Superseded. The class of child this article speaks of no longer exists. The Family Code abolished the Civil Code’s sub-classes of illegitimate children — the ‘natural’ child, the ‘natural child by legal fiction’ and the rest — leaving a single class of illegitimate children. The text below is reproduced as originally enacted, for reference only; the surname an illegitimate child uses is governed by the Family Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, which allows the father’s surname on recognition.
Text of the provision
Art. 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of the father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
As originally enacted, a natural child acknowledged by both parents principally used the surname of the father; one recognised by only one parent used that parent’s surname.
How this article reads today. The Family Code no longer uses the category of ‘natural child’: Article 165 provides simply that children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate. Surnames are now governed by Article 176 of the Family Code, under which illegitimate children use their mother’s surname — and, under Republic Act No. 9255, may use their father’s surname where its conditions are met.
Related provisions
- Article 360 — Council for the Protection of Children.
- Article 367 — Surname of a Natural Child by Legal Fiction.
Cases citing this article
- Emelita Basilio Gan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207147, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Trinidad R.A. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.