Paternity and Filiation Cases (1).doc

8/9/2019 Paternity and Filiation Cases (1).doc

1/38

G.R. No. 95229 June 9, 1992

CORITO OCAMPO TAYAG, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIE AYRIT CUYUGAN, respondent.

REGALAO, J .!

The instant petition seeks to reverse and set aside the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 20222,entitled Corito !ca"po Ta#a$ vs. %on. Nor&erto C. Ponce, 'ud$e, Re$ional Trial Court of San (ernando, Pa"pan$a and)"ilde *a#rit Cu#u$an, pro"ul$ated on +a# 0, 0, and its resolution den#in$ petitioners "otion forreconsideration. 2 Said decision, no/ &efore us for revie/, dis"issed petitioners Petition for Certiorari and Prohi&ition /ithPreli"inar# n1unction on the $round that the denial of the "otion to dis"iss Civil Case No. 34 of the court a quo is aninterlocutor# order and cannot &e the su&1ect of the said special civil action, ordinar# appeal in due ti"e &ein$ petitionersre"ed#.

n said Civil Case No, 34, herein private respondent, in her capacit# as "other and le$al $uardian of "inor Chad *.Cu#u$an, filed on April , 4 a co"plaint deno"inated Clai" for nheritance a$ainst herein petitioner as the ad"inistratri5of the estate of the late Att#. Ricardo !ca"po. The operative alle$ations in said co"plaint are as follo/s6

555 555 555

2. Plaintiff is the "other and le$al $uardian of her "inor son, Chad Cu#u$an, the father of thedefendant, the late Att#. Ricardo !ca"po7 and the defendant is the kno/n ad"inistratri5 of the real andpersonal properties left her deceased father, said Att#. !ca"po, /ho died intestate in An$eles Cit# onSepte"&er 24, 437

3. Plaintiff has &een estran$ed fro" her hus&and, 'ose Cu#u$an, for several #ears no/ and durin$ /hichti"e, plaintiff and Att#. Ricardo !ca"po had illicit a"orous relationship /ith each other that, as aconse8uence thereof, the# &e$ot a child /ho /as christened Chad Cu#u$an in accordance /ith the ardentdesire and &ehest of said Att#. !ca"po7

9. Chad, the son of plaintiff the late Att#. Ricardo !ca"po, /ho /as &orn in An$eles Cit# on !cto&er :,40 &ad &een sired, sho/ered /ith e5ceptional affection, fervent love and care his putative father for&ein$ his onl# son as can &e $leaned fro" indu&ita&le letters and docu"ents of the late Att#. !ca"po toherein plaintiff, e5cerpts fro" so"e of /hich are hereunder reproduced7

. . . ;eep $ood keep faith keep Chad and #ourself for "e alone and for "e all the ti"e. As have no/ shall save "# heart to #ou and to Chad.

. . . Please take $ood care and pra# to Sto. Ni


2/38

4. The onl# kno/n survivin$ heirs of the deceased Att#. Ricardo !ca"po are his children, na"el#6 Corito!. Ta#a$, Rivina !. Ta#a$, )vita !. (lorendo, (elina !ca"po, and said "inor Chad, for and in /hose&ehalf this instant co"plaint is filed7

. Plaintiff has no "eans of livelihood and she onl# depends on the charit# of friends and relatives for thesustenance of her son, Chad, such that it is ur$ent, necessar# and i"perative that said child &e e5tendedfinancial support fro" the estate of his putative father, Att#. Ricardo !ca"po7

0. Several de"ands, ver&al and /ritten, have &een "ade for defendant to $rant Chads la/ful inheritance,&ut despite said de"ands, defendant failed and refused and still fails and refused and still fails and refusesto satisf# the clai" for inheritance a$ainst the estate of the late Att#. !ca"po7 "

555 555 555

Plaintiff thereafter pra#s, a"on$ others, that 1ud$"ent &e rendered orderin$ defendant to render an inventor# and accountin$ of the real and personal properties left Att#. Ricardo !ca"po7 to deter"ine and deliver the share of the "inor child Chad in theestate of the deceased7 and to $ive hi" support pendente lite.

Petitioner, as defendant therein, filed her ans/er /ith counterclai" on 'une 3, 4, disputin$ the "aterial alle$ations in theco"plaint. She "aintained /a# of affir"ative defenses, inter alia, that the co"plaint states no cause of action7 that theaction is pre"ature7 that the suit as &arred prescription7 that respondent Cu#u$an has no le$al and 1udicial personalit# to

&rin$ the suit7 that the lo/er court /as no 1urisdiction over the nature of the action7 and that there is i"proper 1oinder of causesof action. #

After the hearin$ of the "otion to dis"iss on the $rounds asserted as affir"ative defenses, the trial court issued the follo/in$order on !cto&er 20, 46

555 555 555

The Court is of the considered opinion that there is a need of further proceedin$s to adduce evidence onthe various clai"s of the parties so as to hear their respective sides

?%)R)(!R), resolution on the preli"inar# hearin$ /hich partakes of the nature of a "otion to dis"issre8uirin$ additional evidence is in the "eanti"e held in a&e#ance. The +otion to *is"iss is here deniedand the case as set for pre-trial . . . 5

?ith the denial of her "otion for reconsideration of said order on Nove"&er , 4, $ petitioner filed on *ece"&er 0, 4 apetition for certiorari and prohi&ition &efore the Court of Appeals, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 39@9, /hich /as$ranted the Si5th *ivision of respondent court on Au$ust 2, 4 and en1oined respondent 1ud$e to resolve petitioners"otion pra#in$ for the dis"issal of the co"plaint &ased on the affir"ative defenses /ithin ten B0 da#s fro" notice thereof. %

n co"pliance /ith said decision of respondent court, the trial court acted on and thereafter denied the "otion to dis"iss, /hichhad &een pleaded in the affir"ative defenses in Civil Case No. 34, in an order dated !cto&er 29, 4, resolvin$ the said"otion in the follo/in$ "anner6

555 555 555

The Court no/ resolves6

No. . The co"plaint sufficientl# sho/s that a cause of action e5ists in favor of the plaintiff. A cause ofaction &ein$ the pri"ar# ri$ht to redress a /ron$ B+ar8ue> vs. Dalera, 94 !G :22, /hich apparentl# onthe face of the co"plaint, plaintiff has a ri$ht to enforce throu$h this case. *efendants protestation thatthere is no sufficient cause of action is therefore untena&le.

No. 2. The present action. despite the clai" of defendant is not pre"ature. t is e5actl# fi led in order toprove filiation, and then reco$nition. To $o a&out the step step procedure outlined the defendant filin$ one action after another is definitel# violative of the prohi&ition a$ainst splittin$ a cause of action.

No. 3. t is not the plaintiff that is no/ &rin$in$ the case &efore the Court. t is Bher spurious child that sherepresents as natural $uardian that is institutin$ the action.

No. 9. Prescription has not set in if /e consider that a spurious child "a# file an action for reco$nition/ithin four #ears fro" his attain"ent of "a1orit# BNe/ Civil Code. Art, 24:, No. 2. ?hether the letters ofthe putative father, Att#. !ca"po, is evidence, that should &e in8uired into in a hearin$ on the "erits.


3/38

No. :. Several causes of action "a# &e 1oined in one co"plaint as /as done in this case. The defendantsclai" that there /as a "is1oinder is untena&le.

No. @. The Court &ein$ a court of $eneral 1urisdiction, and of special 1ur isdiction, such as a pro&ate courthas capacit# to entertain a co"plaint such as the one no/ &efore it.

The nature of the case C=A+ (!R N%)RTANC) does not control the &od# of the co"plaint.

(ro" all the fore$oin$, the Court finds that the co"plaint is sufficient in for" and su&stance and, therefore,the "otion to dis"iss could not &e $ranted until after trial on the "erits in /hich it should &e sho/n that thealle$ations of the co"plaint are unfounded or a special defense to the action e5ists.

?%)R)(!R), the +otion to *is"iss is here *)N)*. &

Petitioners "otion for reconsideration of said order /as denied the trial court on 'anuar# 30, 0. 9 As a conse8uence,another petition for certiorari and prohi&ition /ith preli"inar# in1unction /as filed petitioner on +arch 2, 0 /ithrespondent court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 20222, pra#in$ that the orders dated !cto&er 29, 4 and 'anuar# 30, 0of the trial court &e annulled and set aside for havin$ &een issued /ith $rave a&use of discretion a"ountin$ to lack or e5cess of

1urisdiction.

!n +a# 0, 0, as earlier stated, respondent court pro"ul$ated its decision dis"issin$ the petition, and like/ise denied

petitioners "otion for reconsideration in a resolution dated Septe"&er :, 0, hence the present petition for revie/on certiorari.

n elevatin$ the case &efore us, petitioner relies on these $rounds6

a. The %onora&le Respondent Court of Appeals dis"issed Petitioners Petition for Certiorari and Prohi&itionin ETT)R *SR)GAR* !( APP=CA=) *)CS!NS !( T%S %!N!RA=) C!ERT providin$ cleare5ceptions to the $eneral rule that interlocutor# orders "a# not &e elevated /a# of the special civilaction of certiorari 7

&. Respondent Court refused to resolve certain issues raised Petitioner &efore the Re$ional Trial Courtand &efore Respondent Court of Appeals involvin$ FE)ST!NS !( SESTANC) not theretoforedeter"ined this %onora&le Court, such as the interpretation and application of Art. 24 of the Civil Codere8uirin$ 1udicial approval /hen the reco$nition of an ille$iti"ate "inor child does not take place in a

record of &irth or in a /ill6 of Art. :, Par. 2, in relation to Art. 2, Par. 2 of the (a"il# Code, providin$ forthe prescriptive period /ith respect to the action to esta&lish ille$iti"ate filiation7 and of Art. 24: of the CivilCode, providin$ for the prescriptive period /ith respect to the action for reco$nition of a natural child7 and

c. Respondent Court has sanctioned a *)PARTER) the Re$ional Trial Court fro" the accepted andusual course of 1udicial proceedin$s. 1'

Petitioner contends that the action to clai" for inheritance filed herein private respondent in &ehalf of the "inor child, ChadCu#u$an, is pre"ature and the co"plaint states no cause of action, she su&"its that the reco$nition of the "inor child, eithervoluntaril# or 1udicial action, the alle$ed putative father "ust first &e esta&lished &efore the for"er can invoke his ri$ht tosucceed and participate in the estate of the latter. Petitioner asseverates that since there is no alle$ation of such reco$nition inthe co"plaint deno"inated as Clai" for nheritance, then there e5ists no &asis for private respondents aforesaid clai" and,conse8uentl#, the co"plaint should &e dis"issed.

