BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO Vs.
ARHBENCEL ANN LOPEZ, represented by her mother ARACELI LOPEZ, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010
“x x x.
Herrera v.
Alba[1] summarizes the laws, rules, and jurisprudence on
establishing filiation, discoursing in relevant part as follows:
Laws,
Rules, and Jurisprudence
Establishing
Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Family Code
provide as follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate
children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the
same evidence as legitimate children.
x x x x
ART. 172. The filiation of
legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(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.
The Rules on Evidence include
provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule 130 provide:
SEC.
39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
— The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect
to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be
received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these
facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of
family history intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence
if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or
charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as
evidence of pedigree.
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:
I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby
undertake to give and provide financial support in the amount of P1,500.00
every fifteen and thirtieth day of each month for a total of P3,000.00 a
month starting Aug. 15, 1999, to Ahrbencel Ann
Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother Araceli Lopez without the
necessity of demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the
child and my income.
The abovequoted note does not contain any statement
whatsoever about Arhbencel’s filiation to petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of
Article 172(2) vis-à-vis Article 175
of the Family Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimate filiation
an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument signed by the
parent concerned.
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 father’s 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,[2]
has no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter not
having signed the same.
At bottom, all that Arhbencel really has is
petitioner’s handwritten undertaking to provide financial support to her which,
without more, fails to establish her claim of filiation. The Court is mindful that the best interests
of the child in cases involving paternity and filiation should be
advanced. It is, however, just as
mindful of the disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy
and peace of the putative father’s legitimate family.
x x x."
