Scribd
Upload
75 views1 page

Benitez-Badua vs. Ca G.R. No. 105625 Facts

Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian owned properties in Laguna. After their deaths, private respondents filed to administer Vicente's estate, claiming he had no heirs. Petitioner Marissa Benitez-Badua opposed this, alleging she was Vicente's sole heir. The trial court agreed but the Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court stated that Vicente and Isabel took Marissa in as a baby but did not legally adopt her. The issue is whether Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code apply. The Supreme Court ruled these articles do not contemplate Marissa's situation, as she is alleged to not be the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. The appellate

Uploaded by

Alelie Joy Malazarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
75 views1 page

Benitez-Badua vs. Ca G.R. No. 105625 Facts

Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian owned properties in Laguna. After their deaths, private respondents filed to administer Vicente's estate, claiming he had no heirs. Petitioner Marissa Benitez-Badua opposed this, alleging she was Vicente's sole heir. The trial court agreed but the Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court stated that Vicente and Isabel took Marissa in as a baby but did not legally adopt her. The issue is whether Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code apply. The Supreme Court ruled these articles do not contemplate Marissa's situation, as she is alleged to not be the biological child of Vicente and Isabel. The appellate

Uploaded by

Alelie Joy Malazarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

BENITEZ-BADUA vs.

CA
G.R. No. 105625
FACTS:
Spouses Vicente Benitez and Isabel Chipongian owned various properties in Laguna.
Isabel and Vicente died on April 25, 1982 and November 13, 1989, respectively. Private
respondents, Victoria Benitez-Lirio and Feodor Benitez Aguilar, instituted an action
praying for the issuance of letters of administration of Vicente’s estate. They alleged
that the deceased Vicente has no other heirs or relatives, ascendants or descendants,
whether legitimate, illegitimate or legally adopted. Petitioner, Marissa Benitez-Badua,
opposed the petition by alleging that she is the sole heir of the deceased Vicente and
capable of administering his estate. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
petitioner relying on Articles 166 and 170 of the Family Code. However, the Court of
Appeals reversed the foregoing decision. The appellate court also stated that the said
couple being unable to procreate and desirous of having child, the late Vicente took
Marissa from somewhere while still a baby and without legally adopting her, they
treated, cared and reared Marissa as their own true child. The petitioner now contends
that Court of Appeals erred in not applying the provisions of law, specifically, Articles
164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the instant case is a situation contemplated in Articles 164, 166, 170 and
171 of the Family Code.

RULING:
The above articles show that they do not contemplate a situation, like in the instant
case, where a child is alleged not to be the child of nature or biological child of a certain
couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a husband (or his heirs) denies
as his own a child of his wife. The appellate court did not err when it refused to apply
these articles to the case. For the instant case is not where the heirs of the late Vicente
are contending that petitioner is not his child by Isabel. Instead, their clear submission is
that petitioner was not born to the said spouses.

You might also like