LEGAL SEPARATIONS Physical violence and legal separation

Under Art. 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a petition for legal separation may be filed when there is repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner. Note that repeated physical violence is required. Im wondering what the interval between the violent episodes should be for there to be repeated physical violence. Like, if a husband hits his wife once a year or once every five years, is there repeated physical violence? The obvious answer is that the courts will have to view things on a case to case basis. What happened between William and Lucita Ong should be illustrative. Ong Eng Kiam, also known as William Ong (William) and Lucita G. Ong (Lucita) were married on July 13, 1975 at the San Agustin Church in Manila. They have three children: Kingston, Charleston, and Princeton who are now all of the age of majority. Lucita claimed that: soon after three years of marriage, she and William quarreled almost every day, with physical violence being inflicted upon her; William would shout invectives at her like putang ina mo, gago, tanga, and he would slap her, kick her, pull her hair, bang her head against concrete wall and throw at her whatever he could reach with his hand; the causes of these fights were petty things regarding their children or their business; William would also scold and beat the children at different parts of their bodies using the buckle of his belt; whenever she tried to stop William from hitting the children, he would turn his ire on her and box her; on December 9, 1995, after she protested with Williams decision to allow their eldest son Kingston to go to Bacolod, William slapped her and said, it is none of your business; on December 14, 1995, she asked William to bring Kingston back from Bacolod; a violent quarrel ensued and William hit her on her head, left cheek, eye, stomach, and arms; when William hit her on the stomach and she bent down because of the pain, he hit her on the head then pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house; she then went to her sisters house in Binondo where she was fetched by her other siblings and brought to their parents house in Dagupan; the following day, she went to her parents doctor, Dr. Vicente Elinzano fo r treatment of her injuries. Gee, Lucita waited for 15 long years before finally deciding she wanted out. And you know what the husband said? He said she was making it all up to gain control over the conjugal properties to benefit her own parents and siblings. He DID NOT want the decree of legal separation granted because it would be proof that he was a wife beater and that would ruin his reputation in the Filipino-Chinese community.

Anyway, legal separation was granted.

Ancheta vs. Ancheta CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004 Annulment of Marriage, Civil Law, Marriage
FACTS: Petitioner Marietta Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo Ancheta were married on March 5, 1959 and had eight children. After 33 years of marriage the petitioner left the respondent and their children. Their conjugal properties were later separated through a court-sanctioned compromise agreement where the petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite. When the husband wanted to marry again, he filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity on June 5, 1995. Although he knew that the petitioner was already residing at the resort in Cavite, he alleged in his petition that the petitioner was residing at Las Pias, Metro Manila, such that summons never reached her. Nevertheless substituted service was rendered to their son at his residence in Cavite. Petitioner was then declared in default for failing to answer the said petition. Just over a month after it was filed, the trial court granted the petition and declared the marriage of the parties void ab initio. Five years later, petitioner challenged the trial courts order declaring as void ab initio her marriage with respondent Rodolfo, citing extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over her person, among others. She alleged that the respondent lied on her real address in his petition so she never received summons on the case, hence depriving her of her right to be heard. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition so she now comes to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage was valid? HELD: NO. The trial court and the public prosecutor defied Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion, says the Court. Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated. Here, the trial court immediately received the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against the petitioner without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor who even did not challenge the motion to declare petitioner in default. The Supreme Court reiterates: The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. Petition is GRANTED.

