The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that legitimated children or those born before the marriage of their parents retain their legitimacy status even after the nullity of their parents’ marriage.

The SC declared: “Once a child is legitimated under the Family Code, there is no legal basis for changing the status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.”

It stressed: “There is no substantial distinction between legitimate and legitimated children for purposes of determining the legitimacy of children of marriages later declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code.”

“A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological

incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status

of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code,” it pointed out.

The ruling was contained in a decision that modified the order of a regional trial court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.

The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez of the court’s second division.

Manila Bulletin redacted the names of the persons involved in the decided case which was docketed as G.R. No. 272006.

In a summary of the decision, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that the child was born several months before her parents’ marriage.

The wife filed a petition for nullity of marriage due to the physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband whom she accused of alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.

The RTC granted the wife’s petition as it declared the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

However, the trial court declared the child illegitimate because she was born before her parents’ marriage and her birth certificate did not show she was legitimated.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the RTC’s ruling before the SC.  The OSG argued that the child was legitimated by her parents’ marriage, even without a formal annotation on her birth certificate.

While the trial court’s ruling on the nullity of marriage was affirmed, the SC declared that the child remains legitimate.

The SC said:

“It would also not be amiss to point out that the Family Code does not

provide for a scenario where a legitimated child may revert to illegitimacy.

This is in keeping with the principle that a legitimate status is more favorable

to the child.

“Considering that ‘in the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status,’ the law protects the presumption of legitimacy, which is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.

“It would thus be absurd to relegate children ‘to the status of illegitimacy, when they are already enjoying the rights accorded to legitimated children.’  To entertain such a situation would be anathema to the intent and purpose of the law in prioritizing the best interests of the child.

“Considering the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial distinction

between legitimate and legitimated children for purposes of determining the

legitimacy of children of marriages later declared void under Article 36 of the

Family Code.

“A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code.

“The RTC incorrectly ruled that the child remains to be an illegitimate child under Article 16561 of the Family Code, as her legitimation was not reflected in her birth registry.

“Given that the legitimacy status of a child is conferred by the Family Code, a substantive law, the lack of annotation in the birth certificate as to the subsequent marriage of the parents of the child, shall not affect such status.

“Indeed, the formal requirement of annotating the legitimation is a mere administrative procedure which cannot impair substantive rights.

“All told, the RTC rulings were bereft of basis in declaring the child to be illegitimate. Since her legitimacy status is not affected by the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, the RTC must be reversed insofar as it declared the child to be an illegitimate child of respondents (the parents).”