The instant case is si"ilar to the case of Paulino vs. Paulino, et al., 11 /herein the petitioner, as plaintiff, &rou$ht an action

a$ainst the private respondents, as defendants, to co"pel the" to $ive her share of inheritance in the estate of the late +arcosPaulino, clai"in$ and alle$in$, inter alia, that she is the ille$iti"ate child of the deceased7 that no proceedin$s for thesettle"ent of the deceaseds estate had &een co""enced in court7 and that the defendants had refused and failed to deliverher share in the estate of the deceased. She accordin$l# pra#ed that the defendants therein &e ordered to deliver her aforesaidshare. The defendants "oved for the dis"issal of her co"plaint on the $round that it states no cause of action and that, even ifit does, the sa"e is &arred prescription.

The onl# difference &et/een the aforecited case and the case at &ar is that at the ti"e of the f ilin$ of the co"plaint therein, thepetitioner in that case had alread# reached the a$e of "a1orit#, /hereas the clai"ant in the present case is still a "inor.n Paulino, /e held that an ille$iti"ate child, to &e entitled to support and successional ri$hts fro" the putative or presu"edparent, "ust prove his filiation to the latter. ?e also said that it is necessar# to alle$e in the co"plaint that the putative fatherhad ackno/led$ed and reco$ni>ed the ille$iti"ate child &ecause such ackno/led$"ent is essential to and is the &asis of theri$ht to inherit. There &ein$ no alle$ation of such ackno/led$"ent, the action &eco"es one to co"pel reco$nition /hich cannot&e &rou$ht after the death of the putative father. The ratio decidendi in Paulino, therefore, is not the a&sence of a cause ofaction for failure of the petitioner to alle$e the fact of ackno/led$"ent in the co"plaint, &ut the prescription of the action.

Appl#in$ the fore$oin$ principles to the case at &ar, althou$h petitioner contends that the co"plaint filed herein privaterespondent "erel# alle$es that the "inor Chad Cu#u$an is an ille$iti"ate child of the deceased and is actuall# a clai" for


4/38

inheritance, fro" the alle$ations therein the sa"e "a# &e considered as one to co"pel reco$nition. (urther that the t/o causesof action, one to co"pel reco$nition and the other to clai" inheritance, "a# &e 1oined in one co"plaint is not ne/ in our

1urisprudence.

As earl# as 22, /e had occasion to rule thereon in Briz vs. Briz, et al., 12 /herein /e said6

The 8uestion /hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can an# event "aintain a co"ple5action to co"pel reco$nition as a natural child and at the sa"e ti"e to o&tain ulterior relief in the characterof heir, is one /hich, in the opinion of this court "ust &e ans/ered in the affir"ative, provided al/a#s thatthe conditions 1ustif#in$ the 1oinder of the t/o distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. n,other /ords, there is no a&solute necessit# re8uirin$ that the action to co"pel ackno/led$"ent shouldhave &een instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in /hich that sa"eplaintiff seers additional relief in the character of heir. Certainl#, there is nothin$ so peculiar to the action toco"pel ackno/led$"ent as to re8uire that a rule should &e here applied different fro" that $enerall#applica&le in other cases. . .

The conclusion a&ove stated, thou$h not heretofore e5plicitl# for"ulated this court, is undou&tedl# toso"e e5tent supported our prior decisions. Thus, /e have held in nu"erous cases, and the doctrine"ust &e considered /ell settled, that a natural child havin$ a r i$ht to co"pel ackno/led$"ent, &ut /ho hasnot &een in fact le$all# ackno/led$ed, "a# "aintain partition proceedin$s for the division of the inheritancea$ainst his co-heirs . . .7 and the sa"e person "a# intervene in proceedin$s for the distri&ution of the

estate of his deceased natural father, or "other . . . n neither of these situations has it &een thou$htnecessar# for the plaintiff to sho/ a prior decree co"pellin$ ackno/led$"ent. The o&vious reason is thatin partition suits and distri&ution proceedin$s the other persons /ho "i$ht take inheritance are &eforethe court7 and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedin$s.

The ne5t 8uestion to &e resolved is /hether the action to co"pel reco$nition has prescri&ed.

Petitioner ar$ues that assu"in$ arguendo that the action is one to co"pel reco$nition, private respondents cause of action hasprescri&ed for the reason that since filiation is sou$ht to &e proved "eans of a private hand/ritten instru"ent si$ned theparent concerned, then under para$raph 2, Article : of the (a"il# Code, the action to esta&lish filiation of the ille$iti"ate"inor child "ust &e &rou$ht durin$ the lifeti"e of the alle$ed putative father. n the case at &ar, considerin$ that the co"plaint/as filed after the death of the alle$ed parent, the action has prescri&ed and this is another $round for the dis"issal of theco"plaint. Petitioner theori>es that Article 24: of the Civil Code is not applica&le to the case at &ar and, instead, para$raph 2,

Article : of the (a"il# Code should &e $iven retroactive effect. The theor# is pre"ised on the supposition that the latterprovision of la/ &ein$ "erel# procedural in nature, no vested ri$hts are created, hence it can &e "ade to appl# retroactivel#.

Article 24: of the Civil Code provides6

Art. 24:. The action for the reco$nition of natural children "a# &e &rou$ht onl# durin$ the lifeti"e of thepresu"ed parents, e5cept in the follo/in$ cases6

B f the father or "other died durin$ the "inorit# of the child, in /hich case the latter "a# file the action&efore the e5piration of four #ears fro" the attain"ent of his "a1orit#7

555 555 555

!n the other hand, Article : of the (a"il# Code reads6

Art. :. lle$iti"ate children "a# esta&lish their ille$iti"ate filiation in the sa"e /a# and on the sa"eevidence as le$iti"ate children.

The action "ust &e &rou$ht /ithin the sa"e period specified in Article 3, e5cept /hen the action is&ased on the second para$raph of Article 2, in /hich case the action "a# &e &rou$ht durin$ the lifeti"eof the alle$ed parent.

Ender the last-8uoted provision of la/, therefore, if the action is &ased on the record of &irth of the child, a final 1ud$"ent, or anad"ission the parent of the childs filiation in a pu&lic docu"ent or in a private hand/ritten si$ned instru"ent, then the action"a# &e &rou$ht durin$ the lifeti"e of the child. %o/ever, if the action is &ased on the open and continuous possession thechild of the status of an ille$iti"ate child, or on other evidence allo/ed the Rules of Court and special la/s, the vie/ has&een e5pressed that the action "ust &e &rou$ht durin$ the lifeti"e of the alle$ed parent. 1"

Petitioner su&"its that Article : of the (a"il# Code applies in /hich case the co"plaint should have &een filed durin$ thelifeti"e of the putative father, failin$ /hich the sa"e "ust &e dis"issed on the $round of prescription. Private respondent,

ho/ever, insists that Article 24: of the Civil Code is controllin$ and, since the alle$ed parent died durin$ the "inorit# of thechild, the action for filiation "a# &e filed /ithin four #ears fro" the attain"ent of "a1orit# of the "inor child.


5/38

Article 2:@ of the (a"il# Code states that tHhis Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not pre1udice or i"pairvested or ac8uired ri$hts in accordance /ith the Civil Code or other la/s. t &eco"es essential, therefore, to deter"ine/hether the ri$ht of the "inor child to file an action for reco$nition is a vested ri$ht or not.

Ender the circu"stances o&tainin$ in the case at &ar, /e hold that the ri$ht of action of the "inor child &as &een vested thefilin$ of the co"plaint in court under the re$i"e of the Civi l Code and prior to the effectivit# of the (a"il# Code. 1# ?e hereinadopt our rulin$ in the recent case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al . 15/here /e held that the fact of

filin$ of the petition alread# vested in the petitioner her ri$ht to file it and to have the sa"e proceed to final ad1udication inaccordance /ith the la/ in force at the ti"e, and such ri$ht can no lon$er &e pre1udiced or i"paired the enact"ent of a ne/la/.

)ven assu"in$ ex gratia argumenti that the provision of the (a"il# Code in 8uestion is procedural in nature, the rule that astatutor# chan$e in "atters of procedure "a# affect pendin$ actions and proceedin$s, unless the lan$ua$e of the act e5cludesthe" fro" its operation, is not so pervasive that it "a# &e used to validate or invalidate proceedin$s taken &efore it $oes intoeffective, since procedure "ust &e $overned the la/ re$ulatin$ it at the ti"e the 8uestion of procedure arises especiall#/here vested ri$hts "a# &e pre1udiced. Accordin$l#, Article : of the (a"il# Code finds no proper application to the instantcase since it /ill inelucta&l# affect adversel# a ri$ht of private respondent and, conse8uentiall#, of the "ind child sherepresents, &oth of /hich have &een vested /ith the filin$ of the co"plaint in court. The trial court is therefore, correct inappl#in$ the provisions of Article 24: of the Civil Code and in holdin$ that private respondents cause of action has not #etprescri&ed.

