ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | October 06, 2023
Dear Chief Acosta,
Kasalukuyan kong ipinagbubuntis ang aking panganay na anak. Dahil maselan ang aking pagbubuntis, ako ay napilitang hindi na muna magtrabaho. Sinubukan kong humingi ng sustento sa ama ng aking dinadalang anak sapagkat napakagastos pala ng pagbubuntis, ngunit sinabi niya sa akin na magbibigay lamang siya ng sustento kapag isinilang ko na ang bata. Nararapat ba ang kanyang naging tugon? - Beth
Dear Beth,
Para sa iyong kaalaman, mayroong napagdesisyunang kaso ang Korte Suprema na nakasasaklaw sa iyong katanungan. Ayon sa Quimiguing v. Icao, G.R. No. 26795, July 31, 1970, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Jose Benedicto Luis Luna “J.B.L.” Reyes, nakasaad na:
“We find the appealed orders of the court below to be untenable. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, particularly of the defendant-appellee (whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said child is only “en ventre de sa mere”; just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator (Article 854, Civil Code).
It is thus clear that the lower court’s theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children “does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn”, violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition that nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing that “the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it” adds further “provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article” (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely useless and ineffective.”
Sang-ayon sa nabanggit, ang isang unborn child/fetus ay binibigyan ng ating batas ng pansamantalang pagkakakilanlan upang makamit niya ang mga benepisyo at sustentong nararapat sa kanya mula sa kanyang mga magulang o lolo at lola, kahit siya ay nasa sinapupunan pa lamang. Ibig sabihin, hindi tama ang naging tugon sa iyo ng ama ng iyong ipinagbubuntis na sanggol sapagkat sa ngayon pa lamang ay obligado na siya na magbigay ng sustento, upang masigurado ang ikabubuti ng bata.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Comentarios