PROPERTY RELATIONS
Arturo Abalos vs Dr. Galicano Macatangay Jr on December 4, 2011 30 September 2004, 439 scra 649 Law on Sales Option Earnest Money
Arturo and Esther Abalos are husband and wife. They own a parcel of land in Makati. On June 2, 1988, Arturo, armed with a purported Special Power of Attorney, executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement in favor of Galicano in which Arturo acknowledged he received a P5k check from Galicano as earnest money to be deducted from the purchase price and that Arturo binds himself to sell the land to Galicano within 30 days from receipt of the P5k. The purchase price agreed upon was P1.3 M. The P5k check was dishonored due to insufficiency. Apparently, Esther and Arturo have a rocky relationship. Esther executed a SPA in favor of her sister and that she is selling her share in the conjugal property to Galicano. It was alleged that that the RMOA is not valid for Esthers signature was not affixed thereto. And that Esther never executed a SPA in favor of Arturo. Galicano informed the couple that he has prepared a check to cover the remainder of the amount that needs to be paid for the land. He demanded that the land be delivered to him. But the spouses failed to deliver the land. Galicano sued the spouses. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a contract of sale between Arturo and Galicano. Whether or not the subsequent agreement between Galicano and Esther is binding and that it cured the defect of the earlier contract between Arturo and Galicano. HELD: No. No matter how the RMOA is looked upon, the same cannot be valid. At best, the agreement between Arturo and Galicano is a mere grant of privilege to purchase to Galicano. The promise to sell is not binding to Arturo for there was actually no consideration distinct from the price. Be it noted that the parties considered the P5k as an earnest money to be deducted from the purchase price. Taking arguendo that it was a bilateral promise to buy and sell, the same is still not binding for Galicano failed to render a payment of legal tender. A check is not a legal tender. Taking arguendo that the P5k was an earnest money which supposedly perfected a contract of sale, the RMOA is still not valid for Esthers signature was not affixed. The property is conjugal and under the Family Code, the spouses consents are required. Further, the earnest money here is not actually the earnest money contemplated under Article 1482 under the Civil Code. The subsequent agreement between Esther and Galicano did not ratify the earlier transaction between Arturo and Galicano. A void contract can never be ratified.

Saguid vs. CA, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003 Facts: 17yrs old Gina S. Rey was married, but separated de facto from her husband, when she met petitioner Jacinto Saguid. After a brief courtship, the two decided to cohabit as husband and wife (no children). Jacinto made a living as the patron of their fishing vessel "Saguid Brothers."5 Gina, on the other hand, worked as a fish dealer, but decided to work as an entertainer in Japan from 1992 to 1994 when her relationship with Jacintos relatives turned sour. In 1996, the couple decided to separate and end up their 9-year cohabitation. On January 9, 1997, private respondent filed a complaint for Partition and Recovery of Personal Property with Receivership against the petitioner with the RTC- Boac, Marinduque. She alleged that from her salary of $1,500.00 a month as entertainer in Japan, she was able to contribute P70,000.00 in the completion of their unfinished house. Also, from her own earnings as an entertainer and fish dealer, she was able to acquire and accumulate appliances, pieces of furniture and household effects, with a total value of P111, 375.00. She prayed that she be declared the sole owner of these personal properties and that the amount of P70,000.00, representing her contribution to the construction of their house, be reimbursed to her. Petitioner claimed that the expenses for the construction of their house were defrayed solely from his income as a captain of their fishing vessel. He further contended that Gina did not work continuously in Japan from 1992 to 1994, but only for a 6month duration each year. When their house was repaired and improved sometime in 1995-1996, private respondent did not share in the expenses because her earnings as entertainer were spent on the daily need sand business of her parents. From his income in the fishing business, he claimed to have saved a total of P130,000.00, P75,000.00 of which was placed in a joint account deposit with private respondent. This savings, according to petitioner was spent in purchasing the disputed personal properties. TC ruled in favor of Gina. CA affirmed. Issue: Whether or not the trial courts decision is supported by evidence Held: Yes. Decision affirmed. In the case at bar, their property regime is governed by Article148 of the Family Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, and multiple alliances of the same married man. Under this regime, "only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions ..."31 Proof of actual contribution is required. As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the partys own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponents defense. This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favor able relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief. Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. Both parties claim that the money used to purchase the disputed personal properties came partly from their joint account with First Allied Development Bank. While there is no question that both parties contributed in their joint account deposit, there is, however, no sufficient proof of the exact amount of their respective shares therein. Pursuant to Article 148of the Family Code, in the absence of proof of extent of the parties respective contribution, their share shall be presumed to be equal. Here, the disputed personal properties were valued at P111,375.00, the existence and value of which were not questioned by the petitioner. Hence, their share therein is equivalent to one-half, i.e., P55,687.50 each. On the basis of the evidence established, the extent of private respondents co ownership over the disputed house is only up to the amount of P11,413.00, her proven contribution in the construction thereof. Anent the personal properties, her participation therein should be limited only to the amount of P55,687.50.

