Short answer. Not by operation of this law. Illegitimate children are under the parental authority of their mother, and recognition by the father does not divide that authority or create a right to be consulted. What he acquires is an obligation of support and the child's claim on his estate.
What the law says
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.
RA 9255, Section 1 — Surname Of Illegitimate Children. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.
RA 9255, Section 1 — Surname Of Illegitimate Children. Read the full provision →
Authority is allocated, not shared
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. The sentence places parental authority in one parent, without qualification and without a mechanism for the father to be brought into it. Parental authority is the whole bundle — custody of the person, decisions about schooling, medical treatment, residence and travel, and administration of the child's property. On the face of this provision the father participates in none of it as of right, and recognition does not change that.
What recognition does give him
It establishes filiation, and filiation carries obligations and rights that have nothing to do with authority. The obligation of support runs from it, and so does the child's share in the estate: The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. A recognised child can therefore claim maintenance from his father and inherit from him, while that father has no say in how the child is raised. The asymmetry is deliberate — the law attaches duties to fatherhood more readily than it attaches powers.
The courts are still there
This provision states where authority lies by default; it is not a bar on the door of the court. Custody, visitation and access are decided on the child's best interests, and a father seeking a role goes to court and argues that case rather than relying on this sentence, which does not help him. In the same way, a mother who holds sole parental authority does not hold it beyond review — authority can be suspended or terminated on the grounds the Family Code provides, whoever exercises it.
Where this actually bites
The practical friction is rarely about principle. It is a passport application needing a signature, a school enrolment form, a medical consent, a request to take the child abroad. Because parental authority sits with the mother, hers is the consent institutions require, and a father who expects to be treated as a co-decider will be turned away. Both parents are better served by settling access and decision-making in a written arrangement, or through the court, than by testing it at a counter with a child waiting.