Section 1547: Legitimation by father, three routes

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 452/2553 (2010)

   Section 1547 provides that a child born to parents who were not married to each other becomes a legitimate child only where the parents afterwards marry, or the father registers the child as his, or a court gives judgment that the child is his. Conduct amounting to informal acknowledgement, such as letting the child use the father's surname and maintaining the child as a father maintains a child, is not a ground the law recognises and does not make the child legitimate. A man who has done no more than that is not the child's lawful father.

   The plaintiff sued for the return of her minor child and for an order restraining the defendant from further involvement with the child. The defendant relied on having acknowledged the child in fact: the child used his surname and he had maintained her as a father maintains a child. The Supreme Court held that section 1547 recognises only three routes by which a child born outside marriage becomes legitimate, namely the parents' subsequent marriage, registration by the father, or a judgment of the court, and that acknowledgement by conduct is not among them. None having occurred, the defendant was not the child's lawful father. The decision is about what does not amount to legitimation; it does not decide from what date legitimation takes effect.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3019/2541 (1998)

   A child becomes the legitimate child of the father only by one of the three routes in section 1547: the subsequent marriage of the parents, registration of legitimation by the father, or a judgment of the court. Where none has been taken the child is not a legitimate child, and section 1562, which restricts a person's rights and must be construed strictly, does not bar him from suing the father.

   The plaintiff was the defendant's child, acknowledged in fact and using his surname, but the defendant and the plaintiff's mother never married. The Supreme Court held the plaintiff could become a legitimate child only through one of the three routes in section 1547 and none had been taken, so he was not a legitimate child. Since section 1562's prohibition on suing an ascendant restricts a person's rights and must be construed strictly, it applies only to a legitimate child, so the plaintiff had standing to sue his father. The judgment of the court of first instance was set aside and the case remitted for trial.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.