Atty. Errol J. Dobrea, ECE

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 24 likes. "Highlights of the Regional Consultations on the Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Rules."

Sa sesyon ng En Banc ng ngayong Miyerkules, ika-8 ng Abril 2026, naglabas ito ng writ of kalikasan laban sa Halrey Construction, Inc. at iba pang mga taong kumikilos para sa kanila, dahil sa pagsasagawa ng ilegal na quarrying sa loob ng Angat River-Bustos Dam Forest Reserve sa Banaban, Angat, Bulacan.

Sa ponencia ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang hiling ni petitioner Narciso A. De Leon para sa isang pansamantalang environmental protection order na nag-uutos sa mga respondent na agad itigil ang quarrying, paghuhukay, pagkuha ng lupa, o katulad na mga gawain sa loob ng watershed area. Ipinagbabawal din sa kanila ang paggawa ng anumang kilos na maaaring magdulot ng karagdagang pinsala sa kapaligiran.

Sa pag-isyu ng writ, inilapat ng Korte Suprema ang precautionary principle batay sa mga teknikal na natuklasan na nagpapakita na malaki ang naidulot ng mga gawain ng mga respondent sa pagtaas sa surface runoff, erosion, at sedimentation sa loob ng watershed system. Ayon sa mga ulat, sinira ng mga gawaing ito ang mga pananim, halaman, at mga punong namumunga na nagsisilbing tirahan ng mga hayop.

Binigyang-pansin din ng Korte Suprema na ang pagbabago sa likas na anyo ng kahit isang bahagi lamang ng isang protektadong forest reserve ay nagbabanta sa katatagan ng watershed ng Angat River-Bustos Dam at nagdudulot ng malubhang panganib sa buhay, kalusugan, at ari-arian ng mga naninirahan sa ilang lalawigan.

Idineklara bilang protektadong kagubatan ang Angat River-Bustos Dam Forest Reserve sa ilalim ng Proclamation No. 573.

Basahin ang press briefer sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162980.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

📣 𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘: 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝟭 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) informs the public that starting 1 April 2026, all complaints handled by the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (EIPD) must be submitted through the SEC iMessage portal.

This system helps prevent duplicate submissions, reduces fraudulent or malicious complaints, and allows better tracking of case status and communication with complainants.

Submit your complaint at: https://imessage.sec.gov.ph

For assistance, visit www.sec.gov.ph or call 1-4SEC (1-4732).

🔗 Read the notice here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/notices-2026/public-notice-eipd-sec-imessage/

▶️Special Rules for Micro & Small Individual Business Taxpayers◀️

✅ May use any of the individual AITR forms (1701-MS, 1701, or 1701A) regardless of what is written on their COR (Form 2303).
1701-MS – still manual only (not yet in eFPS or eBIRForms).
✅ Download from BIR website or request from RDO → print 3 copies.
✅ Payment: over-the-counter at any AAB.
✅ They may choose to file electronically using 1701 or 1701A (minimum fields only – see Annex “D”).
✅ Once 1701/1701A is electronically filed & paid, no need to file 1701-MS manually.
✅ No penalty for wrong venue or for using 1701-MS.
✅ No need to update COR to add “1701-MS”.

The enactment of Republic Act No. 12010, also known as the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (“AFASA”), is a radical step forward in this country’s commitment to protecting consumers, deterring fraudsters, and fostering a more inclusive and resilient financial system. The implementing regulations, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular Nos. 1213, 1214, and 1215, Series of 2025, provide a comprehensive framework for the exercise of the BSP’s mandates and translate AFASA’s aspirations into actionable rules and policies for BSP-supervised institutions (“BSIs”), consumers, and the public. These rules work in tandem to (1) prevent, detect, and delay fraudulent transactions, (2) enhance the ability of fraud victims and BSIs to trace, hold, verify, and recover disputed funds, and (3) provide an expedited procedure for accessing and sharing financial account information for law enforcement purposes.