(inall#, /e confor" /ith the holdin$ of the Court of Appeals that the 8uestioned order of the court &elo/ den#in$ the "otion to

dis"iss is interlocutor# and cannot &e the su&1ect of a petition for certiorari . The e5ceptions to this rule invoked petitionerand alle$edl# o&tainin$ in the case at &ar, are o&viousl# not present and "a# not &e relied upon.

?%)R)(!R), the petition at &ar is *)N)* and the assailed decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals arehere A((R+)* in toto.

S! !R*)R)*.


6/38

ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner , vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AN MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE,REPRESENTE (Y HIS MOTHER)GUARIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE, respondents.

E C I S I O N

CORONA, J .!

At issue in this petition for certiorari H is /hether or not the Court of Appeals BCA $ravel# erred in e5ercisin$ itsdiscretion, a"ountin$ to lack or e5cess of 1urisdiction, in issuin$ a decision 2H and resolution3H upholdin$ the resolution and order of the trial court,9H /hich denied petitionerIs "otion to dis"iss private respondentsI co"plaint for support and directed theparties to su&"it the"selves to deo5#ri&onucleic acid B*NA paternit# testin$.

Respondents (e An$ela and her son +artin Prolla"ante sued +artinIs alle$ed &iolo$ical father, petitioner Arnel =. A$ustin, for support and support pendente lite &efore the Re$ional Trial Court BRTC of Fue>on Cit#, ranch 0@.:H

n their co"plaint, respondents alle$ed that Arnel courted (e in 2, after /hich the# entered into an inti"aterelationship. Arnel supposedl# i"pre$nated (e on her 39 th &irthda# on Nove"&er 0, . *espite ArnelIs insistence ona&ortion, (e decided other/ise and $ave &irth to their child out of /edlock, +artin, on Au$ust , 2000 at the Capitol +edical%ospital in Fue>on Cit#. The &aIs &irth certificate /as purportedl# si$ned Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital e5penses &ut later refused (eIs repeated re8uests for +artinIs support despite his ade8uate financialcapacit# and even su$$ested to have the child co""itted for adoption. Arnel also denied havin$ fathered the child.

!n 'anuar# , 200, /hile (e /as carr#in$ five-"onth old +artin at the Capitol %ills Golf and Countr# Clu& parkin$ lot, Arnel sped off in his van, /ith the open car door hittin$ (eIs le$. This incident /as reported to the police. n 'ul# 200, (e /as

dia$nosed /ith leuke"ia and has, since then, &een under$oin$ che"otherap#. !n +arch :, 2002, (e and +artin sued Arnel for support.@H

n his a"ended ans/er, Arnel denied havin$ sired +artin &ecause his affair and inti"ac# /ith (e had alle$edl# ended in4, lon$ &efore +artinIs conception. %e clai"ed that (e had at least one other secret lover. Arnel ad"itted that their relationship started in 3 &ut Jhe never reall# fell in love /ith B(e not onl# &ecause Bshe had at least one secret lover, acertain 'un, &ut also &ecause she proved to &e sche"in$ and overl# de"andin$ and possessive. As a result, theirs /as astor"# on-and-off affair. ?hat started as a ro"antic liaison &et/een t/o consentin$ adults eventuall# turned out to &e a case of fatal attraction /here B(e &eca"e so o&sessed /ith BArnel, to the point of even entertainin$ the idea of "arr#in$ hi", that sheresorted to various devious /a#s and "eans to alienate Bhi" fro" his /ife and fa"il#K. Ena&le to &ear the prospect of losin$his /ife and children, Arnel ter"inated the affair althou$h he still treated her as a friend such as referrin$ potential custo"ersto the car aircon repair shopL H /here she /orked. =ater on, Arnel found out that (e had another erst/hile secret lover. n +a#2000, Arnel and his entire fa"il# /ent to the Enited States for a vacation. Epon their return in 'une 2000, Arnel learned that (e/as tellin$ people that he had i"pre$nated her. Arnel refused to ackno/led$e the child as his &ecause their Jlast inti"ac# /asso"eti"e in 4.L4H )5asperated, (e started callin$ ArnelIs /ife and fa"il#. !n 'anuar# , 200, (e follo/ed Arnel to theCapitol %ills Golf and Countr# Clu& parkin$ lot to de"and that he ackno/led$e +artin as his child. Accordin$ to Arnel, he could

not $et throu$h (e and the discussion &eca"e so heated that he had no Jalternative &ut to "ove on &ut /ithout &u"pin$ or hittin$ an# part of her &od#.LH (inall#, Arnel clai"ed that the si$nature and the co""unit# ta5 certificate BCTC attri&uted to hi"in the ackno/led$"ent of +artinIs &irth certificate /ere falsified. The CTC erroneousl# reflected his "arital status as sin$le/hen he /as actuall# "arried and that his &irth #ear /as @: /hen it should have &een @9.0H

n his pre-trial &rief filed on +a# , 2002, Arnel vehe"entl# denied havin$ sired +artin &ut e5pressed /illin$ness toconsider an# proposal to settle the case.H

!n 'ul# 23, 2002, (e and +artin "oved for the issuance of an order directin$ all the parties to su&"it the"selves to *NApaternit# testin$ pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.2H

Arnel opposed said "otion invokin$ his constitutional ri$ht a$ainst self- incri"ination. 3H %e also "oved to dis"iss theco"plaint for lack of cause of action, considerin$ that his si$nature on the &irth certificate /as a for$er# and that, under the la/,an ille$iti"ate child is not entitled to support if not reco$ni>ed the putative father. 9H n his "otion, Arnel "anifested that hehad filed cri"inal char$es for falsification of docu"ents a$ainst (e B.S. Nos. 02-:23 and 02-2 and a petition for cancellation of his na"e appearin$ in +artinIs &irth certificate Bdocketed as Civil Case No. F-02-9@@@. %e attached thecertification of the Philippine National Police Cri"e =a&orator# that his si$nature in the &irth certificate /as for$ed.

The trial court denied the "otion to dis"iss the co"plaint and ordered the parties to su&"it the"selves to *NA paternit#testin$ at the e5pense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affir"ed the trial court.

Thus, this petition.

n a nutshell, petitioner raises t/o issues6 B /hether a co"plaint for support can &e converted to a petition for reco$nition and B2 /hether *NA paternit# testin$ can &e ordered in a proceedin$ for support /ithout violatin$ petitionerIsconstitutional ri$ht to privac# and ri$ht a$ainst self-incri"ination.:H

The petition is /ithout "erit.

(irst of all, the trial court properl# denied the petitionerIs "otion to dis"iss &ecause the private respondentsI co"plaint onits face sho/ed that the# had a cause of action a$ainst the petitioner. The ele"ents of a cause of action are6 B the plaintiffIspri"ar# ri$ht and the defendantIs correspondin$ pri"ar# dut#, and B2 the delict or /ron$ful act or o"ission of the defendant, /hich the pri"ar# ri$ht and dut# have &een violated. The cause of action is deter"ined not the pra#er of the co"plaint &ut the facts alle$ed.@H

n the co"plaint, private respondents alle$ed that (e had a"orous relations /ith the petitioner, as a result of /hich she$ave &irth to +artin out of /edlock. n his ans/er, petitioner ad"itted that he had se5ual relations /ith (e &ut denied that he

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1


7/38

fathered +artin, clai"in$ that he had ended the relationship lon$ &efore the childIs conception and &irth. t is undisputed andeven ad"itted the parties that there e5isted a se5ual relationship &et/een Arnel and (e. The onl# re"ainin$ 8uestion is/hether such se5ual relationship produced the child, +artin. f it did, as respondents have alle$ed, then +artin should &esupported his father Arnel. f not, petitioner and +artin are stran$ers to each other and +artin has no ri$ht to de"and andpetitioner has no o&li$ation to $ive support.

Preli"inaries aside, /e no/ tackle the "ain issues.

Petitioner refuses to reco$ni>e +artin as his o/n child and denies the $enuineness and authenticit# of the childIs &irthcertificate /hich he purportedl# si$ned as the father. %e also clai"s that the order and resolution of the trial court, as affir"ed the Court of Appeals, effectivel# converted the co"plaint for support to a petition for reco$nition, /hich is supposedl#proscri&ed la/. Accordin$ to petitioner, +artin, as an unreco$ni>ed child, has no ri$ht to ask for support and "ust firstesta&lish his filiation in a separate suit under Article 243 H in relation to Article 2@: 4H of the Civil Code and Section , Rule0:H of the Rules of Court.

The petitionerIs contentions are /ithout "erit.

The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for reco$nition &ut "erel# allo/ed therespondents to prove their cause of action a$ainst petitioner /ho had &een den#in$ the authenticit# of the docu"entar#evidence of ackno/led$e"ent. ut even if the assailed resolution and order effectivel# inte$rated an action to co"pelreco$nition /ith an action for support, such /as valid and in accordance /ith 1urisprudence. n Taag v. Court of Appeals,20H /eallo/ed the inte$ration of an action to co"pel reco$nition /ith an action to clai" oneIs inheritance6

Kn Paulino, /e held that an ille$iti"ate child, to &e entitled to support and successional ri$hts fro" the putative or presu"ed

parent, "ust prove his filiation to the latter. ?e also said that it is necessar# to alle$e in the co"plaint that the putative fatherhad ackno/led$ed and reco$ni>ed the ille$iti"ate child &ecause such ackno/led$"ent is essential to and is the &asis of theri$ht to inherit. There &ein$ no alle$ation of such ackno/led$"ent, the action &eco"es one to co"pel reco$nition /hichcannot &e &rou$ht after the death of the putative father. The ratio decidendi in Paulino, therefore, is not the a&sence of a causeof action for failure of the petitioner to alle$e the fact of ackno/led$"ent in the co"plaint, &ut the prescription of the action.

