De Jesus v Syquia

FACTS:

Antonia Loanco, a likely unmarried girl 20 years of age was a cashier in a barber shop owned
by the defendant’s brother in law Vicente Mendoza. Cesar Syquia, the defendant, 23 years of
age and an unmarried scion of a prominent family in Manila was accustomed to have his haircut
in the said barber shop. He got acquainted with Antonio and had an amorous relationship. As
a consequence, Antonia got pregnant and a baby boy was born on June 17, 1931.

In the early months of Antonia’s pregnancy, defendant was a constant visitor. On February
1931, he even wrote a letter to a rev father confirming that the child is his and he wanted his
name to be given to the child. Though he was out of the country, he continuously wrote letters
to Antonia reminding her to eat on time for her and “junior’s” sake. The defendant ask his
friend Dr. Talavera to attend at the birth and hospital arrangements at St. Joseph Hospital in
Manila.

After giving birth, Syquia brought Antonia and his child at a House in Camarines Street Manila
where they lived together for about a year. When Antonia showed signs of second pregnancy,
defendant suddenly departed and he was married with another woman at this time.

It should be noted that during the christening of the child, the defendant who was in charge of
the arrangement of the ceremony caused the name Ismael Loanco to be given instead of Cesar
Syquia Jr. that was first planned.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the note to the padre in connection with the other letters written by defendant to
Antonia during her pregnancy proves acknowledgement of paternity?

2. Whether the defendant is liable for damages for the breach to marry?

HELD:

1. Yes. The letter written by Syquia to Rev. Father serves as admission of paternity and the
other letters are sufficient to connect the admission with the child carried by Antonia. The mere
requirement is that the writing shall be indubitable.

“The law fixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession of the
status of a natural child; and the period in this case was long enough to reveal the father's
resolution to admit the status”.

2. No. Supreme Court held that they agree with the trial court in refusing to provide
damages to Antonia Loanco for supposed breach of promise to marry since action on this has
no standing in civil law. Furthermore, there is no proof upon which a judgment could be based
requiring the defendant to recognize the second baby, Pacita Loanco.

Finally, SC found no necessity to modify the judgment as to the amount of maintenance allowed
to Ismael Loanco in the amount of P50 pesos per month. They likewise pointed out that it is
only the trial court who has jurisdiction to modify the order as to the amount of pension.