Facts: 

Abadilla, a Clerk of Court, filed a complaint for gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption unbecoming of a judge against Judge Tabiliran, alleging that the latter scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla during subsistence of his marriage with Teresita. In respect of the charge of deceitful conduct, Abadilla claims that Judge Tabiliran caused to be registered as "legitimate", his three illegitimate children with Priscilla by falsely executing separate affidavits stating that the delayed registration was due to inadvertence, excusable negligence or oversight, when in truth and in fact, he knew that these children cannot be legally registered as legitimate.

In his comment, Judge Tabiliran declared that his cohabitation with Priscilla is not and was neither bigamous nor immoral because he started living with Priscilla only after his first wife had already left and abandoned the family home in 1966 and, since then, and until the present her whereabouts is not known and he has had no news of her being alive. 


Issue: 

Is Judge Tabiliran guilty of the charge?


Held: 

Contrary to his protestations that he started to cohabit with Priscilla only after his first wife, Teresita, had long abandoned him and the conjugal home in 1966, it appears from the record that Judge Tabiliran had been scandalously and openly living with said Priscilla as early as 1970 as shown by the fact that he begot three children by her, namely Buenasol, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Tabiliran. Buenasol was born on July 14, 1970; Venus was born on September 7, 1971; while Saturn was born on September 20, 1975. Evidently, therefore, respondent and Priscilla had openly lived together even while respondent's marriage to his first wife was still valid and subsisting. 

The provisions of Sec. 3(w), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court and Art. 390 of the Civil Code which provide that, after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, the absent spouse shall be considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession, cannot be invoked by respondent. By respondent's own allegation, Teresita left the conjugal home in 1966. From that time on up to the time that respondent started to cohabit with Priscilla in 1970, only four years had elapsed. Respondent had no right to presume therefore that Teresita was already dead for all purposes. Thus, respondent's actuation of cohabiting with Priscilla in 1970 when his marriage to Teresita was still valid and subsisting constitutes gross immoral conduct. It makes mockery of the inviolability and sanctity of marriage as a basic social institution. 

 By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the trust reposed on his high office and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and strict standards of morality required of the law profession. Judge Tabiliran is dismissed from service.

 With respect to the charge of deceitful conduct, the charge has likewise been duly established. An examination of the birth certificates of respondent's three illegitimate children with Priscilla clearly indicate that these children are his legitimate issues. As a lawyer and a judge, respondent ought to know that, despite his subsequent marriage to Priscilla, these three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid marriage between respondent and his first wife, Teresita.

 Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations. The Family Code: (Executive Order, No. 209), which took effect on August 3, 1988, reiterated the above-mentioned provision thus:
Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. (Abadilla vs. Tabiliran, AM No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995)