G.R. No. 272006, February 5, 2025,

♦ Decision,

Lopez, [J]

♦ Concurring Opinion,

Leonen, [J]

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 272006, February 05, 2025 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LINNEY JEAN L. TANGARORANG AND RAMER R. TANGARORANG, RESPONDENTS.

CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, SA

J.:

I concur with the well-written

ponencia

of my esteemed colleague, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez. The Regional Trial Court erred in declaring Sharemahlyne Librada Tangarorang (Sharemahlyne) as an illegitimate child of her parents. However, I wish to add a few points.

The term

illegitimate

has been considered a derogatory word which perpetuates historical stigma. It carries societal biases against an individual by reason of the marital status of their parents. The use of the term is akin to a "stamp of dishonor" upon nonmarital children,

a form of bigotry that exacerbates the cruel prejudice that families outside of the social norm are inherently inferior. "[W]hen [the] law treats members of a group as second-class citizens, it invites others to discriminate against that group as well."

Classifying nonmarital children as illegitimate was meant to be a penalty for the alleged social misconduct committed by the parents. Unfortunately, the undesirable consequences of this approach fell on the nonmarital children, and not on the erring parents.

In my opinion, the continued classification of nonmarital children as illegitimate seems to be inconsistent not only with our fundamental law but also with our various statutory enactments and international commitments. Taken together, these enactments and commitments impose upon us the "duty to extend special protection to children, in equal measure and without any qualifications."

Under the 1987 Constitution, the State has the duty to defend "[t]he right of children to assistance,"

which includes "proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development[.]"

It is also our State Policy to protect "the best interests of the child"

which has been defined as "the totality of the circumstances and conditions which are most congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to the child's physical, psychological and emotional development."

The term also refers to "the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child."

As signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Philippines has also committed to "take all appropriate measures" necessary to protect children against discrimination:

PART I

. . . .

Article 2

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or [their] parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Further, the legislature enacted Republic Act No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Under this act, it is a declared policy of the State to protect children from all forms of discrimination, among others:

SECTION 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles.— It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. The State shall intervene on behalf of the child when the parent, guardian, teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation and discrimination or when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care and custody of the same.

Taking into consideration these enactments and obligations, the Court, in

Aquino v. Aquino

decided to abandon the biased and archaic presumption in our jurisprudence that "nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or that they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family[:]"

Clearly, our Constitution, our laws, and our voluntary commitment to our treaty obligations, when taken together, extend special protection to children, in equal measure and without any qualifications. When we affirm our international commitments that are in harmony with our constitutional provisions and have already been codified in our domestic legislation, we do nothing more than to recognize and effect what has already formed part of our legal system.

In this instance, should children's successional rights be at stake, then the best interest of the child should be of paramount consideration.

. . . .

Intestate succession is based on the decedent's presumed will. Article 992 then assumes that the decedent's disposition of their property would not have included any nonmarital children, due to a supposed hostility between the marital family and the nonmarital child because the latter was the outcome of an extramarital affair.

However, a nonmarital child is not defined that way. Nonmarital children, or "illegitimate children" as used under Article 165 of the Family Code, are "[c]hildren conceived and born outside a valid marriage[.]" The phrase "outside a valid marriage" does not necessarily mean an extramarital affair.

(awÞhi(

Parents may choose not to get married despite having no legal impediment to marry. The 2016 report of the Philippine Statistics Authority on Marriage in the Philippines showed a declining trend in the number of marriages—from 490,054 registered marriages in 2007 to 419,628 in 2016. In 10 years, the number decreased by 14.4%.

If there is a legal impediment, it does not necessarily follow that the impediment is that either or both parents are married to another person. It is entirely possible that one or both of them are below marriageable age. The Philippine Statistics Authority also reported that in 2017, 196,478 children were born to adolescent—19 years old and under—mothers and 52,342 children were sired by adolescent fathers.

Another reason why a child could have been born "outside a valid marriage" is because their mother was a victim of sexual assault who did not marry the perpetrator. This is an unfortunate and wretched reality.

Too, our courts, in passing judgment upon the validity of marriages, bestow the status of a nonmarital child.

There are also times when the father of an unborn child may have died before being able to marry the child's mother, as what has been alleged in Angela's case.

Children born from these circumstances are also considered "illegitimate." Yet, there may be no "antagonism or incompatibility," "hate," or "disgraceful looks" to speak of. If Article 992 merely recognizes existing conditions, then it should be construed to account for other circumstances of birth and family dynamics. Peace within families cannot be encouraged by callously depriving some of its members of their inheritance. Such deprivation may even be the cause of antagonism and alienation that could have been otherwise avoided.