CASE DIGEST: GR No. 127263 Sy vs. Court of Appeals April 12, 2000

The case: For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, denying the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of the spouses Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy. The facts: Petitioner Filipina Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed with two children. On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived separately and their two children were in the custody of their mother. On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation before the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga and was later amended to a petition for separation of property. Judgment was rendered dissolving their conjugal partnership of gains and approving a regime of separation of properties based on the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the spouses. In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her husband. RTC Manila convicted Fernando only of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment. Petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity on August 4, 1992. RTC and Court of Appeals denied the petition and motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal by certiorari, petitioner for the first time, raises the issue of the marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage license at the time of its celebration. The date of issue of marriage license and marriage certificate is contained in their marriage contract which was attached in her petition for absolute declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court. The date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of issuance of their marriage certificate and marriage license are different and incongruous. The Issues: Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning for lack of marriage license at the time of the ceremony? Whether or not private respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration to warrant a declaration of its absolute nullity? Held: A marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. The pieces of evidence presented by petitioner at the beginning of the case, plainly and indubitably show that on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. The marriage contract also shows that the marriage license number 6237519 was issued in Carmona, Cavite yet neither petitioner nor respondent ever resided in Carmona. From the documents she presented, the marriage license was issued almost one year after the ceremony took place. Article 80 of the Civil Code is clearly applicable in this case, there being no claim of exceptional character enumerated in articles 72-79 of the Civil Code. The marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning. The remaining issue on the psychological capacity is now mooted by the conclusion of this court that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of marriage license at the time heir marriage was solemnized. Petition is granted. The marriage celebrated on November 15, 1973 between petitioner Filipina Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy is hereby declared void ab initio for lack of marriage license at the time of celebration.

Agapay vs. Palang Case DIgest Agapay vs. Palang 276 SCRA 341

Facts: Article 87; Miguel Palang contracted his first marriage to Carlina Vallesterol in the church at Pangasinan. A few months after the wedding, he left to work in Hawaii. Out their union was born Herminia Palang, respondent. Miguel returned to the Philippines but he stayed in Zambales with his brother during the entire duration of his year-long sojourn, not with his wife or child. Miguel had also attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he returned for good, he refused to live with his wife and child. When Miguel was then 63 yrs. old, he contracted his second marriage with a nineteen year old Erlinda Agapay, petitioner. As evidenced by deed of sale, both jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land located at Binalonan. A house and lot was likewise purchased allegedly by Erlinda as the sole vendee. To settle and end a case filed by the first wife, Miguel and Cornelia executed a Deed of Donation as a form of compromise agreement. The parties agreed to donate their conjugal property consisting of six parcels of land to their only child, Herminia Palang. Miguel and Erlindas cohabitation produced a son and then two years later Miguel died. Thereafter, Carlina filed a complaint of concubinage on the previous party. Respondents sought to get back the riceland and the house and lot allegedly purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with petitioner. Petitioner contended that she had already given her half of the riceland property to their son and that the house and lot is her sole property having bought with her own money. RTC affirmed in favor of the petitioner while CA reversed the said decision. Issue: Whether or not petitioner may own the two parcels of land acquired during the cohabitation of petitioner and Miguel Palang. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the property was not by way of sale but was a donation and therefore void. The transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to Erlinda, but one which was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of law because it was made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.

Ayala Investments vs CA Case Digest Ayala Investments vs. CA G.R. No. 118305 February 12, 1998

Facts: Article 73; Philippine Blooming Mills loan from petitioner Ayala Investment. As an added security for the credit line extended to PBM, respondent Alfredo Ching Exec. VP, executed security agreements and making himself jointly and severally answerable with PBMs indebtedness to Ayala Investments. PBM failed to pay the loan. Thus, Ayala Investments filed a case for sum of money against PBM and Alfredo Ching. The lower court issued a writ of execution of pending appeal. Thereafter, deputy sheriff Magsajo caused issuance and service upon respondents-spouses of a notice of sheriff sale on three of their conjugal properties. Private respondents, spouses Ching, filed a case of injunction against petitioners alleging that petitioners cannot enforce the judgment against conjugal partnership levied on the ground that the subject loan did not redound to the benefit of the said conjugal partnership. Upon application of private respondents, the lower court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Magsajo from proceeding with the enforcement of the writ of execution and with the sale of the said properties at public auction. Issue: Whether or not loan acquired by PBM from Ayala Investments as guaranteed by Alfredo Ching be redounded to the conjugal partnership of the spouses. Ruling: The husband and the wife can engage in any lawful enterprise or profession. While it is but natural for the husband and the wife to consult each other, the law does not make it a requirement that a spouse has to get the prior consent of the other before entering into any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity. The exercise by a spouse of a legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity is always considered to redound to the benefit of the family. But an isolated transaction of a spouse such as being guarantor for a third persons debt is not per se considered as redounding to the benefit of the family. Therefore, to hold the absolute community or the conjugal partnership property liable for any loss resulting from such isolated activity, proofs showing a direct benefit to the family must be presented.

