Ernestina Beranabe, petitioner, versus Carolino Alejo as guardian ad litem for the minor Adrian Bernabe, respondent
January 21, 2002
Facts:
Fiscal Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary of 23 years Carolina Allejo. The son was born on September 18, 1981 Adrian Beranabe. Fiscal Bernabe died August 13, 1993 while his wife died December 3 of the same year leaving Ernestina as sole surviving heir. On May 16, Carolina in Behalf of Adrian filed complaint praying Adrian be declared illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe. On July 16, 1995, the RTC dismissed the complaint that under the family code as well as the case of Uyguangco vs. CA the complaint is now barred.
Issues:
Whether or not respondent has a cause of action to file a case against petitioner, the legitimate daughter of the putative father, for recognition and partition with accounting after the putative father’s death in the absence of any written acknowledgment of paternity by the latter.
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from the attainment of minority to file an action for recognition as provided in Art. 285 of the Civil Code, in complete disregard of its repeal by the [express] provisions of the Family Code and the applicable jurisprudence as held by the Honorable Court of Appeals.
Held:
The Petition has no merit. Petitioner contends that respondent is barred from filing an action for recognition, because Article 285 of the Civil Code has been supplanted by the provisions of the Family Code. She argues that the latter Code should be given retroactive effect, since no vested right would be impaired. Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, we hold that Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, as it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age. Therefore, the Family Code cannot impair or take Adrian’s right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment.
With regard to third issue, the court ruled that Under Section 4(a) of Rule 45 of the current Rules of Court, it is no longer required to implead “the lower courts or judges either as petitioners or respondents.” Under Section 3, however, the lower tribunal should still be furnished a copy of the petition. Hence, the failure of petitioner to implead the Court of Appeals as a party is not a reversible error; it is in fact the correct procedure.
