FILIATION RIGHT TO INHERIT

  In Paulino v. Paulino (G.R. No. L-15091, December 28, 1961, 3 SCRA 730) the Supreme Court held that the acknowledgment of the putative father is essential and is the basis of an illegitimate child's right to inherit. If there is no allegation of acknowledgment, the action filed by the illegitimate child to be given a share in the estate of the putative father becomes one to compel recognition, which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father.   

--

FILIATION ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

  The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the child's acknowledgment. ( Aguilar vs. Siasat, GR No. 200169, January 28, 2015)

--

Case Law: Rape

The absence of fresh laceration or of any sign of trauma in the victim's body does not necessarily negate
rape." (People vs. Pajaro, 265 SCRA 668; People vs. Galimba, 253 SCRA 722; People vs. Erardo,
277 SCRA 643)

Besides, a medical examination of the victim, as well as the
medical certificate, is only corroborative in character and is not an
indispensable element in rape. The unequivocal piece of evidence
that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim is her credible and
consistent testimony." (People vs. Tamsi, 388 SCRA 604)

Also, rape does not necessarily mean
defloration. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of
rape. (People vs. Madridano, 227 SCRA 363; People vs. Llamo, 323 SCRA 791)

Indeed, it is not necessary, in order to have rape, that the
accused succeeds in having full penetration. The slightest touching or
introduction of the lips of the female organ or the labia of the
pudendum constitutes rape. When the accused tried to insert his
penis into his victim's vagina, that was all that was necessary to
commit consummated rape." (People vs. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432; People vs. Libeta, 381 SCRA 21; People vs. Velasquez,
377 SCRA 214.)

Full penetration of the genital organ is
not indispensable to sustain a conviction for rape." People vs. Manuel, 298 SeRA 184.

Probative Value of Ex Parte Affidavits

Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered
incomplete and often inaccurate." Ex-parte affidavits are usually
incomplete, as these are frequently prepared by administering officers
and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have
said. (Marturillas vs. People, 487 SCRA 273 [2006])

--

Notes on Persona Non Grata (Local Government)

Notes on Persona Non Grata (Local Government)

1. What is a "persona non grata"?

The term "persona non grata" is a Latin phrase which means "an unwelcome person." Such practice of declaring a person as persona non grata is enshrined in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. A diplomat who is no longer welcome to the government to which he is accredited is barred from remaining in the country and declared as persona non grata.[1]

2. Can the Sangguniang Panlalawigan declare a person as "persona non grata"?

Yes, a local legislative body may declare a person as a "persona non grata" through a resolution. Such practice has precedent. The City of Davao had previously declared Senator Antonio Trillanes as a "persona non grata" and the City of Manila had declared militant group "Panday Sining."[2] 

In Occidental Mindoro, the provincial government had declared the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People's Army (CPP-NPA) as persona non-grata through Resolution No. 159 S. 2020 dated May 05, 2020.

3. What is the legal effect of being declared "persona non grata"?

A resolution declaring a person as "persona non grata" is but a mere expression of sentiment or opinion of the local legislative body on a specific matter [3]

It may not have not a legal effect on its own, but it may be considered in decision-making processes in the government, most particularly where discretion on the part of authority is allowed. In the case of Eddie Digal, he was Project Manager for the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) who was declared as a persona non grata by government officials of Bohol, and was subsequently re-assigned by the NIA Administrator. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) sustained his reassignment, ciing "management prerogative" as he occupied third-level position (Career Executive Service (CES))[4]

4. Can a declaration as "persona non grata" be a basis for denial or limitation on the exercise of a legal right?

No. Respectfully submitting the opinion that, such a resolution cannot be the basis of a decision or government action in contravention of the law or against the lawful order of government authorities. In the case of Mayor Roberto A. Loquinte of Anahawan, Province of Southern Leyte, DILG Secretary Eduardo M. Ano that a resolution declaring the Mayor a persona non grata must not engender to prevent Mayor Loquinte from assuming his office and/or discharging his functions. If so, then such is "rephrensible." The DILG Secretary also advised the concerned local legislative body to act within the bounds of law and abide by duly-issued COMELEC Writ of Execution.[5]

[1] DILG Opinion No. 30 S. 2020 February 07, 2020

[2] Supra

[3] Supra

[4] RESOLUTION NO. 030284 dated March 05, 2003

[5] DILG Opinion No. 30 S. 2020 February 07, 2020

Oversight Function of Local Legislative Body

OVERSIGHT FUNCTION OF LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY

1. Can the Local Legislative Body compel the Local Chief Executive (LCE) to provide information and data necessary in relation to the former's ordinance making power?

