NEPOMUCENO VS LOPEZ

4. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;
and

Principle: Article 194. Support compromises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,
medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall
include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.
Article 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each
other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The spouses;
Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;
Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and
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.
Facts: Respondent Arhbencel Ann Lopez (Arhbencel), represented by her mother Araceli Lopez (Araceli), filed
a Complaint with the RTC of Caloocan City for recognition and support against Ben-Hur Nepomuceno
(petitioner). Born on June 8, 1999, Arhbencel claimed to have been begotten out of an extramarital affair of
petitioner with Araceli; that petitioner refused to affix his signature on her Certificate of Birth; and that, by a
handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner nevertheless obligated himself to give her financial support
in the amount of P1,500 on the 15th and 30th days of each month beginning August 15, 1999.
Arguing that her filiation to petitioner was established by the handwritten note, Arhbencel prayed
that petitioner be ordered to: (1) recognize her as his child, (2) give her support pendente lite in the increased
amount of P8,000 a month, and (3) give her adequate monthly financial support until she reaches the age of
majority. Petitioner countered that Araceli had not proven that he was the father of Arhbencel; and that he was
only forced to execute the handwritten note on account of threats coming from the National Peoples Army.
By order of the Caloocan RTC, on the basis of petitioners handwritten note which it treated as
contractual support since the issue of Arhbencels filiation had yet to be determined during the hearing on the
merits, granted Arhbencels prayer for support pendente lite in the amount of P3,000 a month. After Arhbencel
rested her case, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted by order whereupon the
case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. On appeal by Arhbencel, the Court of Appeals reversed the
trial courts decision, declared Arhbencel to be petitioners illegitimate daughter and accordingly ordered
petitioner to give Arhbencel financial support in the increased amount of P4,000 every 15th and 30th days of
the month, or a total of P8,000 a month. His Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and petitioner comes
before this Court through the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Petitioner contention: Nowhere in the documentary evidence (such as petitioners payment of Aracelis
hospital bills when she gave birth to Arhbencel and his subsequent commitment to provide monthly financial
support) presented by Araceli is an explicit statement made by him that he is the father of Arhbencel; that
absent recognition or acknowledgment, illegitimate children are not entitled to support from the putative
parent; that the supposed payment made by him of Aracelis hospital bills was neither alleged in the complaint
nor proven during the trial; and that Arhbencels claim of paternity and filiation was not established by clear
and convincing evidence.
Issue: WON in the absent of recognition or acknowledgment, illegitimate children are not entitled to support
from the putative parent.

Held: The petition is impressed with merit.

The relevant provisions of the Family Code that treat of the right to support are Articles 194 to 196 (See the
articles above), thus:
Article 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each
other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:
1. The spouses;
2. Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
3. Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;

5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.

Arhbencels demand for support, being based on her claim of filiation to petitioner as his illegitimate daughter,
falls under Article 195(4). As such, her entitlement to support from petitioner is dependent on the determination
of her filiation.
Herrera v. Alba 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.
xxxx
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.
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.
In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note executed by petitioner
The abovequoted note does not contain any statement whatsoever about Arhbencels filiation to
petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of Article 172(2) vis--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 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, has
no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter not having signed the same.
At bottom, all that Arhbencel really has is petitioners 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
fathers legitimate family.

Antonio Perla, petitioner v. Mirasol Baring and Randy Perla, respondents

C.R. No. I 72471 Nov. 12, 2012
FACTS:
1.
MIrasol (and Randy) filed before the RTC a Complaint for support against Antonio.
2.
According to Mirasol, she and Antonio had a common law relationship for 2 years, and that
Randy was the result of their affair.
3.
Randy was made to testify in Court, he said that he has been in the house of his Aunt Lelita
(sister of Antonio),, and that the Perla family treated him as a member of their family.
4.
Antonio denied Mirasols allegations, saying that Randy isnt his (he came in Manila only
after his graduation in 1981 and He claimed that he had sexual intercourse with Mirasol only once
which happened in the month of September or October of 1981).
5.
Antonio also said that Randys birth cert. has a lot of inaccuracies.
RTC Antonio was ordered to support Randy (as illegitimate child).
CA upheld RTC decision.
ISSUE: WON Randy is entitled to receive support from Antonio.
HELD: NO. Respondents failed to establish Randys illegitimate filiation to Antonio.
RATIO:
The rules for establishing filiation are found in Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code which provide
as follows: Article 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.
xxxx
Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the
same evidence as legitimate children.
xxxx

Respondents presented the Certificate of Live Birth of Randy identifying Antonio as the father.
However, said certificate has no probative value to establish Randys filiation to Antonio since the latter
had not signed the same.60 It is settled that [a] certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father
had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.61 We also cannot lend credence to
Mirasols claim that Antonio supplied certain information through Erlinda. Aside from Antonios denial in
having any participation in the preparation of the document as well as the absence of his signature
thereon, respondents did not
present Erlinda to confirm that Antonio indeed supplied certain entries in Randys birth certificate.
Besides, the several unexplained discrepancies in Antonios personal circumstances as reflected in the

subject birth certificate are manifestations of Antonios non-participation in its preparation. Most
important, it was Mirasol who signed as informant thereon which she confirmed on the witness stand.

