Short answer. Yes, and the law says so expressly. The father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The right is his alone, it must be exercised while he lives, and he carries the burden of proving the case he brings.
What the law says
Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime.
RA 9255, Section 1 — Surname Of Illegitimate Children. Read the full provision →
What the law says
their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register
RA 9255, Section 1 — Surname Of Illegitimate Children. Read the full provision →
The right is written into the same provision
The sentence that lets a recognised child use the father's surname is immediately qualified: Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. Read the three limits in it. The forum is the regular courts, not the civil registrar — no administrative office can undo a recognition. The object is to prove non-filiation, an affirmative case rather than a withdrawal of consent. And the window is his lifetime, which is the limit that decides most real disputes.
It dies with him
Because the right is expressly personal and expressly confined to his lifetime, it is not something a widow, a sibling or a legitimate child can take up after his death. That matters enormously in estate disputes, where a recognised illegitimate child's share is often the thing the family wishes to contest — and where the one person entitled to contest filiation is by definition unavailable. A recognition left unchallenged through the father's life is therefore very difficult to disturb afterwards, which is precisely why the making of it deserves care at the time.
Regret is not the case he has to make
The father who signed their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register is asking a court to unmake his own formal act, and the provision requires him to prove non-filiation — not to explain why he changed his mind. A relationship that ended badly, a suspicion, a refusal to keep paying: none of these is the proposition to be proved. What has to be established is that the child is not his, and the evidence available for that is largely scientific.
Nothing changes while the case runs
Filing an action does not suspend the recognition. Until a court rules, the child's registered status stands, the surname stands, and the obligation of support that follows from filiation stands with them. A father who stops paying because he has commenced a case has not improved his position. The child's side should also be clear-eyed: the mother is not the one who has to prove anything, but the child's interests need representation in the proceeding, and a family should take advice before responding to a petition of this kind rather than after.