Sufficient proof of paternity

Under Article 283 of the Civil Code, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (now Article 172 in relation to Article 175 and 176 of the Family Code), a father is obliged to recognize a child born out of wedlock, as his illegitimate child, (a) when the child is in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father; (b) when the child is conceived during the time when his/her mother cohabited with the supposed father or (c) when the child has in his favor any other evidence or proof that he is the father. These are explained in this case of Vince and Mario.

Vince and Mario are the illegitimate children of Leticia who is working in a nightclub. The two boys were born during the time when she had an illicit relationship with a nightclub customer who introduced himself as Roger. Their illicit relationship lasted for about three years during which Roger gave support to Leticia and her sons, Vince and Mario. Thereafter the financial support from Roger started to dwindle until seven months later when he completely stopped seeing her. Leticia tried to look for Roger and when she saw him again, she found out that his real identity and true name is Rommel, married to a certain Edna but still maintaining another common law wife by the name of Dina. Leticia asked Rommel for financial support of her children but the latter refused.

Later on, Leticia and her sons again asked for monetary assistance because of financial difficulties. But Rommel still refused. Then, when Vince and Mario were already studying, they visited Rommel again at his house and Rommel gave money to Vince, first, as high school graduation gift, and second, as his educational support in his senior year in college. Rommel even asked Vince to give him a list of his school needs but eventually turned down his request after he submitted the list. Rommel even threatened to call the police if he did not leave.

So, Vince eventually filed a suit against Rommel asking that he be recognized as his illegitimate child, entitled to support. Later Mario also joined as co-plaintiff. After trial Vince and Mario were declared by the court as illegitimate children of Rommel because they are in continuous possession of the status of children of Rommel as shown by his direct acts of giving support and by other proofs indicating that he is really their father, pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 283 of the Civil Code.

This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA cited as additional ground Article 283 paragraph 3 because Vince and Mario were conceived during the time when Leticia cohabited with Rommel. However, Rommel died during the pendency of the appeal at the CA so Edna substituted for him and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Edna contended that Rommel could not have been the father of Vince and Mario because Leticia their mother admitted having cohabited with another man who was paralytic before meeting Rommel and that Rommel was sterile and could not have sired children. In fact Rommel also cohabited with two other women aside from Leticia and had no child with them, Edna contended.

The Supreme Court (SC) however denied Edna’s petition. The SC said that Leticia took and cohabited with the paralytic man before she started having an affair with Rommel. And Vince was born more than a year after the paralytic man had left Leticia. Hence, Vince and Mario who was born one year later could not have been conceived during Leticia’s cohabitation with the paralytic.

As to Rommel’s sterility and inability to beget children, no competent medical testimony was presented to prove it and is therefore plain hearsay. An adult male is presumed to have normal powers of virility and the burden of evidence to prove the contrary rests upon him who claims otherwise. This presumption has not been overcome in this case, ruled the SC.

According to the SC, the giving of money by Rommel to Vince about four times cannot really be considered as proof of continuous possession of the status of a child and the cohabitation of Leticia and Rommel has not been satisfactorily proven under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 283 of the Civil Code. Nevertheless, according to the SC, the totality of the evidence presented by Vince and Mario is still enough to prove that Rommel is their father pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 283 of the Civil Code. So the SC affirmed the decision of the CA declaring Vince and Mario as illegitimate children of Rommel entitled to support (Ong vs. Ong, G.R. 95386, May 29, 1997).

*      *      *

Errata: Please note that the definition of “felony” is found in Article 3, not in Article 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as written in my column last Friday, June 22. I also would like to clarify that the felony of vagrancy found in Article 202 pars. 2 and 4, RPC which I also discussed and likened to “tambay” as the possible offense that will justify the peace officers to arrest them has already been repealed. So the PNP should just used violations of specific ordinances of local government units (LGUs), penalizing offenses similar to vagrancy, as bases for making arrests.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]