Appl#in$ the fore$oin$ principles to the case at &ar, althou$h petitioner contends that the co"plaint filed herein privaterespondent "erel# alle$es that the "inor Chad Cu#u$an is an ille$iti"ate child of the deceased and is actuall# a clai" forinheritance, fro" the alle$ations therein the sa"e "a# &e considered as one to co"pel reco$nition. (urther, *+a* *+e *o-aue o/ a-*0on, one *o -oe3 4e-on0*0on and *+e o*+e4 *o -3a0 0n+e40*an-e, a6 7e 8o0ned 0n one -o3a0n* 0 no*ne 0n ou4 8u404uden-e.

As earl# as 22H /e had occasion to rule thereon in Briz vs. Briz, et al. B93 Phil. @3 22H /herein /e said6

The 8uestion /hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in an# event "aintain a co"ple5 action to co"pel

reco$nition as a natural child and at the sa"e ti"e to o&tain ulterior relief in the character of heir, is one /hich in the opinion ofthis court "ust &e ans/ered in the affir"ative, provided al/a#s that the conditions 1ustif#in$ the 1oinder of the t/o distinctcauses of action are present in the particular case. In o*+e4 o4d, *+e4e 0 no a7o3u*e ne-e0*6 4eu040n *+a* *+e a-*0on*o -oe3 a-:no3eden* +ou3d +a;e 7een 0n*0*u*ed and 4oe-u*ed *o a u--e/u3 -on-3u0on 40o4 *o *+e a-*0on0n +0-+ *+a* ae 3a0n*0// ee: add0*0ona3 4e30e/ 0n *+e -+a4a-*e4 o/ +e04 . Certainl#, there is nothin$ so peculiar to theaction to co"pel ackno/led$"ent as to re8uire that a rule should &e here applied different fro" that $enerall# applica&le inother cases. 5 5 5

The conclusion a&ove stated, thou$h not heretofore e5plicitl# for"ulated this court, is undou&tedl# to so"e e5tent supported our prior decisions. Thus, e +a;e +e3d 0n nue4ou -ae, and *+e do-*40ne u* 7e -on0de4ed e33 e**3ed, *+a* ana*u4a3 -+03d +a;0n a 40+* *o -oe3 a-:no3eden*, 7u* +o +a no* 7een 0n /a-* 3ea336 a-:no3eded, a6a0n*a0n a4*0*0on 4o-eed0n /o4 *+e d0;00on o/ *+e 0n+e40*an-e aa0n* +0 -o+e04 < < < 7 and the sa"e person "a#intervene in proceedin$s for the distri&ution of the estate of his deceased natural father, or "other 5 5 5. n neither of thesesituations has it &een thou$ht necessar# for the plaintiff to sho/ a prior decree co"pellin$ ackno/led$"ent. The o&viousreason is that in partition suits and distri&ution proceedin$s the other persons /ho "i$ht take inheritance are &efore thecourt7 and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedin$s. BEnderscorin$ supplied

Althou$h the instant case deals /ith support rather than inheritance, as in Taag , the &asis or rationale for inte$ratin$the" re"ains the sa"e. ?hether or not respondent +artin is entitled to support depends co"pletel# on the deter"ination of filiation. A separate action /ill onl# result in a "ultiplicit# of suits, $iven ho/ inti"atel# related the "ain issues in &oth casesare. To paraphrase Taag, the declaration of filiation is entirel# appropriate to these proceedin$s.

!n the second issue, petitioner posits that *NA is not reco$ni>ed this Court as a conclusive "eans of provin$paternit#. %e also contends that co"pulsor# testin$ violates his ri$ht to privac# and ri$ht a$ainst self-incri"ination as$uaranteed under the 4 Constitution. These contentions have no "erit.

Given that this is the ver# first ti"e that the ad"issi&ilit# of *NA testin$ as a "eans for deter"inin$ paternit# has actuall#&een the focal issue in a controvers#, a &rief historical sketch of our past decisions featurin$ or "entionin$ *NA testin$ is calledfor.

n the : case of People v. Teehan!ee2H /here the appellant /as convicted of "urder on the testi"on# of threee#e/itnesses, /e stated as an obiter dictum that J/hile e#e/itness identification is si$nificant, it is not as accurate and

authoritative as the scientific for"s of identification evidence such as the fin$erprint or the "#A test result Be"phasis supplied.L

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn21


8/38


9/38


10/38

ackno/led$"ent is in receipt of child support services pursuant to title si5-A of article three of the social services la/, the courtshall i""ediatel# provide a cop# of the order to the chi ld support enforce"ent unit of the social services district that providesthe "other /ith such services.

Bc A deter"ination of paternit# "ade an# other state, /hether esta&lished throu$h the parentsI ackno/led$"ent of paternit#or throu$h an ad"inistrative or 1udicial process, "ust &e accorded full faith and credit, if and onl# if such ackno/led$"ent"eets the re8uire"ents set forth in section 9:2BaB of the social securi t# act.

Be"phasis supplied

*NA testin$ also appears else/here in the Ne/ ork (a"il# Court Act692H

Q:32. Genetic "arker and *NA tests7 ad"issi&ilit# of records or reports of test results7 costs of tests.

a The court shall advise the parties of their ri$ht to one or "ore $enetic "arker tests or *NA tests and, on the courtIs o/n"otion or the "otion of an# part#, shall order the "other, her child and the alle$ed father to su&"it to one or "ore $enetic"arker or *NA tests of a t#pe $enerall# ackno/led$ed as relia&le an accreditation &od# desi$nated the secretar# of thefederal depart"ent of health and hu"an services and perfor"ed a la&orator# approved such an accreditation &od# and the co""issioner of health or a dul# 8ualified ph#sician to aid in the deter"ination of /hether the alle$ed father is or isnot the father of the child. No u-+ *e* +a33 7e o4de4ed, +oe;e4, uon a 40**en /0nd0n 76 *+e -ou4* *+a* 0* 0 no* 0n *+e7e* 0n*e4e* o/ *+e -+03d on *+e 7a0 o/ 4e 8ud0-a*a, eu0*a73e e*oe3, o4 *+e 4eu*0on o/ 3e0*0a-6 o/ a -+03d7o4n *o a a440ed oan. The record or report of the results of an# such $enetic "arker or *NA test ordered pursuant to thissection or pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services la/ shall &e received in evidence the courtpursuant to su&division Be of rule fort#-five hundred ei$hteen of the civil practice la/ and rules /here no ti"el# o&1ection in/ritin$ has &een "ade thereto and that if such ti"el# o&1ections are not "ade, the# shall &e dee"ed /aived and shall not &eheard the court. I/ *+e 4e-o4d o4 4eo4* o/ *+e 4eu3* o/ an6 u-+ ene*0- a4:e4 o4 NA *e* o4 *e* 0nd0-a*e a* 3ea*a n0ne*6>/0;e e4-en* 4o7a7030*6 o/ a*e4n0*6, *+e ad00on o/ u-+ 4e-o4d o4 4eo4* +a33 -4ea*e a 4e7u**a73e4eu*0on o/ a*e4n0*6, and +a33 e*a730+, 0/ un4e7u**ed, *+e a*e4n0*6 o/ and 30a7030*6 /o4 *+e uo4* o/ a -+03du4uan* *o *+0 a4*0-3e and a4*0-3e /ou4 o/ *+0 a-*.

B& ?henever the court directs a $enetic "arker or *NA test pursuant to this section, a report "ade as provided in su&divisionBa of this section "a# &e received in evidence pursuant to rule fort#-five hundred ei$hteen of the civil practice la/ and rules ifoffered an# part#.