END OF SMS OTPs

LOOK: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas will require banks in the Philippines to phase out SMS OTPs (One-Time Passwords) starting from June 30 in accordance with the implementation of the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (AFASA).

This measure, which seeks to prevent phishing, SIM-swapping, and text-hijacking scams, mandates that banks implement more advanced authentication methods, including biometrics, in-app OTPs or push notifications, behavioral biometrics (such as typing patterns or device movements), and silent authentication through telecommunications networks. | 📸: Digital Banks/ Facebook via Rajzaiken Anda, INQUIRER.net trainee

Story soon on business.inquirer.net.

Source: The Manila Times

Payment in coins exceeding P2,000.00 is not allowed Payment in coins exceeding P2,000.00 is not allowed

On March 3, 2026, the (SC), led by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, will formally launch Phase 1 of the 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘪𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 (𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚) 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘭, a centralized digital platform that will streamline how lawyers report and monitor compliance with the mandatory delivery of 𝘱𝘳𝘰 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘰 legal aid services to underprivileged and indigent Filipinos.

The launch will be held at the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Session Hall at 1 PM.

In the same event, the ULAS Office (ULASO) will also hold an Inter-agency Partnership Ceremony and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Anti-Poverty Commission, Commission on Human Rights, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, and the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor. These agencies will coordinate with ULASO in identifying and referring individuals who may be qualified beneficiaries of free legal services.

The Launch will be livestreamed on the SC’s official social media accounts. Lawyers are encouraged to join online, as the program will feature instructional videos on how to navigate the Portal, along with insights and best practices from lawyers on how to comply effectively with the ULAS requirement.

The public is also invited to view the livestreamed Launch to learn how qualified beneficiaries can access the free legal services available through ULAS.

Under the 𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴, covered lawyers must render at least 60 hours of legal aid services every three years to individuals who cannot afford adequate legal representation.

For more information on ULAS, visit the ULAS Microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ulas/.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161202

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Surname of married woman's lover was used in the love child's birth certificate: Can the woman, who's separated in fact from her husband, have the child's surname changed to her maiden surname? | Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code | Supreme Court decision in "Ordoña vs. Pasig City Local Civil Registrar" (2021) | House Bill No. 7348 (20th Congress) filed by Rep. Sun J. Shimura of Cebu's 4th congressional district seeks to amend Article 167 of the Family Code by giving a mother the right to impugn — challenge or question — her child's legitimacy (in simpler terms, with the proposed amendment, a mother can declare that her child is illegitimate).

𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄:

𝗔. 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟰, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵 (𝟭) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀: "Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate."

In the 2005 "Gerardo Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals and Ma. Theresa Almonte" case, Gerardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Theresa on the ground that their marriage was bigamous. Ma. Theresa was already married to a certain Mario when they got married (and Mario was still alive and living in Quezon City). As a result, the Regional Trial Court declared their son Jose Gerardo to be an illegitimate child. When the court denied her motion to have Jose Gerardo's surname changed to her maiden surname, Ma. Theresa brought the case up to the Court of Appeals.

Ma. Theresa and Gerardo were shocked when the Court of Appeals ruled that, legally, Jose Gerardo was not their son but the son of Ma. Theresa and Mario (the first husband). The Court of Appeals ruling, later on affirmed by the Supreme Court, declared that every presumption must be in favor of legitimacy. You can read the full text of this case @ https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/aug2005/gr_123450_2005.html

𝗕. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲. It may be disputed based on the grounds and manner provided under Articles 166, 170, and 171.

𝗖. 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀: "The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress."

𝗗. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 "𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗼ñ𝗮 𝘃𝘀. 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗴 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗟𝗖𝗥 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟭)" 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. While working in UAE, she entered into a relationship with a man, with whom she later had a son. On the birth certificate, her son's surname is that of her lover's surname, instead of her husband's surname. Claiming that her son is illegitimate, she filed a petition under Rule 108 "Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry" to have her son's surname on the birth certificate changed from her lover's surname to her maiden surname.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻'𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲. The Court said that it's only the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs who can impugn (challenge or question) her son's legitimacy. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 "𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 [𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗻] 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 [𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲'𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿] 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄."

