The Supreme Court of the Philippines has revisited the long-standing “Iron Curtain Rule” regarding inheritance rights, holding that a child born to unmarried parents can inherit from their grandparent by right of representation, regardless of the grandparent’s marital status when the child’s parent was born. This landmark decision seeks to correct a historical bias against nonmarital children, aligning Philippine law more closely with principles of equality and social justice. The ruling emphasizes that denying inheritance based on birth status is discriminatory and contrary to the best interests of the child, ensuring greater equity in succession for all descendants.

Breaking Barriers: Can a Grandchild Inherit if Their Parent Wasn’t Married?

In the consolidated cases of Amadea Angela K. Aquino v. Rodolfo C. Aquino and Abbulah C. Aquino, the Supreme Court grappled with the question of whether Amadea Angela K. Aquino, the nonmarital child of Arturo Aquino, a marital child of Miguel Aquino, could inherit from her grandfather’s estate. The case hinged on the interpretation of Article 992 of the Civil Code, which traditionally barred nonmarital children from inheriting from the marital relatives of their parents. The central legal issue was whether this “Iron Curtain Rule” should continue to be upheld in its strictest sense, or whether a more equitable interpretation could allow for inheritance by nonmarital children, particularly when they are representing their deceased parent.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of re-evaluating Article 992 in light of evolving societal norms and constitutional principles. The Court acknowledged the historical discrimination faced by nonmarital children and sought to align its interpretation of the law with the principles of equality and social justice. The discussion delved into the origins of Article 992, tracing its roots back to the Spanish Civil Code and its underlying presumption of animosity between marital and nonmarital families. This presumption, the Court noted, no longer accurately reflects contemporary family dynamics. Furthermore, the Court recognized the Philippines’ commitment to international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which mandates the protection of children’s rights without discrimination.

Building on this foundation, the Supreme Court adopted a construction of Article 992 that allows children, regardless of their birth circumstances, to inherit from their direct ascendants—such as their grandparent—through their right of representation. This interpretation recognizes that both marital and nonmarital children are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants, and should therefore be treated equally in matters of inheritance. The Court emphasized that intestate succession is based on the decedent’s presumed will, and that it is no longer justifiable to assume that a decedent would exclude nonmarital children from their inheritance due to outdated notions of hostility between marital and nonmarital families. The Court stressed that when a nonmarital child seeks to represent their deceased parent to succeed in their grandparent’s estate, Article 982 of the Civil Code, which grants the right of representation to grandchildren and other descendants without distinction as to birth status, should apply.

However, the application of Article 982 does not automatically grant Angela the right to inherit from Miguel’s estate. The Supreme Court emphasized that Angela must still prove her filiation. The Court laid out the rules concerning proof of filiation, clarifying that since Angela was born before the Family Code was enacted, the Civil Code provisions apply. The Court determined that the proper recourse was to apply Article 285 which grants the right to prove that she was her father’s daughter; This had to be done within four years from attaining the age of majority. Recognizing that there is no provision in the Civil Code guiding children born after their father’s death in proving filiation, the Supreme Court invoked the principle of estoppel. Citing Tongoy v Court of Appeals, it recognized that circumstances exist where a nonmarital child has been enjoying the benefits and privileges of an acknowledged child, treated as such not just by the putative parent, but also by the extended family. In these instances, it would be rather awkward to require the child to undergo formalities of compulsory recognition, lest they be deprived of their hereditary rights.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the importance of DNA testing. It stated that the Rule on DNA Evidence permits kinship analysis through DNA testing of genetically-related persons when there is prima facie evidence of genetic kinship. In the absence of viable biological samples from the putative father, DNA testing may be used as corroborative evidence of two or more persons’ inclusion or exclusion in the same genetic lineage. The Court clarified that it is not a trier of facts, and that resolving factual matters requires additional evidence, which it is not equipped to receive. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Regional Trial Court for reception of evidence and resolution of the issues of Angela’s filiation and entitlement to a share in Miguel’s estate.

Looking forward, the Supreme Court’s decision signals a shift towards greater inclusivity and fairness in Philippine inheritance law. This may encourage legislative action to further modernize family and succession laws. By re-evaluating Article 992, the Court sends a message that all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, deserve equal protection and opportunities. This aligns with international human rights standards and reinforces the importance of protecting the best interests of the child. While the specific outcome for Angela remains uncertain pending further proceedings, the reinterpretation of Article 992 represents a significant step towards a more just and equitable legal framework for all Filipino families.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether a nonmarital child can inherit from their grandparent’s estate, considering the “Iron Curtain Rule” under Article 992 of the Civil Code.
What is the “Iron Curtain Rule”?	The “Iron Curtain Rule” (Article 992 of the Civil Code) traditionally barred nonmarital children from inheriting from the marital relatives of their parents, based on a presumed animosity between the two families.
How did the Supreme Court change the interpretation of Article 992?	The Court reinterpreted Article 992 to allow nonmarital children to inherit from their direct ascendants (grandparents) by right of representation, provided they can prove their filiation.
What is “right of representation”?	Right of representation allows heirs to step into the place of a deceased direct ascendant in the line of succession, inheriting the share that would have gone to the ascendant.
Does this decision automatically mean the nonmarital child inherits?	No. The nonmarital child must first prove their filiation to the parent who would have been the direct heir, usually done through birth certificates, DNA testing, or other admissible evidence.
What is the role of DNA testing in these cases?	DNA testing is recognized as a valid and reliable method for determining filiation. It can provide conclusive evidence of paternity or maternity, helping to resolve inheritance disputes.
What happens next in this specific case?	The case has been remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings to determine if Amadea Angela K. Aquino can sufficiently prove that she is the nonmarital child of Arturo Aquino.
Why couldn’t the Supreme Court decide on the inheritance directly?	The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Since the facts of Amadea’s filiation were in dispute, the case had to be sent back to the lower court to receive and evaluate the relevant evidence.
What if the Family Code applies?	Since Amadea was born before the Family Code took effect, the provisions of the Civil Code apply in determining her rights.

The Supreme Court’s re-evaluation of Article 992 marks a significant advancement in recognizing the rights of all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status. While the resolution of Amadea Angela K. Aquino’s case remains pending, the principles established offer hope for a more equitable application of inheritance laws in the Philippines and provide clarity for future cases involving similar circumstances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Aquino v. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 208912 & 209018, December 07, 2021