Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Grande V Antonio

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    1) Antonio filed a petition to take parental authority over his two illegitimate children with Grande and to change their surnames to "Antonio". 2) The Family Code states that illegitimate children shall use their mother's surname unless their father expressly recognizes them. 3) Antonio did not expressly recognize the children. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRR provision allowing children to take their father's surname upon recognition is void and contradicted the statute. 4) Antonio did not have the right to compel the children to use his surname, as the law clearly states they shall use their mother's surname in this situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Grande V Antonio

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    41 views2 pages
    1) Antonio filed a petition to take parental authority over his two illegitimate children with Grande and to change their surnames to "Antonio". 2) The Family Code states that illegitimate children shall use their mother's surname unless their father expressly recognizes them. 3) Antonio did not expressly recognize the children. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRR provision allowing children to take their father's surname upon recognition is void and contradicted the statute. 4) Antonio did not have the right to compel the children to use his surname, as the law clearly states they shall use their mother's surname in this situation.

    Original Description:

    grande vs. antonio

    Original Title

    grande-v-antonio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Antonio filed a petition to take parental authority over his two illegitimate children with Grande and to change their surnames to "Antonio". 2) The Family Code states that illegitimate children shall use their mother's surname unless their father expressly recognizes them. 3) Antonio did not expressly recognize the children. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRR provision allowing children to take their father's surname upon recognition is void and contradicted the statute. 4) Antonio did not have the right to compel the children to use his surname, as the law clearly states they shall use their mother's surname in this situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Grande V Antonio

    Uploaded by

    Sheilah Mae Padalla
    1) Antonio filed a petition to take parental authority over his two illegitimate children with Grande and to change their surnames to "Antonio". 2) The Family Code states that illegitimate children shall use their mother's surname unless their father expressly recognizes them. 3) Antonio did not expressly recognize the children. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRR provision allowing children to take their father's surname upon recognition is void and contradicted the statute. 4) Antonio did not have the right to compel the children to use his surname, as the law clearly states they shall use their mother's surname in this situation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Grace M. Grande v. Patricio T.

    Antonio
    G.R. No. 206248,February 18, 2014 (En Banc)Velasco, Jr.,J.:

    Doctrine :After all, the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the
    implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is found in the legislative enactment
    itself. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its
    coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the Legislature. Thus, if a
    discrepancy occurs between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, it is the
    former that prevails, because the law cannot be broadened by a mere administrative issuance –
    an administrative agency certainly cannot amend the act of Congress. (MCC Industrial Sales
    Corp. v Ssangyong Corp, G.R. No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007)

    Facts: Grande and Antonio have two children out of wed-lock. The children were not expressly
    recognized Antonio. After separation of the couple, Grande decided to take the children to the
    United States prompting Antonio to file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition with
    Prayer to take Parental Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of
    Minors and for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Regional Trial Court
    confirmed by the Court of Appeals decreed the changed of minors’ surname to “Antonio”.

    Issue: Whether or not Antonio has the right to compel the use of his surname by his
    illegitimate children?

    Ruling: No.

    Article 176 of the Family Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 provides that
    illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their
    mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate
    children may use the surname of their father if their filiations have been expressly recognized
    by their 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.

    From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the general rule is that an illegitimate child
    shall use the surname of his or her mother. The exception provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or
    her filiation is 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. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname of the
    father.

    By virtue of the Constitutional prerogative and authority to strike down and declare void
    the rules of procedure of special courts and quasi judicial bodies when found contrary to
    statutes and/or Constitution, the Supreme Court declares the IRR of RA 9255 providing for the
    mandatory use by illegitimate children of their father’s surname upon the latter’s recognition of
    his paternity is void.
    The law is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be taken to mean what is says and it
    must be given its literal meaning free from any interpretation. Antonio’s position that the court
    can order the minors to use his surname has no basis.

    You might also like