The Court addressed to Congress and the Senate the "absence of a remedy in favor of a mother in establishing the true filiation of her child."

𝗘. 𝗥𝗲𝗽. 𝗦𝘂𝗻 𝗝. 𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗿𝗮 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗲𝗯𝘂'𝘀 𝟰𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴, 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆. In simpler terms, with the proposed amendment, a mother can declare that her child is illegitimate.

𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀:

𝗔. You can read the full text of "Ordoña vs. Pasig City LCR (2021)" @ https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_215370_2021.html

Richelle Busque Ordoña (Richelle) was married to a certain Ariel O. Libut (Ariel) on October 10, 2000 in Las Piñas City. 𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟴 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗤𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗿, 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝘀𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲.

Richelle then worked in UAE where she met Allan D. Fulgueras (Allan), her former colleague in Qatar. She and Allan engaged in an intimate relationship, which resulted in her pregnancy. She went back to the Philippines sometime in 2009 and in early 2010 gave birth to a son in a hospital in Pasig City. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 "𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗼ñ𝗮 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀” 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 "𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀" 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿.

𝗕. 𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟭, 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟬𝟴 "𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆" 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:

(1) change of last name of Alrich Paul in Item 1 from "Fulgueras" to "Ordoña," her maiden name; and

(2) deletion of entries in the paternal information in Item Nos. 13 to 17.

𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁/𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 (𝗔𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁) 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹.

𝗖. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴

𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲. Highlights of the RTC's ruling:

(𝟭) Alrich Paul is an illegitimate child considering that he was conceived and born outside a valid marriage. "Per his Certificate of Live Birth, his mother is petitioner [Richelle] married to Ariel, but his alleged father is Allan."

(𝟮) Under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act 9255, "illegitimate children shall use the surname and be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with the Family Code; however, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father."

(𝟯) "Thus, [Richelle] wanted to delete the entries in Item Nos. 13 to 17 in Alrich Paul's Certificate of Live Birth to do away with an embarrassing situation when he comes of age and attends school where he can be the object of ridicule and discriminatory remarks from his peers."

"𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿. 𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗡𝗼𝘀. 𝟭𝟯 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹; 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗶𝗳 𝗵𝗲, 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿; that the intended correction was only for the convenience of [Richelle], who is legally married to Ariel, but gave birth to Alrich Paul whose alleged father is Allan; and that the legitime of Alrich Paul might be affected if Item Nos. 13 to 17 were to be deleted." [Boldfacing supplied]

After the RTC denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Richelle appealed to the Court of Appeals.

𝗗. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀' 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:

𝗜𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲. 𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗧𝗖'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱.

"The CA explained that under Article 164 of the Family Code, 'children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.' It then noted that when Alrich Paul was born, [Richelle] was still married to Ariel.

"𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗔 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 [𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀] 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗔𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗹𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗮𝘂𝗹, 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 '𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀.' Thus, contrary to what the RTC declared, it ruled that Alrich Paul cannot be deemed the illegitimate child of [Richelle] and Allan based solely on [Richelle's] admission; that the law requires that every reasonable presumption be made in favor of legitimacy; and that the status and filiation of the child cannot be compromised." [Boldfacing supplied]

"The CA further explained that the law sets who may dispute the legitimate status of the child, and that specifically, impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases, his heirs."

"The CA added that it was not for the RTC to rule on the matter: should Ariel or his heirs file an action impugning the status of Alrich Paul as a legitimate child of Ariel, it should be threshed out in a different proceeding. It explained that the well settled rule is that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.

"Thus, the CA declared that the presumption that Alrich Paul is the legitimate child of the legal and subsisting marriage between petitioner and Ariel stands."

After the Court of Appeals denied her Motion for Reconsideration, Richelle appealed to the Supreme Court.

𝗘. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:

(𝟭) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 "𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵."

[Note: In simple terms, Rule 108 is not the proper remedy that Richelle should have taken since she was actually questioning her son's legitimacy.]