De La Cruz vs. De La Cruz Case Digest De La Cruz vs. De La Cruz 130 Phil 324

Facts: Estrella de la Cruz, petitioner, was married to Severino de la Cruz, defendant, at Bacolod City. During their coverture they acquire seven parcels of land in Bacolod Cadastre and three parcels of land at Silay Cadastre. They are also engaged in varied business ventures. The defendant started living in Manila, although he occasionally returned to Bacolod City, sleeping in his office at the Philippine Texboard Factory in Mandalagan, instead of in the conjugal home at Bacolod City. Estrella then filed a petition on the ground of abandonment upon the defendant who had never visited their conjugal abode. She also began to suspect the defendant in having an illicit relation while in Manila to a certain Nenita Hernandez, which she confirmed upon getting several pieces of evidence on the defendants polo shirt and iron safe. The defendant denied the allegations of the petitioner and that the reason he transferred his living quarters to his office in Mandalagan, Bacolod City was to teach her a lesson as she was quarrelsome and extremely jealous of every woman. He decided to live apart from his wife temporarily because at home he could not concentrate on his work. The defendant, with vehemence, denied that he has abandoned his wife and family, averring that he has never failed, even for a single month, to give them financial support. In point of fact, his wife and children continued to draw allowances from his office and he financed the education of their children, two of whom were studying in Manila. Issue: Whether or not respondent abandoned his family and failed to comply with his obligations. Ruling: The SC have made a searching scrutiny of the record, and it is considered view that the defendant is not guilty of abandonment of his wife, nor of such abuse of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership, as to warrant division of the conjugal assets. There must be real abandonment, and not mere separation. The abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to financial and moral desertion. Therefore, physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the term "abandonment", if the husband, despite his voluntary departure from the society of his spouse, neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife. The fact that the defendant never ceased to give support to his wife and children negatives any intent on his part not to return to the conjugal abode and resume his marital duties and rights.

BA Finance Corporation vs. CA Case Digest BA Finance Corporation vs. CA 161 SCRA 608

Facts: Augusto Yulo, respondent, secured a loan from the petitioner, BA Finance Corp., as evidenced by his signature on a promissory note in behalf of the A & L Industries. About two months prior to the loan, however, Augusto Yulo had already left Lily Yulo and their children and had abandoned their conjugal home. When the obligation became due and demandable, Augusto Yulo failed to pay the same. Petitioner filed its amended complaint against the spouses on the basis of the promissory note. They also prayed for the issuance of a writ of attachment that the said spouses were guilty of fraud in contracting the debt. The trial court issued the writ of attachment thereby enabling the petitioner to attach the properties of A & L Industries. Private respondent Lily Yulo filed her answer with counterclaim, alleging that Augusto had already abandoned her and their children five months before the filing of the complaint and that they were already separated when the promissory note was executed. She also alleged that her signature was forged in the special power of attorney procured by Augusto. Petitioner contends that even if the signature was forged or even if the attached properties were her exclusive property, the same can be made answerable to the obligation because the said properties form part of the conjugal partnership of the spouses Yulo. Issue: Whether or not the exclusive property of private respondent forms part of the conjugal partnership of the spouses and be made answerable to the obligation. Ruling: SC ordered the release of the attachment of the said property. Though it is presumed that the single proprietorship established during the marriage is conjugal and even if it is registered in the name of only one of the spouses. However, for the said property to be held liable, the obligation contracted by the husband must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. In the case at bar, the obligation which the petitioner is seeking to enforce against the conjugal property managed by the private respondent was undoubtedly contracted by Augusto Yulo for his own benefit because at the time he incurred the obligation he had already abandoned his family and had left their conjugal home.

