Facts
X., born on 28 September 1950, and Mrs. X., born on 13 November 1954, were married on 11 August 1974. Two children, now of legal age, were born of their union: A., born on 16 August 1975, and B., born on 2 August 1985. The divorce of the spouses was pronounced on 21 August 1998. On 22 October 2002, X. filed an action for disavowal against his ex-wife and his son B., concluding that the paternal filiation of child B. should be removed. The child and the mother concluded that the claim should be dismissed. The Civil Court of the District of Lausanne upheld the action for disavowal, but the Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court admitted the child's counterclaim and ruled that he was not the son of X. The Federal Court finally upheld the appeal for reform filed by X.Considerations
According to Art. 256c para. 1 CC, the husband must file an action for disavowal no later than one year after he became aware of the birth and the fact that he is not the father, but in any case within five years of the birth. However, the action may be brought after the expiry of the time limit if there are just reasons that make the delay excusable (Art. 256c para. 3 CC).
In the present case, the Federal Court considers that the fact that the husband had no sufficient reason to doubt his paternity constitutes a just reason allowing the restoration of the time limit. Mere doubts not based on concrete evidence are not sufficient to justify the action for disavowal. Although the regulation of time limits aims to protect the…