You are on page 1of 1

Andal vs Macaraig (1951) L- 244, May 30, 1951, 89 Phil.

65
FACTS:

Mariano Andal, a minor, assisted by his mother Maria Dueñas, as guardian ad litem, brought an action
in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for the recovery of the ownership and possession of a
parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talacop, Calabanga, Camarines Sur.

Emiliano Andal became sick of tuberculosis in January 1941. Sometime thereafter, his brother, Felix,
went to live in his house to help him work his house to help him work his farm. His sickness became
worse that on or about September 10, 1942, he became so weak that he could hardly move and get up
from his bed. On September 10, 1942, Maria Duenas, his wife, eloped with Felix, and both went to live
in the house of Maria's father, until the middle of 1943. Since May, 1942, Felix and Maria had sexual
intercourse and treated each other as husband and wife. On January 1, 1943, Emiliano died without the
presence of his wife, who did not even attend his funeral. On June 17, 1943, Maria Dueñas gave birth
to a boy, who was given the name of Mariano Andal.

It appears undisputed that the land in question was given by Eduvigis Macaraig to her son Emiliano
Andal by virtue of a donation propter nuptias she has executed in his favor on the occasion of his
marriage to Maria Dueñas. If the son born to the couple is deemed legitimate, then he is entitled to
inherit the land in question. If otherwise, then the land should revert back to Eduvigis Macaraig as the
next of kin entitled to succeed him under the law.

ISSUE:

Wthether or not the child be considered as the legitimate son of Emiliano.

HELD:

YES, the child is still the legitimate child of Emiliano.

Considering that Mariano was born on June 17, 1943 and Emiliano died on January 1, 1943, the former
is presumed to be a legitimate son of the latter because he was born within 300 days following the
dissolution of the marriage. The fact that the husband was seriously sick is not sufficient to overcome
the presumption of legitimacy. This presumption can only be rebutted by proof that it was physically
impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife during the first 120 days of the 300 days next
preceding the birth of the child. Impossibility of access by husband to wife includes absence during the
initial period of conception, impotence which is patent, and incurable; and imprisonment unless it can
be shown that cohabitation took place through corrupt violation of prison regulations. Maria’s illicit
intercourse with a man other than the husband during the initial period does not preclude cohabitation
between husband and wife.

section 68, par. (c) of Rule 123, of the Rules of Court provides:

The issue of a wife cohabiting with the husband who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed to be
legitimate, if not born within one hundred eighty days immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the
expiration of three hundred days following its dissolution.

Emiliano and his wife were living together, or at least had access one to the other, and Emiliano was
not impotent, and the child was born within three (300