Bc The cost of an# test ordered pursuant to su&division Ba of this section shall &e, in the first instance, paid the "ovin$part#. f the "ovin$ part# is financiall# una&le to pa# such cost, the court "a# direct an# 8ualified pu&lic health officer to conductsuch test, if practica&le7 other/ise, the court "a# direct pa#"ent fro" the funds of the appropriate local social services district.n its order of disposition, ho/ever, the court "a# direct that the cost of an# such test &e apportioned &et/een the partiesaccordin$ to their respective a&ilities to pa# or &e assessed a$ainst the part# /ho does not prevail on the issue of paternit#,

unless such part# is financiall# una&le to pa#. Be"phasis supplied

n R.*. v. C.*./.,93H a decision of the +ississippi Supre"e Court, *NA tests /ere used to prove that %.?., previousl#thou$ht to &e an offsprin$ of the "arria$e &et/een A.C.?. and C.).?., /as actuall# the child of R.). /ith /ho" C.).?. had, atthe ti"e of conception, "aintained an adulterous relationship.

n *rie Count "epartment of 0ocial 0ervices on behalf of Tiffan ).1. v. 2reg 2. ,99H the 9th *epart"ent of the Ne/ orkSupre"e CourtIs Appellate *ivision allo/ed G.G., /ho had &een ad1udicated as T.+.%.Is father default, to have the said

1ud$"ent vacated, even after si5 #ears, once he had sho/n throu$h a $enetic "arker test that he /as not the childIs father. nthis case, G.G. onl# re8uested the tests after the *epart"ent of Social Services, si5 #ears after G.G. had &een ad1udicated asT.+.%.Is father, sou$ht an increase in his support o&li$ation to her.

n 2reco v. Coleman,9:H the +ichi$an Supre"e Court /hile rulin$ on the constitutionalit# of a provision of la/ allo/in$non-"odifia&le support a$ree"ents pointed out that it /as &ecause of the difficult# of deter"inin$ paternit# &efore the advent of *NA testin$ that such support a$ree"ents /ere necessar#6

As a result of NA testin$, the accurac# /ith /hich paternit# can &e proven has increased si$nificantl# since the parties in thisla/suit entered into their support a$ree"entKBcurrent testin$ "ethods can deter"ine the pro&a&ilit# of paternit# to. accurac#. %o/ever, at the ti"e the parties &efore us entered into the disputed a$ree"ent, provin$ paternit# /asa ver# si$nificant o&stacle to an ille$iti"ate childs access to child support. The first reported results of "odern NApaternit#testin$ did not occur until 4:. Bn fact, since i ts first reported results in 4:, NA "atchin$ has pro$ressed to $eneralacceptance in less than a decade. !f course, /hile prior &lood-testin$ "ethods could e5clude so"e "ales fro" &ein$ thepossi&le father of a child, those "ethods could not affir"ativel# pinpoint a particular "ale as &ein$ the father. Thus, /hen thesettle"ent a$ree"ent &et/een the present parties /as entered in 40, esta&lishin$ paternit# /as a far "ore difficult ordealthan at present. Contested paternit# actions at that ti"e /ere often no "ore than credi&ilit# contests. Conse8uentl#, in ever#contested paternit# action, o&tainin$ child support depended not "erel# on /hether the putative father /as, in fact, the childs&iolo$ical father, &ut rather on /hether the "other could prove to a court of la/ that she /as onl# se5uall# involved /ith one"an--the putative father. Allo/in$ parties the option of enterin$ into private a$ree"ents in lieu of provin$ paternit# eli"inatedthe risk that the "other /ould &e una&le "eet her &urden of proof.

t is /orth notin$ that a"end"ents to +ichi$anIs Paternit# la/ have included the use of *NA testin$69@H

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn46


11/38


12/38


13/38

Petitioners,

versus

RONAL PAUL S. GRACIA, 0n +0 -aa-0*6 aC0*6 C0;03 Re0*4a4 o/ An*0o3o C0*6,

Respondent .

FESE+NG, ' ., Chairperson,CARP! +!RA=)S,C%C!-NAUAR!,=)!NAR*!-*) CASTR!, andP)RA=TA,V '' .

Pro"ul$ated6 'ul# 3, 200

5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.!

(or several "onths in 200:, then 2-#ear old petitioner 'enie San 'uan *ela Cru> B'enie and then -#ear old

Christian *o"ini8ue Sto. To"as A8uino B*o"ini8ue lived to$ether as hus&and and /ife /ithout the &enefit of "arria$e. The#

resided in the house of *o"ini8ueIs parents *o"in$o . A8uino and Ra8uel Sto. To"as A8uino at Pulan$-lupa, *ulu"&a#an,

Teresa, Ri>al.

!n Septe"&er 9, 200:, *o"ini8ue died. H After al"ost t/o "onths, or on Nove"&er 2, 200:, 'enie, /ho continued

to live /ith *o"ini8ueIs parents, $ave &irth to her herein co-petitioner "inor child Christian *ela Cru> JA8uinoL at the Antipolo

*octors %ospital, Antipolo Cit#.

'enie applied for re$istration of the childIs &irth, usin$ *o"ini8ueIs surna"e A8uino, /ith the !ffice of the Cit# Civil

Re$istrar, Antipolo Cit#, in support of /hich she su&"itted the childIs Certificate of $ive Birth,2H Affidavit to 6se the 0urname of

the 3ather 3H BAES( /hich she had e5ecuted and si$ned, and Affidavit of Ac!noledgment e5ecuted *o"ini8ueIs father

*o"in$o utch A8uino.9H oth affidavits attested, inter alia, that durin$ the lifeti"e of *o"ini8ue, he had continuousl#

ackno/led$ed his #et un&orn child, and that his paternit# had never &een 8uestioned. 'enie attached to the AES( a docu"ent

entitled JAET!!GRAP%L /hich *o"ini8ue, durin$ his lifeti"e, /rote in his o/n hand/ritin$, the pertinent portions of /hich

read6

AFEN!, C%RSTAN *!+NFE) S.T.

AET!!GRAP%

I+ C%RSTAN *!+NFE) ST!. T!+AS AFEN!, )ARS !( AG) TERNNG 20 T%SC!+NG !CT!)R 3, 200:.:H R)S*) AT PE=ANG-=EPA STR))T RG. *E=E+AAN, T)R)SA,RUA=. A+ T%) !ENG)ST N !ER (A+=. %AD) !N) R!T%)R NA+)* '!S)P% ETC% ST!.T!+AS AFEN!. + (AT%)RIS NA+) S *!+NG! ETC% AFEN! AN* + +!T%)RIS NA+) SRAFE)= ST!. T!+AS AFEN!. 5 5 5.

5 5 5 5

AS !( N!? %AD) + ?() NA+)* ')N) *)=A CREU. ?) +)T )AC% !T%)R N !ER%!+)T!?N, T)R)UA RUA=. AT (RST ?) )CA+) G!!* (R)N*S, T%)N ?) ()== N =!D)?T% )AC% !T%)R, T%)N ?) )CA+) G!!* C!EP=)S. AN AS OF NO S%) SPR)GNANT AN FOR THAT ?) =D) T!G)T%)R N !ER %!ES) N!?. T%ATIS A==.@H B)"phasisand underscorin$ supplied

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn7


14/38

# letter dated Nove"&er , 200:,H the Cit# Civil Re$istrar of Antipolo Cit#, Ronald Paul S. Gracia

Brespondent, denied 'enieIs application for re$istration of the childIs na"e in this /ise6 . Rule of Ad"inistrative !rder No. , Series of 2009 B"ple"entin$ Rules and Re$ulations of

Repu&lic Act No. 2:: JAn Act Allo/in$ lle$iti"ate Children to Ese the Surna"e of their (ather, A"endin$ for the Purpose, Article @ of )5ecutive !rder No. 20, other/ise ;no/n as the W(a"il#

Code of the PhilippinesILH provides that6

Rule . Re8uire"ents for the Child to Ese the Surna"e of the (ather

. (or irths Not et Re$istered

.. The ille$iti"ate child shall use the surna"e of the father if a pu&lic docu"ent ise5ecuted the father, either at the &ack of the Certificate of =ive irth or in aseparate docu"ent.

..2 f ad"ission of paternit# is "ade throu$h a private hand/ritten instru"ent, the child

shall use the surna"e of the father, provided the re$istration is supported thefollo/in$ docu"ents6

a. AES(4H

&. Consent of the child, if 4 #ears old and over at the ti"e of the filin$ of the

docu"ent.c. An# t/o of the follo/in$ docu"ents sho/in$ clearl# the paternit# &et/een the

father and the child6

. )"plo#"ent records 2. SSSMGSS records

3. nsurance 9. Certification of "e"&ership in an# or$ani>ation :. State"ent of Assets and =ia&ilit#

@. nco"e Ta5 Return BTR

n su""ar#, the child cannot use the surna"e of his father &ecause he /as &orn out of /edlock and thefather unfortunatel# died prior to his &irth and has no "ore capacit# to ackno/led$e his paternit# to thechild Beither throu$h the &ack of +unicipal (or" No. 02 Affidavit of Ackno/led$"entMAd"ission of Paternit# or the Authorit# to Ese the Surna"e of the (ather. BEnderscorin$ supplied

'enie and the child pro"ptl# filed a co"plaint H for in1unctionMre$istration of na"e a$ainst respondent &efore

the Re$ional Trial Court of Antipolo Cit#, docketed as SCA Case No. 0@-:3, /hich /as raffled to ranch 3 thereof. The

co"plaint alle$ed that, inter alia, the denial of re$istration of the childIs na"e is a violation of his ri$ht to use the surna"e of his

deceased father under A4*0-3e 1%$ o/ *+e Fa036 Code, a aended 76 Reu730- A-* @R.A. No. 9255,0H /hich provides6

Article @. lle$iti"ate children shall use the surna"e and shall &e under the parental authorit#of their "other, and shall &e entitled to support in confor"it# /ith this Code. %o/ever, ille$iti"ate children"a# use the surna"e of their father if their filiation has &een e5pressl# reco$ni>ed the father throu$hthe record of &irth appearin$ in the civil re$ister, o4 +en an ad00on 0n a u730- do-uen*o4 40;a*e +and40**en 0n*4uen* is "ade the father. Provided , the father has the ri$ht to institute anaction &efore the re$ular courts to prove non-filiation durin$ his lifeti"e. The le$iti"e of each ille$iti"atechild shall consist of one-half of the le$iti"e of a le$iti"ate child. B)"phasis and underscorin$ supplied

The# "aintained that the Auto&io$raph# e5ecuted *o"ini8ue constitutes an ad"ission of paternit# in a Jprivate hand/ritten

instru"entL /ithin the conte"plation of the a&ove-8uoted provision of la/.

(or failure to file a responsive pleadin$ or ans/er despite service of su""ons, respondent /as declared in default.

