CHERRYL B. DOLINA,
Vs. GLENN D. VALLECERA,
G.R. No.
182367
December 15, 2010
“x
x x,
The Issue Presented
The
sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed
Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application for
temporary support for her child.
The Court’s
Ruling
Dolina
evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed
the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of
abuse or violence.[1] Although the issuance of a protection order
against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for
the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection
order and to legal support.
Dolina
of course alleged that Vallecera had been abusing her and her child. But it became apparent to the RTC upon
hearing that this was not the case since, contrary to her claim, neither she
nor her child ever lived with Vallecera.
As it turned out, the true object of her action was to get financial
support from Vallecera for her child, her claim being that he is the
father. He of course vigorously denied
this.
To
be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first
establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or
acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand for
support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s illegitimate
child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him.[2] The child’s remedy is to file through her
mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition.[3] If filiation is beyond question, support
follows as matter of obligation.[4] In short, illegitimate children are entitled
to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.[5]
Dolina’s
remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then demand
support. Alternatively, she may directly
file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be
integrated and resolved.[6]
It
must be observed, however, that the RTC should not have dismissed the entire
case based solely on the lack of any judicial declaration of filiation between
Vallecera and Dolina’s child since the main issue remains to be the alleged
violence committed by Vallecera against Dolina and her child and whether they
are entitled to protection. But of
course, this matter is already water under the bridge since Dolina failed to
raise this error on review. This
omission lends credence to the conclusion of the RTC that the real purpose of
the petition is to obtain support from Vallecera.
While
the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving
paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that unfounded
paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father’s
legitimate family.[7] Vallecera disowns Dolina’s child and denies
having a hand in the preparation and signing of its certificate of birth. This issue has to be resolved in an
appropriate case.
X
x x.”
[1] Go-Tan
v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 231, 238.
[2]
Article 195, paragraph 4 of the Family Code requires support between parents
and their illegitimate children.
[3] Tayag
v. Tayag-Gallor, G.R. No. 174680, March 24, 2008, 549 SCRA 68, 74.
[4]
Montefalcon v. Vasquez, G.R.
No. 165016, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 513, 527.
[5] De la
Puerta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867, February 6, 1990, 181 SCRA 861,
869.
[6] Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 499 Phil.
307, 317 (2005).
[7]
Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No.
181258, March 18, 2010.