SALAS vs. MATUSALEM

705 SCRA 560, 2013
FACTS:
Matusalem (respondent) filed a complaint for Support/Damages against Salas (petitioner).
Respondent claimed that petitioner is the father of her son. Petitioner, already 56 years old at
the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making her believe that he is a widower.
Petitioner rented an apartment where respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses in the
delivery of their child, including the cost of caesarian operation and hospital confinement.
However, when respondent refused the offer of petitioners family to take the child from her,
petitioner abandoned respondent and her child and left them to the mercy of relatives and
friends. Respondent further alleged that she attempted suicide due to depression but still
petitioner refused to support her and their child. Thus, this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents evidence sufficiently proved that her son is the illegitimate
child of
petitioner.
HELD:
Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate filiation may be
established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states: 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.
Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth in which the name of petitioner appears as
his father but which is not signed by him. Admittedly, it was only respondent who filled up the
entries and signed the said document though she claims it was petitioner who supplied the
information she wrote therein.
We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not
competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in
the preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing
of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is incompetent evidence of paternity.
Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument and it has no
probative value to establish filiation to the alleged father.
As to the Baptismal Certificate also indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while
baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of
the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily
competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the childs paternity.
The rest of respondents documentary evidence consists of handwritten notes and letters,
hospital bill and photographs taken of petitioner and respondent inside their rented apartment
unit.
Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged father are inconclusive
evidence to prove paternity.Exhibits E and F showing petitioner and respondent inside the
rented apartment unit thus have scant evidentiary value. The Statement of Account33 (Exhibit
C) from the Good Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself was indicated as the
payee is likewise incompetent to prove that petitioner is the father of her child notwithstanding
petitioners admission in his answer that he shouldered the expenses in the delivery of
respondents child as an act of charity.
As to the handwritten notes (Exhibits D to D-13) of petitioner and respondent showing their
exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these, too, are not sufficient to establish

Christian Paulos filiation to petitioner as they were not signed by petitioner and contained no
statement of admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even if these notes
were authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2) vis-- 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.

Case Digest: Grande vs. Antonio

G.R. No. 206248 : February 18, 2014
GRACE M. GRANDE, Petitioner, v. PATRICIO T. ANTONIO, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Grace Grande (Grande) and respondent Patricio Antonio (Antonio) for a
period of time lived together as husband and wife, although Antonio was at that time
already married to someone else.Out of this illicit relationship, two sons were born:
Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick, both minors. The children were not expressly
recognized by respondent as his own in the Record of Births of the children in the
Civil Registry. The parties relationship, however, eventually turned sour, and Grande
left for the United States with her two children. This prompted respondent Antonio to
file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take Parental
Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and
for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction, appending a notarized Deed of
Voluntary Recognition of Paternity of the children.
The RTC held in favor of Antonio, ordering the Office of the City Registrar to cause
the entry of the name of Antonio as the father of the aforementioned minors in their
respective Certificate of Live Birth and causing the correction/change and/or
annotation of the surnames of said minors in their Certificate of Live Birth from
Grande to Antonio; granting the right of parental authority over the minors; granting
the primary right and immediate custody over the minors; and ordering Grande to
immediately surrender the persons and custody of the minors to Antonio.
Aggrieved, petitioner Grande moved for reconsideration. However, her motion was
denied by the trial court.
Petitioner Grande then filed an appeal with the CA attributing grave error on the part
of the RTC for allegedly ruling contrary to the law and jurisprudence respecting the
grant of sole custody to the mother over her illegitimate children.
The CA modified in part the Decision of the RTC, directing the Offices of the Civil
Registrar General and the City Civil Registrar of Makati City to enter the surname
Antonio as the surname of the minors in their respective certificates of live birth, and
record the same in the Register of Births; ordering Antonio to deliver the custody to
their mother; Antonio shall have visitorial rights upon Grandes consent; parties are
directed to give and share in support of the minor children.
The appellate court, however, maintained that the legal consequence of the
recognition made by respondent Antonio that he is the father of the minors, taken in
conjunction with the universally protected "best-interest-of-the-child" clause, compels
the use by the children of the surname "ANTONIO."
Not satisfied with the CAs Decision, petitioner Grande interposed a partial motion for
reconsideration, particularly assailing the order of the CA insofar as it decreed the

change of the minors surname to "Antonio." When her motion was denied, petitioner
came to this Court via the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the father has the right to compel the use of his surname by
his illegitimate children upon his recognition of their filiation.
HELD: The petition is partially granted
CIVIL LAW Filation
Art. 176 of the Family Code, originally phrased as follows:
Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of
their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The legitime
of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.
Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing
successional rights shall remain in force.
This provision was later amended on March 19, 2004 by RA 9255 which now reads:
Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.
However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has
been expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the
civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an
action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime
of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.
The general rule is that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her
mother. The exception provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or her filiation is expressly
recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or
when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by
the father. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname of the father.
In the case at bar, respondent filed a petition for judicial approval of recognition of the
filiation of the two children with the prayer for the correction or change of the surname
of the minors from Grande to Antonio when a public document acknowledged before
a notary public under Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court is enough to establish
the paternity of his children. But he wanted more: a judicial conferment of parental
authority, parental custody, and an official declaration of his children's surname as
Antonio.
Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the surname
of their father or not. It is not the father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein
petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate
children.
Nothing is more settled than that when the law is clear and free from ambiguity, it
must be taken to mean what it says and it must be given its literal meaning free from
any interpretation.Respondents position that the court can order the minors to use his
surname, therefore, has no legal basis.

On its face, Art. 176, as amended, is free from ambiguity. And where there is no
ambiguity, one must abide by its words. The use of the word "may" in the provision
readily shows that an acknowledged illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use

the surname of his illegitimate father. The word "may" is permissive and operates to
confer discretion upon the illegitimate children