BPI vs. Posadas Case Digest BPI vs. Posadas 56 Phil 215

Facts: The estate of Adolphe Oscar Schuetze is the sole beneficiary named in the life-insurance policy for $10,000, issued by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. During the following five years the insured paid the premiums at the Manila branch of the company. The deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze married the plaintiff-appellant Rosario Gelano.

The plaintiff-appellant, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, was appointed administrator of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze's testamentary estate by an order, entered by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, whose main office is in Montreal, Canada, paid Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze upon her arrival at Manila, the sum of P20,150, which was the amount of the insurance policy on the life of said deceased, payable to the latter's estate. On the same date Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze delivered the money to said Bank of the Philippine Islands, as administrator of the deceased's estate, which entered it in the inventory of the testamentary estate, and then returned the money to said widow. The appellee alleges that it is a fundamental principle that a life-insurance policy belongs exclusively to the beneficiary upon the death of the person insured.

Issue: Whether or not the life insurance policy belongs to the conjugal partnership.

Ruling: SC holds, (1) that the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate, on which the premiums were paid by the conjugal partnership, constitute community property, and belong onehalf to the husband and the other half to the wife, exclusively; and (2) that if the premiums were paid partly with paraphernal and partly conjugal funds, the proceeds are likewise in like proportion paraphernal in part and conjugal in part.

That the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate as the beneficiary, if delivered to the testamentary administrator of the former as part of the assets of said estate under probate administration, are subject to the inheritance tax according to the law on the matter, if they belong to the assured exclusively, and it is immaterial that the insured was domiciled in these Islands or outside.

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS PROCOPIO VILLANUEVA, NICOLASRETUYA and PACITA VILLANUEVA,petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALSand THE HEIRS OF EUSEBIA NAPISARETUYA, respondents.G.R. No. 143286 Facts: Plaintiff Eusebia Napisa Retuya, is the legal wife of defendant Nicolas Retuya, having been married to the latter on October 7, 1926. Out of the lawful wedlock, they begot five (5) children, namely, Natividad, Angela, Napoleon, Salome, and Roberta. Spouses Retuya resided at Tipolo, Mandaue City. During their marriage they acquired real properties and all improvements situated in Mandaue City, and Consolacion, Cebu. Also, defendant, Nicolas Retuya, is co-owner of a parcel of land situated in Mandaue City which he inherited from his parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon as well as the purchasers of hereditary shares of approximately eight (8) parcels of land in Mandaue City. In 1945, defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived with his legitimate family and cohabited with defendant, Pacita Villanueva, wherein defendant, Procopio Villanueva, is their illegitimate son. Nicolas, then, was the only person who received the income of the above-mentioned properties Defendant, Pacita Villanueva, from the time she started living in concubinage with Nicolas, has no occupation, she hadno properties of her own from which she could derive income. In 1985, Nicolas suffered a stroke and cannot talk anymore. Natividad Retuya knew of the physical condition of her father because they visited him at the hospital. From the time defendant Nicolas Retuya suffered a stroke on January 27, 1985 and until the present, itis defendant Procopio Villanueva, one of Nicolas illegitimate children who has been receiving the income of these properties. Witness Natividad Retuya went to Procopio to negotiate because at this time their father Nicolas was alreadysenile and has a childlike mind. She told defendant, Procopio that their father was already incapacitated and they had to talk things over and the latter replied that it was not yet the time to talk about the matter. Plaintiff, then, complained to the Barangay Captain for reconciliation/mediation but no settlement was reached, hence, the said official issued a certification to file action. Written demands were made by plaintiff, through her counsel, to the defendants, including the illegitimate family asking for settlement but no settlement was reached by the parties. Further, plaintiffs witness, Natividad Retuya, testified that the parcel of land covered by tax declaration marked Exhibit "T" was the property bought by her father from Adriano Marababol for atthe time of purchase of the property, defendant Pacita Villanueva had no means of livelihood. ISSUE: Whether the subject properties are conjugal. HELD: Petitioners claim that the subject properties are exclusive properties of Nicolas except for Lot No. 152, which they claim is Pacitas exclusive property. This issue is easily resolved. The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations between Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were married before the effectivity of Family Code. Article 105 of the Family Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply to conjugal partnerships established before the Family Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal. The burden of proof is onthe party claiming that they are not conjugal. This is counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal. Petitioners argue that Eusebia failed to prove this pre-requisite. We disagree. The question of whether the subject properties were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia is a factual issue. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the subject properties were in fact acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia. The tax declarations covering the subject properties, along with the un rebutted testimony of Eusebias witnesses ,establish this fact. We give due deference to factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. A reversal of this finding can only occur if petitioners show sufficient reason for us to doubt its correctness. Petitioners in the present case have not. Moreover, on whether Lot No. 152 is conjugal or not, the answer came from petitioners themselves. Nicolas and Eusebia were married on 7 October1926. Nicolas and Pacita started cohabiting in 1936. Eusebia died on 23November 1996. Pacita and Nicolas were married on 16 December 1996.Petitioners themselves admit that Lot No. 152 was purchased on 4 October1957. The date of acquisition of Lot No.152 is clearly during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia. Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia, the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code is that all these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and Eusebia. The burden is on petitioners to prove that the subject properties are not conjugal. The presumption in Article 116, which subsists "unless the contrary is proved," stands as an obstacle to any claim the petitioners may have. The burden of proving that a property is exclusive property of a spouse rests on the party asserting it and the evidence required must be clear and