'enie thereupon presented evidence ex7parte. She testified on the circu"stances of her co""on-la/ relationship

/ith *o"ini8ue and affir"ed her declarations in her AES( that durin$ his lifeti"e, he had ackno/led$ed his #et un&orn child.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn11


15/38

H She offered *o"ini8ueIs hand/ritten Auto&io$raph# B)5hi&it JAL as her docu"entar# evidence-in-chief.2H *o"ini8ueIs lone

&rother, 'oseph utch S.T. A8uino, also testified, corro&oratin$ 'enieIs declarations.3H

# *ecision9H of April 2:, 200, the trial court dis"issed the co"plaint Jfor lack of cause of actionL as the

Auto&io$raph# /as unsi$ned, citin$ para$raph 2.2, Rule 2 B*efinition of Ter"s of Ad0n0*4a*0;e O4de4 @A.O. No. 1, Se40e

o/ 2''# @*+e Ru3e and Reu3a*0on Go;e4n0n *+e I3een*a*0on o/ R.A. 9255 /hich defines Jprivate hand/ritten

docu"entL throu$h /hich a father "a# ackno/led$e an ille$iti"ate child as follo/s6

2.2 Private hand/ritten instru"ent an instru"ent e5ecuted in the hand/ritin$ of the father and dul# si$ned hi" /here he e5pressl# reco$ni>es paternit# to the child. BEnderscorin$ supplied

The trial court held that even if *o"ini8ue /as the author of the hand/ritten Auto&io$raph#, the sa"e does not contain an#

e5press reco$nition of paternit#.

%ence, this direct resort to the Court via Petition for Revie/ on Certiorari raisin$ this purel# le$al issue of6

?%)T%)R !R N!T T%) ENSGN)* %AN*?RTT)N STAT)+)NT !( T%) *)C)AS)*(AT%)R !( +N!R C%RSTAN *)=A CREU CAN ) C!NS*)R)* AS A R)C!GNT!N !(PAT)RNT N A JPRDAT) %AN*?RTT)N NSTRE+)NTL ?T%N T%) C!NT)+P=AT!N !(

ARTC=) @ !( T%) (A+= C!*), AS A+)N*)* R.A. 2::, ?%C% )NTT=)S T%) SA*+N!R T! ES) %S (AT%)RIS SERNA+).:H BEnderscorin$ supplied

Petitioners contend that Article @ of the (a"il# Code, as a"ended, does not e5pressl# re8uire that the private

hand/ritten instru"ent containin$ the putative fatherIs ad"ission of paternit# "ust &e si$ned hi". The# add that the

deceasedIs hand/ritten Auto&io$raph#, thou$h unsi$ned hi", is sufficient, for the re8uire"ent in the a&ove-8uoted

para$raph 2.2 of the Ad"inistrative !rder that the ad"issionMreco$nition "ust &e Jdul# si$nedL the father is void as it

Jundul# e5pandedL the earlier-8uoted provision of Article @ of the (a"il# Code.@H

Petitioners further contend that the trial court erred in not findin$ that *o"ini8ueIs hand/ritten

Auto&io$raph# contains a Jclear and un"istaka&leL reco$nition of the childIs paternit#.H

n its Co""ent, the !ffice of the Solicitor General B!SG su&"its that respondentIs position, as affir"ed the trial

court, is in consonance /ith the la/ and thus pra#s for the dis"issal of the petition. t further su&"its that *o"ini8ueIs

Auto&io$raph# J"erel# ackno/led$ed 'enieIs pre$nanc# &ut not hisH paternit# of the child she /as carr#in$ in her /o"&.L4H

Article @ of the (a"il# Code, as a"ended R.A. 2::, per"its an il le$iti"ate child to use the surna"e of hisMher

father if the latter had e5pressl# reco$ni>ed hi"Mher as his offsprin$ throu$h therecord of &irth appearin$ in the civil

re$ister, o4 throu$h an ad"ission "ade in a pu&lic or private hand/ritten instru"ent. The reco$nition "ade in an# of these

docu"ents is, in itself, a consu""ated act of ackno/led$"ent of the childIs paternit#7 hence, no separate action for 1udicial

approval is necessar#.H

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn20


16/38

Article @ of the (a"il# Code, as a"ended, does not, indeed, e5plicitl# state that the private hand/ritten instru"ent

ackno/led$in$ the childIs paternit# "ust &e si$ned the putative father. This provision "ust, ho/ever, &e read in con1unction

/ith related provisions of the (a"il# Code /hich re8uire that reco$nition the father "ust &ear his si$nature, thus6

Art. :. lle$iti"ate children "a# esta&lish their ille$iti"ate filiation in the sa"e /a# and on the

sa"e evidence as le$iti"ate children. 5 5 5 5

Art. 2. The filiation of legitimate children is esta&lished an# of the follo/in$6

B The record of &irth appearin$ in the civil re$ister or a final 1ud$"ent7 or B2 An ad"ission of le$iti"ate filiation in a pu&lic docu"ent or a private hand/ritten

instru"ent and 0ned the parent concerned.

5 5 5 5 B)"phasis and underscorin$ supplied

That a father /ho ackno/led$es paternit# of a child throu$h a /ritten instru"ent "ust affi5 his si$nature thereon is

clearl# i"plied in Article @ of the (a"il# Code. Para$raph 2.2, Rule 2 of A.!. No. , Series of 2009, "erel# articulated such

re8uire"ent7 it did not Jundul# e5pandL the i"port of Article @ as clai"ed petitioners.

n the present case, ho/ever, special circu"stances e5ist to hold that *o"ini8ueIs Auto&io$raph#, thou$h unsi$ned

hi", substantiall satisfies the re8uire"ent of the la/.

3irst , *o"ini8ue died a&out t/o "onths prior to the childIs &irth. 0econd, the relevant "atters in the Auto&io$raph#,

un8uestiona&l# hand/ritten *o"ini8ue, correspond to the facts culled fro" the testi"onial evidence 'enie proffered.

20H Third , 'enieIs testi"on# is corro&orated the Affidavit of Ac!noledgment of *o"ini8ueIs father *o"in$o A8uino and

testi"on# of his &rother 'oseph utch A8uino /hose hereditar# ri$hts could &e affected the re$istration of the 8uestioned

reco$nition of the child. These circu"stances indicatin$ *o"ini8ueIs paternit# of the child $ive life to his state"ents in his

Auto&io$raph# that J')N) *)=A CREUL is J+ ?()L as J?) ()== N =!D) ?T% )AC% !T%)RL and JN!? S%) S

PR)GNANT AN* (!R T%AT ?) =D) T!G)T%)R.L

n 1errera v. Alba,2H the Court su""ari>ed the la/s, rules, and 1urisprudence on esta&lishin$ filiation, discoursin$ in

relevant part6

$as, Rules, and 'urisprudence*stablishing 3iliation

The relevant provisions of the (a"il# Code provide as follo/s6

ART. :. lle$iti"ate children "a# esta&lish their ille$iti"ate filiation in the sa"e /a# and onthe sa"e evidence as le$iti"ate children.

5 5 5 5

ART. 2. The filiation of le$iti"ate children is esta&lished an# of the follo/in$6

B The record of &irth appearin$ in the civil re$ister or a final 1ud$"ent7 or

B2 An ad"ission of le$iti"ate filiation in a pu&lic docu"ent or a private hand/ritteninstru"ent and si$ned the parent concerned.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn22


17/38

n the a&sence of the fore$oin$ evidence, the le$iti"ate filiation shall &e proved

B The open and continuous possession of the status of a le$iti"ate child7 or B2 An# other "eans allo/ed the Rules of Court and special la/s.

The Rules on )vidence include provisions on pedi$ree. The relevant sections of Rule 30 provide6

S)C. 3. Act or declaration a&out pedi$ree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or una&le to testif#, in respect to the pedi$ree of another person related to hi" &irth or "arria$e, "a# &ereceived in evidence /here it occurred &efore the controvers#, and the relationship &et/een the t/opersons is sho/n evidence other than such act or declaration. The /ord pedi$ree includesrelationship, fa"il# $enealo$#, &irth, "arria$e, death, the dates /hen and the places /here these factsoccurred, and the na"es of the relatives. t e"&races also facts of fa"il# histor# inti"atel# connected /ithpedi$ree.

S)C. 90. (a"il# reputation or tradition re$ardin$ pedi$ree. The reputation or traditione5istin$ in a fa"il# previous to the controvers#, in respect to the pedi$ree of an# one of its "e"&ers, "a#&e received in evidence if the /itness testif#in$ thereon &e also a "e"&er of the fa"il#, either consan$uinit# or affinit#. )ntries in fa"il# &i&les or other fa"il# &ooks or charts, en$ravin$ on rin$s, fa"il#portraits and the like, "a# &e received as evidence of pedi$ree.

