“Art. 54 of the Family Code provides children 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”
CAN the civil status of a child be changed from legitimate to illegitimate as a result of a declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code? The answer is in the negative.
“Case law states that ‘[u]pon the parties’ filing of a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, trial courts also acquire jurisdiction over matters incidental and consequential to the marriage.’…
[T]he civil status of children is generally a legal consequence of the validity of marriage… [that] may be brought forth in a petition for declaration of nullity.”
“Notably, Section 22 of A.M. 02-11-10-SC… directs courts to order the amendment of the child’s birth registry to reflect the new civil status of the child affected in cases of declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage, save in instances when the nullity of marriage is based on Article 36 or 53 of the Family Code.”
“Thus,… a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage of the parents may incidentally result in the declaration of the child’s illegitimate status.”
“The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the civil status of children is not a collateral issue that the courts may not resolve in petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage.’”
In the case of Republic v. Tangarorang, Linney sought “the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Ramer before the trial court, invoking psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.”
Linney and Ramer begot a child prior to their marriage who they named Sharemahlyne, and they were subsequently married after Sharemahlyne’s birth.
“In declaring the marriage of Ramer and Linney void, the [trial court] held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Ramer was psychologically incapacitated.”
“However, the [trial court] did not explain why Sharemahlyne was declared an illegitimate child by virtue of the nullity of the parties’ marriage.”
“[T]he Office of the Solicitor General filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration to assail [the portion] of the ruling that declared Sharemahlyne to be illegitimate. In response, Linney filed a Comment… claiming that Sharemahlyne is an illegitimate child because she was born before the parties’ marriage…,” she also averred that she is entitled to the sole custody of Sharemahlyne.
“The [trial court] denied the foregoing Motion…, ruling that Sharemahlyne remains to be an illegitimate child since she was born prior to the parties’ marriage. There was likewise no annotation in her Certificate of Live Birth that she underwent the legitimation process.”
As a result, the OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certioraridirectly to the Supreme Court, raising pure questions of law.
The issue to be resolved was whether the trial court erred in declaring Sharemahlyne an illegitimate child of Linney and Ramer.
“Considering that ‘a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all[,]’ the nullity of the marriage, as a general rule, will make the child’s status illegitimate from conception. However, Article 54 of the Family Code provides for exceptions:
“Art. 54. Children 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. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.”
“[T]here are two instances when children born outside of valid marriages would still be considered legitimate… : (1) when the parent/s is/are declared psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code; and (2) when the child is conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 of the Family Code, but the parent/s has/have not complied with the requirements of Article 52 of the Family Code.”
“[F]or void marriages under Article 36, Article 54 of the Family Code did not distinguish between a child born prior to the marriage and a child born during the subsisting marriage. All the provision requires for legitimacy is that the child must be conceived or born prior to the judgment of absolute nullity under Article 36.”
“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 [since]…’[i]n the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status.’”
“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…”
“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. [T]he formal requirement of annotating the legitimation is a mere administrative procedure which cannot impair substantive rights.” (Republic Tangarorang, GR 272006, Feb. 5, 2025)
