000			02673nam a22002777a 4500
003			OSt
005			20190710200415.0
008			160622b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cUniversity of Cebu-Banilad _aUniversity of Cebu-Banilad
100			_aEpondulan, Golda A.
245			_aRevisiting the iron curtain bar rule and arguing for its amendment / _cGolda A. Epondulan.
260			_aCebu City : _c2016. _bUnivesity of Cebu,
300			_aii, 63 leaves : _c31 cm.
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
501			_aThesis (Degree of Juris Doctor) -- University of Cebu-Banilad, 2016.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 60-63).
520			_aSummary: This study focuses on Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. It aims to examine whether there still exists animosity between legitimate and illegitimate members of the family to warrant the continued applications of the law and if the law complies with the equal protection requirement of the Constitution. To answer these questions, the researchers evaluated studies and articles that examined legislations that distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children. Laws in other jurisdictions, as well as cases decided by the US Supreme Court, were relied upon because the constitutionality of Article 992 has not yet been questioned before the Philippine Supreme Court.The analysis of these cases and studies reveal that there seems to be little to no animosity existing between legitimate and illegitimate branches of the family to warrant Article 992. Many countries in South America and Europe have also granted equal or substantially equal rights to legitimate and illegitimate children while various international instruments likewise call for equal treatment of children regardless of the circumstances of their birth. These signal that the Philippines should take cue from these legal developments and amend Article 992 to adjust to existing conditions not only locally but internationally. Lastly, an analysis of the constitutionality of the law on the ground of equal protection clause seems to suggest that the law is constitutionally infirm because there is no substantial distinction between illegitimates and legitimates. There is likewise no significant relationship between the law and the government interests that the State aims to protect by the enactments of Article 992.
541			_xBaldomero Estenzo _yLaw _zLaw
546			_aEnglish
942			_2ddc _cTHE
998			_cLeah-Bei [new] _d06/22/2016
998			_cAillen[checked] _d07/16/2016
999			_c5684 _d5684