & 180

Art. 177. In case of annulment of the marriage, the spouse who acted in bad faith or gave cause for annulment shall forfeit his or her share of the conjugal partnership profits. The provision of the preceding article shall govern. (n)

Art. 178. The separation in fact between husband and wife without judicial approval, shall not affect the conjugal partnership, except that:

(1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have a right to be supported;

(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is required by law, judicial authorization shall be necessary;

(3) If the husband has abandoned the wife without just cause for at least one year, she may petition the court for a receivership, or administration by her of the conjugal partnership property, or separation of property. (n)

SECTION 7. – Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership

Art. 179. Upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, an inventory shall be formed, but such inventory shall not be necessary:
(1) If, after the dissolution of the partnership, one of the spouses should have renounced its effects and consequences in due time; or

(2) When separation of property has preceded the dissolution of the partnership. (1418a)

Art. 180. The bed and bedding which the spouses ordinarily use shall not be included in the inventory. These effects, as well as the clothing for their ordinary use, shall be delivered to the surviving spouse. (1420)

Article 181

by Mary Jane Unico

The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit their descendants.

Case A:

Maria and Jose are not married. They have an illegitimate son named Pedro. Pedro died. Since Maria and Jose are not married, Pedro’s legitimate child named Miguel would be supported by his grandparent/s. But if Miguel has a legitimate child named Juan, this great grandchild  of Maria and Jose would not be supported by them as their obligation under the law only extend up to their grandson, Miguel. Please refer to the below illustration.

Case B:

Maria and Jose got married after Pedro died. Pedro was their child when their union was not yet solemnized. Hence, Pedro is hereby legitimated after his death. Since he should have enjoyed the rights of a legitimate child while he was still living, his legitimation after his death benefits his descendants, i.e.Juan – the great grandchild. As shown in the illustration.

Question: Would a great grandchild be entitled to the support of his or great grandparent/s if he or she came from a legitimate direct line? Explain.

Article 182

By Karl Dane Ylagan

Legitimation may be impugned only by those who are prejudiced in their rights within  five years from the time their cause of action accrues.

-the person who can be prejudiced in their rights by the process of conferring to someone all rights of the legitimate child are the legal heirs of the parents.

– the cause of action to impugn the legitimation accrues only upon the death of the parents of the legitimated child because it is the only time  when the successional  rights  to the legitime will vest.
Impugn- to assail oppose or attack.

Article 177, 178, 179 & 180

by; Agusto S Tasing Jr

LEGITIMATED CHILDREN

This was the old provision  of article 177 which amended by RA 9858;

Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.

This is the new provision which is already amended;

Art. 177. children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other,or were disqualified only because either or both of them were below eighteen (18) years of age, may be legitimate. (As amended by Republic Act No. 9858)

Prior to the enactment of RA 9858 the only remedy to vest equal rights to an illegitimate child by his parent is through “adoption”. A legally adopted child of the adopted has the same right as that of a legitimate child of the adopter as to the rights arising from the adopter.

But now, because of RA 9858,the legal impediment by reason of age is not included,hence, a child conceived of parents where one or both of the parties is under 18 years of age may now be legitimated and enjoy the same rights as that of a legitimate child.

Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.

Example;

Baby James                                      Parents                      Status

(birth date: Jan. 1 2014)  — No marriage———–Illegitimate

                                                  Subsequent marriage——Legitimated

                                                       (Jan. 1 2015)

If the subsequent marriage is not valid,there is no legitimation

Example;

• Bigamous marriages
• Incestuous marriages

The status of children remains to be illegitimate

The annulment of a voidable marriage does not affect the legitimation

Example:

Baby James  was born on Jan 1 2014 without the marriage of his parents,  baby James status is illegitimate.

On Jan.1 2015 his parents got married but with out parental consent,baby James is still legitimate.

The marriage was annulled due to no parental consent, still baby James status is legitimated.

ARTICLE 179

Legitimate and legitimated children enjoy the same rights

Rights of legitimate and legitimated children:

1.Support

2.Bear the surname of the father

3.Right to inherit

Rights available to an illegitimate child:

1.Support

2.Surname

          – use the surname of his/her mother

          -may usethe surname of his/her father if the latter consent thereto.

3.Right to inherit

             -share is not more than 1/2 of the share of a legitimate child.

Art. 180.

The effects of legitimation shall retroact to the time of the child’s birth. (not at the time of the subsequent marriage)

Example:

                        1990                                                                   2000

         Baby James was born                                     -marriage of parents

      -No marriage between parent

        -status is illegitimate                                    -status is legitimated

Effects of legitimation retroact in 1990(birth of baby James)

ABADILLA  v. TABILIRAN, JR.

FACTS:

Ø  Administrative case filed by Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla, a Clerk of Court of respondent, Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr.

Ø  Abadilla, in respect to the charge of gross immorality on the part of the respondent, contends that respondent had scandalously and publicly cohabited with a certain Priscilla Q. Baybayan during the existence of his legitimate marriage with Teresita Banzuela. Ø  Respondent caused to be registered as “legitimate”, his three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan.

ISSUE:

W/N his three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan may be legitimated.

HELD:

Court finds respondent guilty of gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption and, consequently, orders his dismissal from the service. Such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government-service, all without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.

NO.  An examination of the birth certificates of respondent’s three illegitimate children with Priscilla Baybayan clearly indicate that it was respondent who caused the entry therein. It is important to note that these children were born prior to the marriage of respondent to Priscilla. As a lawyer and a judge, respondent ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla, these three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita B. Tabiliran. The applicable legal provision in the case at bar is Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. 386 as amended) which provides: Art. 269. Only natural children can be legitimated. Children born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are natural.

Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations (Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855). The Family Code: (Executive Order, No. 209), which took effect on August 3, 1988, reiterated the above-mentioned provision thus: Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. The reasons for this limitation are given as follows: 1) The rationale of legitimation would be destroyed; 2) It would be unfair to the legitimate children in terms of successional rights; 3) There will be the problem of public scandal, unless social mores change; 4) It is too violent to grant the privilege of legitimation to adulterous children as it will destroy the sanctity of marriage; 5) It will be very scandalous, especially if the parents marry many years after the birth of the child. (The Family Code, p. 252, Alicia v. Sempio Diy).

Question;

Ms. A and Mr.B a high school graduating student are boy friend and girlfriend happens to be in hotel for several times, ms.A got pregnant and gave birth,what is the status of the child and when can be the ligetimation be process?

Answer;

The child status is illegitimate, the child can only be legitimated when the both parties entered into a legal marriage provided that they will reach the age of maturity as stated in Article 177 of the family code. Retro act will took effect in this case, once the valid marriage is contracted, the ligetimation effect during the birth of the child.