This Courts rulin$s further specif# /hat incri"inatin$ acts are accepta&le as evidence toesta&lish filiation. n Pe $im v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, /e stated that the issue of paternit# still

has to &e resolved such-on;en*0ona3 e;0den-e a *+e 4e3e;an* 0n-400na*0n ;e47a3 and 40**ena-* 76 *+e u*a*0;e /a*+e4 . Ender Article 24 of the Ne/ Civil Code, voluntar# reco$nition a parentshall &e "ade in the record of &irth, a /ill, a state"ent &efore a court of record, or in an6 au*+en*0-40*0n. To 7e e//e-*0;e, *+e -3a0 o/ /030a*0on u* 7e ade 76 *+e u*a*0;e /a*+e4 +0e3/ and *+e40*0n u* 7e *+e 40*0n o/ *+e u*a*0;e /a*+e4 . A notarial a$ree"ent to support a child /hose filiationis ad"itted the putative father /as considered accepta&le evidence. =etters to the "other vo/in$ to &ea $ood father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddlin$ the child on various occasions,to$ether /ith the certificate of live &irth, proved filiation. %o/ever, a student per"anent record, a /rittenconsent to a fathers operation, or a "arria$e contract /here the putative father $ave consent, cannot &etaken as authentic /ritin$. Standin$ alone, neither a certificate of &aptis" nor fa"il# pictures are sufficientto esta&lish filiation. B)"phasis and underscorin$ supplied.

n the case at &ar, there is no dispute that the earlier 8uoted state"ents in *o"ini8ueIs Auto&io$raph# have &een "ade

and /ritten hi". Taken to$ether /ith the other relevant facts e5tant herein that *o"ini8ue, durin$ his lifeti"e, and 'enie

/ere livin$ to$ether as co""on-la/ spouses for several "onths in 200: at his parentsI house in Pulan$-lupa, *ulu"&a#an,

Teresa, Ri>al7 she /as pre$nant /hen *o"ini8ue died on Septe"&er 9, 200:7 and a&out t/o "onths after his death, 'enie

$ave &irth to the child the# sufficientl# esta&lish that the child of 'enie is *o"ini8ueIs.

n vie/ of the pronounce"ents herein "ade, the Court sees it fit to adopt the follo/in$ rules respectin$ the

re8uire"ent of affi5in$ the si$nature of the ackno/led$in$ parent in an# private hand/ritten instru"ent /herein an ad"ission

of filiation of a le$iti"ate or ille$iti"ate child is "ade6

?here the private hand/ritten instru"ent is the lone piece of evidence su&"itted to prove filiation, there should

&e strict co"pliance /ith the re8uire"ent that the sa"e "ust &e si$ned the ackno/led$in$ parent7 and

2 ?here the private hand/ritten instru"ent is acco"panied other relevant and co"petent evidence, it suffices

that the clai" of filiation therein &e sho/n to have &een "ade and hand/ritten the ackno/led$in$ parent as it is "erel#

corro&orative of such other evidence.

!ur la/s instruct that the /elfare of the child shall &e the Jpara"ount considerationL in resolvin$ 8uestions affectin$

hi".22H

Article 3B of the Enited Nations Convention on the Ri$hts of a Child of /hich the Philippines is a si$nator# is si"ilarl#

e"phatic6

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn23


18/38

Article 3

. n all actions concernin$ children, /hether undertaken pu&lic or private social /elfareinstitutions, courts of la/, ad"inistrative authorities or le$islative &odies, the &est interests of the child shall&e a pri"ar# consideration.23H BEnderscorin$ supplied

t is thus JBthe polic# of the (a"il# Code to li&erali>e the rule on the investi$ation of the paternit# and filiation of

children, especiall# of ille$iti"ate children 5 5 5.L 29H Too, JBthe State as parens patriae affords special protection to children

fro" a&use, e5ploitation and other conditions pre1udicial to their develop"ent.L 2:H

n the e#es of societ#, a child /ith an unkno/n father &ears the sti$"a of dishonor. t is to petitioner "inor childIs

&est interests to allo/ hi" to &ear the surna"e of the no/ deceased *o"ini8ue and enter it in his &irth certificate.

HEREFORE, the petition is GRANTE. The Cit# Civil Re$istrar of Antipolo Cit# is *R)CT)* to

i""ediatel# en*e4 the surna"e of the late Christian *o"ini8ue Sto. To"as Au0no as thesurna"e of petitioner "inor Christian

dela Cru> in his Certificate of =ive irth, and 4e-o4d the sa"e in the Re$ister of irths.

SO ORERE.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/177728.htm#_ftn26


19/38


20/38

The education of the person entitled to &e supported referred to in the precedin$ para$raph shall include his schoolin$ ortrainin$ for so"e profession, trade or vocation, even &e#ond the a$e of "a1orit#. Transportation shall include e5penses in $oin$to and fro" school, or to and fro" place of /ork.

Article :. Su&1ect to the provisions of the succeedin$ articles, the follo/in$ are o&li$ed to support each other to the /holee5tent set forth in the precedin$ article6

. The spouses7

2. =e$iti"ate ascendants and descendants7

3. Parents and their le$iti"ate children and the le$iti"ate and ille$iti"ate children of the latter7

9. Parents and their ille$iti"ate children and the le$iti"ate and ille$iti"ate children of the latter7 and

:. =e$iti"ate &rothers and sisters, /hether of the full or half-&lood.

Article @. rothers and sisters not le$iti"atel# related, /hether of the full or half-&lood, are like/ise &ound to support eachother to the full e5tent set forth in Article 9, e5cept onl# /hen the need for support of the &rother or sister, &ein$ of a$e, is dueto a cause i"puta&le to the clai"ants fault or ne$li$ence. Be"phasis and underscorin$ supplied

Arh&encelIs de"and for support, &ein$ &ased on her clai" of filiation to petitioner as his ille$iti"ate dau$hter, falls under Article:B9. As such, her entitle"ent to support fro" petitioner is dependent on the deter"ination of her filiation.

%errera v. Al&a0 su""ari>es the la/s, rules, and 1urisprudence on esta&lishin$ fil iation, discoursin$ in relevant part as follo/s6

=a/s, Rules, and 'urisprudence

)sta&lishin$ (iliation

The relevant provisions of the (a"il# Code provide as follo/s6

ART. :. lle$iti"ate children "a# esta&lish their ille$iti"ate filiation in the sa"e /a# and on the sa"e evidence as le$iti"ate

children.

5 5 5 5

ART. 2. The filiation of le$iti"ate children is esta&lished an# of the follo/in$6

B The record of &irth appearin$ in the civil re$ister or a final 1ud$"ent7 or

B2 An ad"ission of le$iti"ate filiation in a pu&lic docu"ent or a private hand/ritten instru"ent and si$ned theparent concerned.

n the a&sence of the fore$oin$ evidence, the le$iti"ate filiation shall &e proved

B The open and continuous possession of the status of a le$iti"ate child7 or

B2 An# other "eans allo/ed the Rules of Court and special la/s.

The Rules on )vidence include provisions on pedi$ree. The relevant sections of Rule 30 provide6

S)C. 3. Act or declaration a&out pedi$ree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or una&le to testif#, in respect tothe pedi$ree of another person related to hi" &irth or "arria$e, "a# &e received in evidence /here it occurred &efore thecontrovers#, and the relationship &et/een the t/o persons is sho/n evidence other than such act or declaration. The /ordpedi$ree includes relationship, fa"il# $enealo$#, &irth, "arria$e, death, the dates /hen and the places /here these factsoccurred, and the na"es of the relatives. t e"&races also facts of fa"il# histor# inti"atel# connected /ith pedi$ree.

S)C. 90. (a"il# reputation or tradition re$ardin$ pedi$ree. The reputation or tradition e5istin$ in a fa"il# previous to thecontrovers#, in respect to the pedi$ree of an# one of its "e"&ers, "a# &e received in evidence if the /itness testif#in$ thereon

&e also a "e"&er of the fa"il#, either consan$uinit# or affinit#. )ntries in fa"il# &i&les or other fa"il# &ooks or charts,en$ravin$ on rin$s, fa"il# portraits and the like, "a# &e received as evidence of pedi$ree.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_181258_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_181258_2010.html#fnt10


21/38

This Courts rulin$s further specif# /hat incri"inatin$ acts are accepta&le as evidence to esta&lish filiation. n Pe =i" v. CA, acase petitioner often cites, /e stated that the issue of paternit# stil l has to &e resolved suchconventional evidence as therelevant incri"inatin$ ver&al and /ritten acts the putative father. Ender Article 24 of the Ne/ Civil Code, voluntar#reco$nition a parent shall &e "ade in the record of &irth, a /ill, a state"ent &efore a court of record, or in an# authentic/ritin$. To &e effective, the clai" of filiation "ust &e "ade the putative father hi"self and the /ritin$ "ust &e the /ritin$ ofthe putative father. A notarial a$ree"ent to support a child /hose filiation is ad"itted the putative father /as consideredaccepta&le evidence. =etters to the "other vo/in$ to &e a $ood father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddlin$the child on various occasions, to$ether /ith the certificate of live &irth, proved filiation. %o/ever, a student per"anent record, a

/ritten consent to a fathers operation, or a "arria$e contract /here the putative father $ave consent, cannot &e taken asauthentic /ritin$. Standin$ alone, neither a certificate of &aptis" nor fa"il# pictures are sufficient to esta&lish filiation.Be"phasis and underscorin$ supplied

n the present case, Arh&encel relies, in the "ain, on the hand/ritten note e5ecuted petitioner /hich reads6

+anila, Au$. ,

, en-%ur C. Nepo"uceno, here undertake to $ive and provide financial support in the a"ount of P,:00.00 ever# fifteenand thirtieth da# of each "onth for a total of P3,000.00 a "onth startin$ Au$. :, , to Ahr&encel Ann =ope>, presentl# inthe custod# of her "other Araceli =ope> /ithout the necessit# of de"and, su&1ect to ad1ust"ent later dependin$ on the needsof the child and "# inco"e.

The a&ove8uoted note does not contain an# state"ent /hatsoever a&out Arh&encelIs filiation to petitioner. t is, therefore, not

/ithin the a"&it of Article 2B2 vis-X-vis Article : of the (a"il# Code /hich ad"its as co"petent evidence of ille$iti"atefiliation an ad"ission of filiation in a private hand/ritten instru"ent si$ned the parent concerned.