No, unlike the national legislature, the local legislative body cannot compel through a subpoena, persons, including the Local Chief Executive (LCE) and members of the local Executive Department. It may issue an "invitation" only.*

2.  Does the LCE have a duty to provide information and data to the Local Legislative Body?

Yes. That duty is expressly provided under Sec. 455 of the Local Government Code.*

3.  If the LCE chooses not to perform this duty, what can the Local Legislative Body do? 

The Local Legislative Body may, among others,  file an administrative complaint for nonfeasance before the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770. 

The body may also file a Petition for Mandamus before the appropriate court, to compel the LCE to provide the required data and information. The remedy is available "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." (Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court)#

*DILG OPINION NO. 25 S. 2020 dated January 31, 2020

ONLY THE COURT CAN DECLARE AN ORDINANCE VOID AB INITIO

ONLY THE COURT CAN DECLARE AN ORDINANCE VOID AB INITIO

A local legislative body passed an Appropriation Ordinance  (Supplemental Budget) with the provision, "That, in case of failure by the aforesaid officials and employees to comply with any of the foregoing conditions the approval of this ordinance shall be deemed as automatically withdrawn and of no effect ab initio."

Allegedly, the concerned Local Chief Executive (LCE) disbursed funds appropriated in the said ordinance, in such a manner that is violative of the provision of the pertinent Appropriation Ordinance. 

Under the foregoing premise, the same local legislative body, through a majority vote, approved the recommendation of the committee to declare the Appropriation Ordinance as void ab initio based on (1) the provision quoted above and (2) the alleged violation of the concerned LCE.

1. Can a local legislative body declare on its own an appropriation ordinance void ab initio?  

No, it cannot on its own solely determine whether its appropriation ordinance is void ab initio.  It is not one of the powers expressly granted to the local legislative body under the Local Government Code.

2. What is the proper action? 

The proper action is to file an action before the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). This is consistent with the legal opinion of the Department of Interior and Local Government, to quote: "Be that as it may, we would like to inform you that the issued involving the validity and legality of an ordinance, the Department, in its previous legal opinions, has already opined that inasmuch as the ordinance has undergone the procedural process for its enactment under the Local Government Code, the same is considered valid unless otherwise declared by our courts of justice. Any issues or questions thereon as to the substantive validity and enforceability of an ordinance should be threshed out by filing a special civil action for declaratory relief before the proper court in accordance with Section 1 and Section 4, Rule 63 of the Revised Rules of Court."  (DILG Opinion No. 5S. 2018 dated January 25, 2018)

3. What is the effect of the declaration of the local legislative body that the appropriation ordinance is void ab initio?

It has no legal effect, as it has no power to declare an ordinance as void ab initio.  The appropriation ordinance is presumed valid unless other wise declared by the proper court upon filing of a petition as stated above. 

Any disbursement pursuant to the said appropriation ordinance also enjoy the presumption of regularity. The local legislative body, not being the proper court of justice, has no legal imprimatur to determine whether or not the disbursement was invalid or irregular.

4. What about the alleged violation of the local chief executive?

The local legislative body may conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, and upon the observation of due process, issue a resolution recommending or requesting the filing of proper administrative charges and/or special audit by the Commission on Audit (COA).  

 In other words, the local chief executive may also be held liable for administrative offense. 

5. What about the liability of local legislative body members? 

If the local legislative body insists on giving no legal effect to the appropriation ordinance, as in its view, it is void ab initio, a tax payer or any constituent may file  administrative complaint for misconduct, "an offense implying a wrongful intent, an unlawful behavior in relation to the office, one that usually involves a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior by the public officer." 

This may be filed before the Office of the President in the exercise of its power of general supervision over local government units or before the Office of the Ombudsman which has plenary powers over public officials.#