Superseded. This article turns on a provision that is itself repealed. It refers to the illegitimate children of Article 287, which the Family Code replaced. An illegitimate child’s surname is governed by the Family Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, which allows the use of the father’s surname where filiation is recognised. The text below is reproduced as originally enacted, for reference only.
Text of the provision
Art. 368. Illegitimate children referred to in article 287 shall bear the surname of the mother.
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As originally enacted, the illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of this Code bore the surname of the mother.
The article does not define this class of children itself; it borrows the definition from Article 287 elsewhere in the Code and simply supplies the surname consequence for children falling within it. The result places the mother’s surname as the default here, in contrast to the father’s surname used for legitimate, legitimated, and acknowledged natural children in the surrounding articles — a difference tied to the absence of the paternal acknowledgment that triggers those other rules.
How this article reads today. The Civil Code’s sub-classifications of illegitimate children were superseded by the Family Code. Article 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate children use the surname of their mother, and Republic Act No. 9255 allows them to use their father’s surname where its conditions are met.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 367 — Surname of a Natural Child by Legal Fiction.
- Article 887 — Who the Compulsory Heirs Are.
Cases citing this article
- Emelita Basilio Gan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207147, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Glenn M. Miller, substituted by his surviving legal heirs, namely: Evelyn L. Miller, et, G.R. No. 200344, August 28, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Milagros M. Barco, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 120587, January 20, 2004 — 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.