convincing. Petitioners failed to meet this standard. The cohabitation of a spouse with another person, even for a long period, does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Otherwise, the law would be giving a stamp of approval to an act that is both illegal and immoral. What petitioners fail to grasp is that Nicolas and Pacitas cohabitation cannot work to the detriment of Eusebia, the legal spouse. The marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia continued to exist regardless of the fact that Nicolas was already living with Pacita. Hence, all property acquired from 7 October 1926,the date of Nicolas and Eusebias marriage, until 23 November 1996, the date of Eusebias death, are still presumed conjugal. Petitioners have neither claimed nor proved that any of the subject properties was acquired outside or beyond this period. Finally, petitioners reliance on Article148 of the Family Code is misplaced. A reading of Article 148 readily shows that there must be proof of "actual joint contribution" by both the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. The presumption of equality of contribution arises only in the absence of proof of their proportionate contributions, subject to the condition that actual joint contribution is proven first. Simply put, proof of actual contribution by both parties is required, otherwise there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing. Petitioners failed to show proof of actual contribution by Pacita in the acquisition of Lot No. 152. In short, petitioners failed to prove that Pacita bought Lot No. 152with her own money, or that she actually contributed her own money to acquire it

PATERNITY AND FILIATION

Rosendo Herrera vs Rosendo Alba

ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera is correct. HELD: No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA testing is not yet recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002 there is already no question as to the acceptability of DNA test results as admissible object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the case of People vs Vallejo (2002). In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA analysis as admissible evidence. On the other hand, as to determining the weight and probative value of DNA test results, the Supreme Court provides, which is now known as the Vallejo Guidelines:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other things, the following data:

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine adopted from US jurisprudence ( Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

Inc.) The Daubert Test is a test to be employed by courts before admitting scientific test results in evidence. More specifically, the Daubert Test
inquires: 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether the theory or technique can be tested, Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review, Whether the rate of error is acceptable, Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance

In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before paternity inclusion can be had, the DNA test result must state that the there is at least a 99.9% probability that the person is the biological father. However, a 99.9% probability of paternity (or higher but never possibly a 100% ) does not immediately result in the DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does not automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this case Herrera, is the biological father of the child (Alba). Such result is still a disputable or a refutable evidence which can be brought down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with.

What if the result provides that there is less than 99.9% probability that the alleged father is the biological father?
Then the evidence is merely corroborative.

Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not violative of the right against self-incrimination. The right against selfincrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. There is no testimonial compulsion in the getting of DNA sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.

