Here is an interesting nullity case where the petitioner-wife and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disputed the legitimacy of the petitioner’s own biological child. When the trial court granted her petition for nullity, it ruled that the parties’ child was illegitimate. This is because she was born before the parties eventually married.  

The OSG questioned this part of the decision. It asserted that the subsequent marriage of the parties legitimated the child’s status. Ergo, even if the marriage was declared null later, the child remained legitimate by law. The wife contended that the child was illegitimate because she was born prior to her marriage to the respondent.   

The trial court thumbed down the OSG’s argument. It thus went up directly to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law — the child’s legitimacy despite the nullity.   

The High Court concurred with the OSG. It declared that: “At the outset, Article 165 of the Family Code provides that children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in the Family Code. However, children may be legitimated by a subsequent valid marriage of their parents under Articles 177 and 178 of the same Code, if their parents were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other at the time of their conception.  

“Here, it is undisputed that respondents are the biological parents of Sharemahlyne. As shown in her Certificate of Live Birth, she was born on 9 September 2006 to respondents who were not disqualified by any impediment from marrying each other. While psychological incapacity was later found to have rendered respondent Ramer incapable of fulfilling his essential marital obligations, such incapacity is not an impediment under the law that would disqualify him from contracting marriage. 

“Thus, with their marriage taking effect on 12 April 2007, Sharemahlyne had been legitimated. Considering that a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all, the nullity of the marriage, as a general rule, will make the child’s status illegitimate from conception. However, Article 54 of the Family Code provides for exceptions: Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.  

“Based on the foregoing provision, there are two instances when children born outside of valid marriages would still be considered legitimate so that the declaration of nullity of a marriage would not result in a change of their status: (1) when the parent/s is/are declared psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code; and (2) when the child is conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 of the Family Code, but the parent/s has/have not complied with the requirements of Article 52 of the Family Code.  

“For void marriages under Article 53 of the Family Code, the language of Article 54 of the Code requires that children be conceived or born within the subsequent marriage to be considered legitimate. However, for void marriages under Article 36, Article 54 of the Family Code does not distinguish between a child born prior to the marriage and a child born during the subsisting marriage. All the provision requires for legitimacy is that the child must be conceived or born prior to the judgment of absolute nullity under Article 36.  

“It would also not be amiss to point out that the Family Code does not provide for a scenario where a legitimated child may revert to illegitimacy. This is in keeping with the principle that a legitimate status is more favorable to the child. Considering that in the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status the law protects; i.e., the presumption of legitimacy, which is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. 

“It would thus be absurd to relegate children to the status of illegitimacy when they are already enjoying the rights accorded to legitimated children. To entertain such a situation would be anathema to the intent and purpose of the law in prioritizing the best interests of the child.  

“Considering the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial distinction between legitimate and legitimated children for purposes of determining the legitimacy of children of marriages later declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code.” 

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from Republic of the Philippines v. Linney Jean L. Tangarorang et al. (G.R. 272006, 5 February 2025).