The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez and made public May 21, the SC’s Second Division modified the ruling of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.
The child was born several months before the couple got married. During the marriage, the wife experienced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband. Her husband also struggled with alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.
The wife filed a petition to nullify their marriage, presenting evidence of abuse and a psychological report diagnosing her husband with narcissistic personality disorder. The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity. It also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she was legitimated.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) brought the matter to the SC, arguing that the child was legitimated by her parents’ marriage, even without a formal annotation on her birth certificate.
The SC affirmed that the marriage was void but ruled that the child remains legitimate.
Generally, when a marriage is nullified, the child is considered illegitimate from the time they were conceived. However, the Family Code allows exceptions, such as when the marriage is nullified due to psychological incapacity, and this applies whether the child was born before or during the marriage, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release.
The SC also ruled that a missing annotation on the birth certificate does not affect the child’s legal status. “The formal requirement of annotating the legitimation is a mere administrative procedure which cannot impair substantive rights.”
The SC emphasized that once a child is legitimated under the Family Code, there is no legal basis for changing their status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.
In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen also said that to protect the best interests of children and guard them against discrimination, those born outside of marriage should be referred to as “nonmarital children”, instead of “illegitimate” – a derogatory term that perpetuates prejudice. ||