"Article 164 of the Family Code provides that 'children conceived or born during the marriage of the parties are legitimate.' Here, [Richelle] admitted to being in a valid and subsisting marriage with Ariel when she conceived and gave birth to Alrich Paul. Thus, Alrich Paul is presumed to be a legitimate child of petitioner and Ariel. However, looking at the Rule 108 petition in this case, [Richelle], mother of Alrich Paul, in effect declared against her child's legitimacy when she alleged that Alrich Paul was the child of Allan.

"Following the pronouncement in Miller, [Richelle's] collateral attack of Alrich Paul's filiation cannot be allowed in a Rule 108 proceeding. Thus, on this ground alone, the RTC should have dismissed the Rule 108 petition."

(𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿, 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲.

"Still, the rule is that the mother is barred from impugning or declaring against the legitimacy of her child, and only the father, or in exceptional instances, his heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife based on any of the grounds enumerated under Article 166 of the Family Code."

"Here, [Richelle's] declaration in the birth certificate and in the Rule 108 petition that Alrich Paul is illegitimate cannot be countenanced as it runs counter to Article 167 of the Family Code. The presumption that Alrich Paul is legitimate stands in the absence of a direct action timely filed by the proper party."

(𝟯) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗱𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱.

"The hands of the Court are tied as it may only entertain the impugnation of a child's presumed legitimacy in a direct action filed by the proper party and within the prescribed period under the law.

"In light of these, the Court finds the present case as an opportune moment to highlight the absence of a remedy in favor of a mother in establishing the true filiation of her child. Ultimately, the Court's observations are directed to the Legislature inasmuch as the Court is careful not to tread on the realm of judicial legislation."

𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴 (𝟮𝟬𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀) 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 (𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻) 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱'𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆

Rep. Sun J. Shimura of Cebu's 4th congressional district filed House Bill No. 7348 on January 26, 2025; you can download it fromhttps://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB07348.pdf

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟳𝟯𝟰𝟴, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟲𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 (boldfacing supplied):

"Art. 167. Legitimate children may impugn the legitimacy of their filiation only upon reaching the age of majority, and solely on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law.

"In addition, the following may likewise impugn the legitimacy of a child in the cases and in the manner authorized by law:

"(a) The husband, in accordance with Articles 166, 170, and 171 of this Code; and

"(𝗯) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱/𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱’𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗗𝗡𝗔 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.

"𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟭𝟲𝟲 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟳𝟭 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀."

𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲:

You can read the full text of Articles 164, 167, and related articles of the Family Code @ https://familymatters.netlify.app/family%20code/fc%20title%20vi%20paternity%20and%20filiation

𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐍𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐀𝐘 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐆𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐆 𝐊𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐀𝐀𝐍 𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

📅 October 20, 2025 - May 18, 2026
👉Voter Registration Period (Nationwide except BARMM)

📅 February 9 - March 31, 2026
👉Voter Registration Period in BARMM

📅 September 28 - October 5, 2026
👉Filing of Certificates of Candidacy

📅 September 28 - October 21, 2026
👉Campaigning is Prohibited

📅 October 3 - November 9, 2026
👉Election Period
👉Gun Ban

📅 October 22-31, 2026
👉Campaign Period

📅 November 1, 2026
👉Eve of Election Day
👉Liquor Ban
👉Campaigning is Prohibited

📅 November 2, 2026
👉ELECTION DAY
👉Liquor Ban
👉Campaigning is Prohibited

📅 December 2, 2026
👉Last Day to File Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE)

❗️PAALALA: Suspended ang voter registration sa Antipolo City, Rizal mula January 19 - March 22, 2026 upang magbigay-daan sa mga aktibidad kaugnay ng isasagawang March 14, 2026 Special Elections sa 2nd Legislative District ng Antipolo City.

References:
COMELEC Resolution No. 11177:https://comelec.gov.ph/php-tpls-attachments/2025BSKE/Resolutions/com_res_11177.pdf
COMELEC Resolution No. 11191:https://comelec.gov.ph/php-tpls-attachments/2025BSKE/Resolutions/com_res_11191.pdf