The note cannot also &e accorded the sa"e /ei$ht as the notarial a$ree"ent to support the child referred to in %errera. (or itis not even notari>ed. And %errera instructs that the notarial a$ree"ent "ust &e acco"panied the putative fatherIsad"ission of filiation to &e an accepta&le evidence of filiation. %ere, ho/ever, not onl# has petitioner not ad"itted filiationthrou$h conte"poraneous actions. %e has consistentl# denied it.

The onl# other docu"entar# evidence su&"itted Arh&encel, a cop# of her Certificate of irth, has no pro&ative value toesta&lish filiation to petitioner, the latter not havin$ si$ned the sa"e.

At &otto", all that Arh&encel reall# has is petitionerIs hand/ritten undertakin$ to provide financial support to her /hich, /ithout"ore, fails to esta&lish her clai" of fi liation. The Court is "indful that the &est interests of the child in cases involvin$ paternit#and filiation should &e advanced. t is, ho/ever, 1ust as "indful of the distur&ance that unfounded paternit# suits cause to the

privac# and peace of the putative fatherIs le$iti"ate fa"il#.

?%)R)(!R), the petition is GRANT)*. The Court of Appeals *ecision of 'ul# 20, 200 is S)T AS*). The !rder dated 'une, 200@ of ranch 30 of the Caloocan Cit# RTC dis"issin$ the co"plaint for insufficienc# of evidence is R)NSTAT)*.

S! !R*)R)*.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_181258_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_181258_2010.html#fnt11


22/38

G.R. No. 1"&9$1. Ma4-+ %, 2''2

ILLIAM LIYAO, JR., 4e4een*ed 76 +0 o*+e4 Co4a?on Ga4-0a, petitioner , vs. JUANITA TANHOTI>LIYAO, PEARLMARGARET L. TAN, TITA ROSE L. TAN AN LINA CHRISTINA LIYAO, respondents.

E C I S I O N

E LEON, JR., J .!

efore us is a petition for revie/ on certiorari assailin$ the decision dated 'une 9, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.D. No. 9:39H /hich reversed the decision of the Re$ional Trial Court BRTC of Pasi$, +etro +anila, ranch @ indeclarin$ ?illia" =i#ao, 'r. as the ille$iti"ate Bspurious son of the deceased ?illia" =i#ao and orderin$ 'uanita Tanhoti-=i#ao,Pearl +ar$aret =. Tan, Tita Rose =. Tan and =inda Christina =i#ao to reco$ni>e and ackno/led$e ?illia" =i#ao, 'r. as aco"pulsor# heir of the deceased ?illia" =i#ao and entitled to all successional ri$hts as such and to pa# the costs of the suit.

!n Nove"&er 2,@, ?illia" =i#ao, 'r., represented his "other Cora>on G. Garcia, filed Civil Case No. 2993&efore the RTC of Pasi$, ranch @ /hich is an action for co"pulsor# reco$nition as Jthe ille$iti"ate Bspurious child of thelate ?illia" =i#aoL a$ainst herein respondents, 'uanita Tanhoti-=i#ao, Pearl +ar$aret =. Tan, Tita Rose =. Tan and =indaChristina =i#ao.2H The co"plaint /as later a"ended to include the alle$ation that petitioner Jas in continuous possession and en%oment of the status of the child of said /illiam $iao,L petitioner havin$ &een Jrecognized and ac!noledged as such child

b the decedent during his lifetime.3H

The facts as alle$ed petitioner are as follo/s6

Cora>on G. Garcia is le$all# "arried to &ut livin$ separatel# fro" Ra"on +. ulo for "ore than ten B0 #ears at the ti"eof the institution of the said civil case. Cora>on coha&ited /ith the late ?illia" =i#ao fro" @: up to the ti"e of ?illia"Isunti"el# de"ise on *ece"&er 2, :. The# lived to$ether in the co"pan# of Cora>onIs t/o B2 children fro" her su&sistin$"arria$e, na"el#6

)nri8ue and ernadette, &oth surna"ed ulo, in a succession of rented houses in Fue>on Cit# and +anila. This /as /iththe kno/led$e of ?illia" =i#aoIs le$iti"ate children, Tita Rose =. Tan and =inda Christina =i#ao-!rti$a, fro" his su&sistin$"arria$e /ith 'uanita Tanhoti =i#ao. Tita Rose and Christina /ere &oth e"plo#ed at the (ar )ast Realt# nvest"ent, nc. of /hich Cora>on and ?illia" /ere then vice president and president, respectivel#.

So"eti"e in 9, Cora>on &ou$ht a lot fro" !rti$as and Co. /hich re8uired the si$nature of her hus&and, Ra"on ulo,to sho/ his consent to the aforesaid sale. She failed to secure his si$nature and, had never &een in touch /ith hi" despite thenecessit# to "eet hi". Epon the advice of ?illia" =i#ao, the sale of the parcel of land located at the Dalle Derde Su&division

/as re$istered under the na"e of (ar )ast Realt# nvest"ent, nc.

!n 'une , :, Cora>on $ave &irth to ?illia" =i#ao, 'r. at the Cardinal Santos +e"orial %ospital. *urin$ her three B3da# sta# at the hospital, ?illia" =i#ao visited and sta#ed /ith her and the ne/ &orn &a, ?illia", 'r. Bill#. All the "edical andhospital e5penses, food and clothin$ /ere paid under the account of ?illia" =i#ao. ?illia" =i#ao even asked his confidentialsecretar#, +rs. Dir$inia Rodri$ue>, to secure a cop# of ill#Is &irth certificate. %e like/ise instructed Cora>on to open a &ankaccount for ill# /ith the Consolidated ank and Trust Co"pan# 9H and $ave /eekl# a"ounts to &e deposited therein.:H ?illia"=i#ao /ould &rin$ ill# to the office, introduce hi" as his $ood lookin$ son and had their pictures taken to$ether .@H

*urin$ the lifeti"e of ?illia" =i#ao, several pictures /ere taken sho/in$, a"on$ others, ?illia" =i#ao and Cora>onto$ether /ith ill#Is $odfather, (r. 'ulian Rui>, ?illia" =i#aoIs le$al staff and their /ives /hile on vacation in a$uio. H Cora>onalso presented pictures in court to prove that that she usuall# acco"panied ?illia" =i#ao /hile attendin$ various social$atherin$s and other i"portant "eetin$s.4H *urin$ the occasion of ?illia" =i#aoIs last &irthda# on Nove"&er 22, : held atthe Repu&lic Super"arket, ?illia" =i#ao e5pressl# ackno/led$ed ill# as his son in the presence of (r. Rui>, +aurita Pasionand other friends and said, J1e, loo! am still oung, can still ma!e a good loo!ing son.: H Since &irth, ill# had &een incontinuous possession and en1o#"ent of the status of a reco$ni>ed andMor ackno/led$ed child of ?illia" =i#ao the latterIsdirect and overt acts. ?illia" =i#ao supported ill# and paid for his food, clothin$ and other "aterial needs. %o/ever, after

?illia" =i#aoIs death, it /as Cora>on /ho provided sole support to ill# and took care of his tuition fees at =a Salle, Greenhills.?illia" =i#ao left his personal &elon$in$s, collections, clothin$, old ne/spaper clippin$s and la"inations at the house in ?hitePlains /here he shared his last "o"ents /ith Cora>on.

Testif#in$ for the petitioner, +aurita Pasion declared that she kne/ &oth Cora>on G. Garcia and ?illia" =i#ao /ho /ere$odparents to her children. She used to visit Cora>on and ?illia" =i#ao fro" @:-:. The t/o children of Cora>on fro" her "arria$e to Ra"on ulo, na"el#, ernadette and )nri8ue Bke, to$ether /ith so"e house"aids lived /ith Cora>on and?illia" =i#ao as one fa"il#. !n so"e occasions like &irthda#s or so"e other cele&rations, +aurita /ould sleep in the coupleIsresidence and cook for the fa"il#. *urin$ these occasions, she /ould usuall# see ?illia" =i#ao in sleepin$ clothes. ?henCora>on, durin$ the latter part of 9, /as pre$nant /ith her child ill#, +aurita often visited her three B3 to four B9 ti"es a/eek in Greenhills and later on in ?hite Plains /here she /ould often see ?illia" =i#ao. ein$ a close friend of Cora>on, she/as at the Cardinal Santos +e"orial %ospital durin$ the &irth of ill#. She continuousl# visited the" at ?hite Plains and kne/that ?illia" =i#ao, /hile livin$ /ith her friend Cora>on, $ave support /a# of $rocer# supplies, "one# for householde5penses and "atriculation fees for the t/o B2 older children, ernadette and )nri8ue. *urin$ ?illia" =i#aoIs &irthda# onNove"&er 22, : held at the Repu&lic Super"arket !ffice, he /as carr#in$ ill# and told ever#&od# present, includin$ hist/o B2 dau$hters fro" his le$al "arria$e, J$oo!, this is m son, ver guapo and health.L0H %e then talked a&out his plan for

the &aptis" of ill# &efore Christ"as. %e intended to "ake it J engrandeL and Jma!e the bells of 0an 0ebastian Churchring .LH Enfortunatel#, this did not happen since ?illia" =i#ao passed a/a# on *ece"&er 2, :. +aurita attended +r. =i#aoIsfuneral and helped Cora>on pack his clothes. She even reco$ni>ed a short sleeved shirt of &lue and $ra#2H /hich +r. =i#ao

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/138961.htm#_edn12


23/38

/ore in a photo$raph3H as /ell as another shirt of li"e $reen9H as &elon$in$ to the deceased. A note /as also presented /iththe follo/in$ inscriptions6 JTo Cora, $ove 3rom /

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tapcruz
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Paternity and Filiation Cases (1).doc

Documents