“A child whose parents did not marry each other can inherit from their grandparent by their right of representation, regardless of the grandparent’s marital status at the birth of the child’s parent.”

 

This case involves a woman (Amadea) who claims to be the nonmarital child of her father (Arturo) who died before she was born, asserting her right to represent the former who is a marital child of her paternal grandfather (Miguel) whose estate she wants to be part of.

 

For clarity, the Supreme Court En Banc in this Decision thru Justice Leonen used the terms “marital” and “nonmarital” to in lieu of “legitimate” and “illegitimate”, respectively, when referring to the children to remove the negative connotation of the latter terms.

 

The primary issue in this case whether Amadea, a nonmarital child, can inherit from her grandfather’s estate by representing her deceased father.

 

Cognizant that the matter is unique given that Amadea’s parents had the intention, and no impediment, to be wed – if not for the unfortunate demise of her father before her birth – the Supreme Court painstakingly delineated that the an illegitimate or nonmarital child is not always one that is born out of illicit relationships, and instead recognized that nonmarital children primarily suffer the consequences imposed by laws, despite the status being beyond their power to change and that some of them may be nonmarital because their parents choose not to marry. The Court also recognized the probability that there are children who are nonmarital when their mother was a survivor of sexual assault who did not marry the perpetrator; or when one parent dies before they can marry the other parent – as in this case. In effect, Amadea is a nonmarital child.

 

Jurisprudence would show that the Court had, for a long time, interpreted Article 992 of the New Civil Code as barring nonmarital children from inheriting from their grandparents and other direct ascendants, as they are covered by the term “relatives.” This prohibition is what was established in case history as the “iron curtain rule,” due to a perceived hostility between the marital and nonmarital sides of a family. In the present case, the Court reexamined said rule such that Article 992[1] “should be construed to account for other circumstances of birth and family dynamics” – not just the fact that the child is born out of wedlock.

 

The Supreme Court resolved that children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, can now inherit from their grandparents and other direct ascendants by right of representation. Citing several legislative intents behind laws passed, adherence to international standards, as well as the Constitutional mandate for the protection of children regardless of their status, the Supreme Court ruled that should children’s successional rights be at stake, then the best interest of the child should be of paramount consideration.

 

The Court abandoned the presumption laid down in a number of cases, including In re Grey[2], Corpus[3], Diaz[4], and In re Suntay[5], among others, that nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or that they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family. Instead, the Court reinterpreted Article 992 to view children, regardless of the circumstances of their births, as qualified to inherit from their direct ascendants — such as their grandparents — by their right of representation. The Supreme Court ratiocinated that both marital and nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants.

 

The En Banc further explained that nonmarital children are removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as marital children, and that nonmarital children of marital children are also removed from their parents and ascendants in the same degree as nonmarital children of nonmarital children.

 

The Supreme Court reconciled the above-stated interpretation with the changes introduced by Article 195[6] of Family Code on obligations of support among and between the direct line of blood relatives. The provision provides that parents and their children and the children of the latter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, are obliged to support each other.

 

The Court explained that when a nonmarital child seeks to represent their deceased parent to succeed in their grandparent’s estate, he or she may do so by right of representation under Article 982 of the New Civil Code which provides:

 

Article 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions. (Emphasis supplied)

 

According to the Supreme Court, Article 982 does not make any distinctions or qualifications as to the birth status of the “grandchildren and other descendants” granted the right of representation. It, however, emphasized that the interpretation will only apply when the nonmarital child has a right of representation to their parent’s share in her grandparent’s legitime. It is silent on collateral relatives where the nonmarital child may inherit by themself. The Court refrained to rule on the extent of the right of a nonmarital child to inherit in their own right citing that the same “will be the subject of a proper case and, if so minded, may also be the subject of more enlightened and informed future legislation.”