This Court has recognized that the alleged resentment and hostility presumed by Article 992 can be proven by evidence to be non-existent. Particular facts of a case may show that the decedent's will does not distinguish between marital and nonmarital relatives, precluding a rigid application of Article 992.

. . . .

This Court abandons the presumption in In re Grey, Corpus, Diaz, and In re Suntay, among others, that nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or that they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family. We are not duty bound to uncritically parrot archaic prejudices and cruelties, to mirror and amplify oppressive and regressive ideas about the status of children and family life. The best interest of the child should prevail.

We adopt a construction of Article 992 that makes children, regardless of the circumstances of their births, qualified to inherit from their direct ascendants — such as their grandparent — by their right of representation. Both marital and nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants. Nonmarital children are removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as marital children. Nonmarital children of marital children are also removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as nonmarital children of nonmarital children.

(Citations omitted.)

While recognizing that our body of laws have improved, Aquino noted that the Civil Code and the Family Code still carry birth status classifications and distinctions:

Our own laws also reflect progress in treating persons, regardless of their birth status, more equally. The Family Code and its amendments sought to improve the living conditions of nonmarital children, by conferring upon them the rights and privileges previously unavailable under the Civil Code and its antecedents. Numerous social welfare laws grant benefits to marital and nonmarital children alike. Moreover, laws such as Republic Act No. 8972, or the Solo Parents' Welfare Act, and Republic Act No. 10165, or the Foster Care Act, demonstrate that the family as a basic autonomous social institution is not restrictively defined by traditional notions of marital relations, moving toward unshackling the status of a child from the acts of their parents.

All children are deserving of support, care, and attention. They are entitled to an unprejudiced and nurturing environment free from neglect, abuse, and cruelty. Regardless of the circumstances of their birth, they are all without distinction entitled to all rights and privileges due them. The principle of protecting and promoting the best interest of the child applies equally, and without distinction, to all children. As observed by Justice Gregory Perfecto in

Malonda v. Malonda:

All children are entitled to equal protection from their parents. Only a distorted concept of that parental duty, which springs from and is imposed by nature, may justify discriminatory measures to the prejudice of those born out of illicit sexual relations. The legal or moral violations upon which some of our present day legal provisions penalize illegitimate children with social, economic and financial sanctions, are perpetrated by the parents without the consent or knowledge of the children. If the erring parents deserve to have their foreheads branded with the stigma of illegitimacy, it is iniquitous to load the innocent children with the evil consequences of that stigma. There can be illegitimate parents but there should not be any illegitimate children.

Nonetheless, the present state of our family laws constrains us to apply the Civil Code and the Family Code as they are, including the classifications and distinctions embedded in them. Reshaping policies with a profound effect on the basic framework of Philippine civil law may be better left to the Filipino people, through their duly elected representatives, empathetic to and steadfast in our constitutional commitment to our children.

(Citations omitted)

The distinctions embodied in the Family Code notwithstanding, laws should be interpreted in a manner that would protect the best interests of children. In this case, there is no dispute that Sharemahlyne was legitimated by her parents' subsequent marriage. While this marriage was later declared void, this declaration should not affect the rights which Sharemahlyne acquired by reason of her legitimation.

Article 54 of the Family Code states that "[c]hildren conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate."

This provision is complemented by Article 180 of the same Code, which provides that "[t]he effects of legitimation shall retroact to the time of the child's birth."

A reading of these provisions reveals the desire to protect the statutory rights granted to legitimated children despite the subsequent nullity of their parents' marriage. This interpretation is in keeping not only with the State's policy to protect the best interests of the child but also with our international commitment to safeguard children from all forms of discrimination.

ACCORDINGLY

, I vote to

GRANT

the Petition.

Footnotes

Sandra M.T. Magalang, Legitimizing Illegitimacy: Resisting Illegitimacy in the Philippines and Arguing for Declassification of Illegitimate Children as a Statutory Class, 88 Phil. L.J. 467, 504 (2014). Following the ruling in

Gocolay v. Gocolay

, 893 Phil. 178 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], the use of the term "nonmarital" rather than "illegitimate" shall be observed unless reference is made to statutes, jurisprudence, or parties' pleadings.

Id.

at 510.

Aquino v. Aquino

, 918-A Phil. 371, 410 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

CONST., art. XV, sec. 3(2).

Aquino v. Aquino

, 918-A Phil. 371, 404 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. See also Republic Act No. 9344 (2006), Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

Republic Act No. 9344, sec. 4(b).

918-A Phil. 371 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

Id.

at 415.

Id.

at 410, 412-415.

Id.

at 430-431.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation