Aruego Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, A. Aruego
G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996
FACTS:
On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister Evelyn Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian. The complaint was opposed by the legitimate children of Jose Aruego, who died on March 30, 1982. Their claim there is open and continuous possession of status of illegitimate children of Jose who had an amorous relationship with their mother Luz Fabian until the time of his death. The court declared that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter of the deceased with Luz Fabian while Evelyn is not. Antonia Aruego was declared entitled to a share equal to 1/2 portion of share of the legitimate children of Jose Aruego. Petitioners, on the other hand, submit that with the advent of the New Family Code on August 3, 1988, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the complaint of private respondent on the ground of prescription, considering that under Article 175, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 of the New Family Code, it is provided that an action for compulsory recognition of illegitimate filiation, if based on the “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” must be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent without any exception, otherwise the action will be barred by prescription.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Family Code may be given a retroactive effect so as to deprive private respondent of her right to institute the case for compulsory recognition
RULING:
No. The action brought by private respondent Antonia Aruego for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was filed prior to the advent of the Family Code, must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given retroactive effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as its application will prejudice the vested right of private respondent to have her case decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. The right was vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the Civil Code. Prescinding from this, the conclusion then ought to be that the action was not yet barred, notwithstanding the fact that it was brought when the putative father was already deceased, since private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed, an exception to the general rule provided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial court, which acquired jurisdiction over the case by the filing of the complaint, never lost jurisdiction over the same despite the passage of E.O. No. 209, also known as the Family Code of the Philippines.
