ABADILLA v.
TABILIRAN, JR.
A.M. No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995.
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).
