Ben-Hur Nepomuceno, Petitioner, G.R. No. 181258: First Division
Ben-Hur Nepomuceno, Petitioner, G.R. No. 181258: First Division
Ben-Hur Nepomuceno, Petitioner, G.R. No. 181258: First Division
DECISION
The trial court held that, among other things, Arhbencels Certificate of
Birth was not prima facie evidence of her filiation to petitioner as it did not
bear petitioners signature; that petitioners handwritten undertaking to
provide support did not contain a categorical acknowledgment that
Arhbencel is his child; and that there was no showing that petitioner
performed any overt act of acknowledgment of Arhbencel as his illegitimate
child after the execution of the note.
The relevant provisions of the Family Code[9] that treat of the right to
support are Articles 194 to 196, thus:
1. The spouses;
2. Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
3. Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
children of the latter;
4. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
children of the latter; and
5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.
Article 196. Brothers and sisters not legitimately related, whether of the
full or half-blood, are likewise bound to support each other to the full
extent set forth in Article 194, except only when the need for support of
the brother or sister, being of age, is due to a cause imputable to the
claimant's fault or negligence. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment;
or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child;
or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable
as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often
cites, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by
such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and
written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil
Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of
birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic
writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the
putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative
father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is
admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable
evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and
pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions,
together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. However, a
student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken
as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor
family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note
executed by petitioner which reads:
The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial
agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera. For it is not even
notarized. And Herrera instructs that the notarial agreement must be
accompanied by the putative fathers admission of filiation to be an
acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however, not only has petitioner not
admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. He has consistently
denied it.
The only other documentary evidence submitted by Arhbencel, a copy
of her Certificate of Birth,[11] has no probative value to establish filiation to
petitioner, the latter not having signed the same.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 117-120.
[2]
Id. at 29, 87.
[3]
Id. at 86-90.
[4]
Id. at 109-116.
[5]
Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa; id. at 53-65.
[6]
Id. at 50-51.
[7]
Id. at 25-48.
[8]
Id. at 127-130.
[9]
Executive Order No. 209 as amended.
[10]
G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 197, 206-208.
[11]
Rollo, p. 121.