RAYMOND PE LIM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JOANNA ROSE C. PE LIM, Minor represented by her Natural Mother and Guardian, MARIBEL CRUZ y TAYAG, respondents. DECISION ROMERO, J.: All too often, immature men who allow their emotions to hold sway over their rational minds come to grief when their passions cool off, but not before inflicting irreparable psychic and spiritual damage on their victims and the fruits of their wanton acts. As they sow the proverbial "wild oats," they are heedless of the dire consequences they heap on their heads. When the inevitable confrontation explodes and they are helpless to extricate themselves from the messy situation arising from their wrongdoing, eventually they invoke the help of the courts as their final arbiter. Before us is one of those cases where a man woos a maid, succeeds in seducing and impregnating her, only to disclaim the paternity of the child when made to account for his misdeeds. DNA,[1] being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity will still have to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father. This petition for review on certiorari sprang from a complaint filed by Maribel Cruz for child support on behalf of her daughter, private respondent Joanna Rose C. Pe Lim, against petitioner Raymond Pe Lim who, Maribel claims, is Joanna's father. Maribel's story unfolds, thus: Maribel was sixteen years old in 1978 and a part-time student. She also worked as a receptionist at Tonight's Club and Resthouse along Roxas Blvd., Manila. She met petitioner during her first night on the job. Petitioner wooed her and Maribel reciprocated his love. They soon lived together, with petitioner paying the rentals in a succession of apartments in Cubao, Quezon City, Tambo, Paraaque and Makati, Metro Manila. Maribel left for Japan in July 1981, already pregnant, and returned to Manila in October of the same year. The couple never married because petitioner claimed that he was not financially stable. On January 17, 1982, Maribel gave birth to their daughter at the Cardinal Santos Memorial Hospital. The bills for Maribel's three-day confinement at the hospital were paid for by Raymond and he also caused the registration of the name Joanna Rose C. Pe Lim on the child's birth certificate. After Joanna Rose's birth, the love affair between Maribel and petitioner continued. Towards the latter part of 1983, Maribel noted that petitioner's feelings toward her started to wane. He subsequently abandoned her and Joanna Rose. Maribel tried to support herself by accepting various jobs and with occasional help from relatives, but it was never enough. She asked petitioner for support but, despite promises to do so, it was never given. Maribel then filed a complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for support. Petitioner, on the other hand, has a different version: He claims that in 1978, he went to Tonight's Club and Resthouse along Roxas Boulevard, Manila to relax after a hard day's work. There he met Maribel, a pretty and aggressive hospitality girl. Raymond observed that while she had a pleasing personality, she seemed to be quite experienced because she started to kiss him on the cheeks and neck, whispering to him that they could go anywhere and rest. Raymond declined to take Maribel up on her offer saying that he only wanted someone to talk to. They became friends after that first meeting, and while he often saw her, there was no intimacy between them. He did admit giving Maribel sizeable tips because she confided in him that she needed money. Raymond alleged that he was not Maribel's only customer at the club. In 1980, she left for Japan to work as an entertainer. In 1981, she returned to Manila pregnant, and appealed to Raymond for help because she claimed that she could not face her relatives in her condition. Raymond got her an apartment and paid its rentals until she gave birth to a baby girl on January 17, 1982. Raymond admits paying the hospital bills but claims that Maribel was supposed to pay him back for it. When she failed to do so, Raymond stopped seeing her. Raymond denies being the father of Maribel's child, claiming that they were only friends and nothing more. The trial court rendered a decision on June 10, 1971, the dispositive portion of which states: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering herein defendant, Raymond Pe Lim to give support to his natural daughter, minor Joanna Rose Pe Lim in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Philippine Currency, per month for the support, maintenance, education and well-being of said child, the same to be paid on or before the 5th day of each month and monthly thereafter starting June, 1991, until the said minor Joanna Rose Pe Lim, shall have reached the age of majority. The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred (P7,500.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses. No costs. SO ORDERED." Petitioner then elevated his case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's findings. Petitioner now argues before the Court that there is no clear and convincing evidence on record to show that there was actual cohabitation between him and Maribel. In fact, petitioner infers that Maribel became pregnant only when she went to Japan. In short, he denies that he is the father of Joanna Rose. He further questions the awarded support ofP10,000.00 per month, saying that the same is beyond his means, considering that he has a family to support. We find no merit in this petition. In Alberto v. Court of Appeals,[2] we said: "When a putative father manifests openly through words and deeds his recognition of a child, the courts can do no less than confirm said acknowledgment. As the immortal bard Shakespeare perspicaciously said: 'Let your own discretion be your tutor; suit the action to the word, the word to the action." The evidence in the instant case shows that petitioner considered himself to be the father of Joanna Rose as shown by the hand-written letter he wrote to Maribel: "Hi Love, I wrote you this letter because I would like to erase from your mind the thought of why I can not ever [sic] you marriage right now is because I have no longer love or care for both Joanna & you. Last night when we talked things over, I was in a stage wherein everything was happening so fast that I was running out of time & works (sic) to make you understand me through this letter I would like to explain my side in a more detailed way and I hope you could understand. You know love, the main root of the problem of why marriage is impossible for us right now is not what my parents or my family circle will say about you, but the financial side of it. Okay, let say I did marry you right now disregarding my financial stability. Sooner or later they will come to know of it and I am sure that they will not consent it. I have no alternative but to leave them & to stick it up with you. This is where the financial side comes in. I can't allow myself walking away from my family making them think that I can stand on my own two feet but the truth of the matter is not and seeing both of you suffer for only one stupid mistake which is I was not yet financially ready to face the consequence. My plan is that if you could only stick it out with me until I am ready to face whatever consequence that might occur during our life or relation as husband and wife. You have already tried it before, why can't you stress it a little longer. In return, I promise to be a loving & caring husband & father to both of you. Love, I really don't want you to be taken away from me by anyone, whether he be single or married. This is the reason why I am still trying to convince you. But if you really have decided things up and really determined to push through with it. I guess I just have to respect your decision. Just remember I wish you the best of luck and take extra-care of yourself & Joanna. Remember, if the time comes when things get rough for you and you have no one to turn to, don't hesitate to call on me. I am very much willing to be at your side to help you. I love you very much! Miso Love, Raymond" (Underscoring supplied by Raymond himself) From the tenor of the letter and the statements petitioner made therein it is clear that, contrary to his vehement assertion that he and Maribel were just friends, they were actually lovers. In an earlier letter, this time sent to Maribel while she was in Japan, petitioner lovingly told her to take care of herself because of her "situation," obviously referring to the state of pregnancy of Maribel: "Aug. 11, 1981 Hi Love, Do you know how glad I was to receive a letter from you yesterday? At least now I'm a little bit at ease to know that everything is fine with you. Love, in your letter you seem so much concern (sic) about my situation once here. I really appreciate it, but please don't give too much thought about it because I'm physically o.k. here. The important thing is that don't think too much and have a lot of rest during your spare time especially in the situation you're in now. If you are feeling homesick just go out with your friends and try to enjoy yourself to the fullest while you are there Love, you said in your letter that you regret very much your going there & wishes ( sic) that you have not left anymore. I understand your feelings to what had happened after you told me about it in the telephone. xxx xxx xxx Love, I miss you so much that I always re-read those letters you had send me very often. At night I always think of you and the times we're together before going to sleep. xxx xxx xxx" (Underscoring supplied) It was only after petitioner separated from Maribel that he started to deny paternity of Joanna Rose. Until he got married to another woman, he did not object to being identified as Joanna Rose's father as disclosed in the Certificate of Live Birth. The evidence on record reveals that he even got a copy of the said Certificate when Joanna Rose started schooling, as shown by a receipt in his name from the San Juan Municipal Office. His belated denial cannot outweigh the totality of the cogent evidence which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is indeed the father of Joanna Rose.[3] Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. Article 172 of the Family Code 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. (265a, 266a, 267a).'"

This article adopts the rule in Article 283 of the Civil Code that filiation may be proven by "any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father." Petitioner has never controverted the evidence on record. His love letters to Maribel vowing to be a good father to Joanna Rose; pictures of himself on various occasions cuddling Joanna Rose and the Certificate of Live Birth say it all. Accordingly, his suit must fail. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., no part, took part in decision in the Court of Appeals.

[4]

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005] ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: At issue in this petition for certiorari [1] is whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely erred in exercising its discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing a decision[2] and resolution[3] upholding the resolution and order of the trial court,[4] which denied petitioners motion to dismiss private respondents complaint for support and directed the parties to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) paternity testing. Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martins alleged biological fat her, petitioner Arnel L. Agustin, for support and support pendente lite before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 106.[5] In their complaint, respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe in 1992, after which they entered into an intimate relationship. Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday on November 10, 1999. Despite Arnels insistence on abortion, Fe decided otherwise and gave birth to their child out of wedlock, Martin, on August 11, 2000 at the Capitol Medical Hospital in Quezon City. The babys birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre -natal and hospital expenses but later refused Fes repeated requests for Martins support despite his adequate financial capacity and even s uggested to have the child committed for adoption. Arnel also denied having fathered the child. On January 19, 2001, while Fe was carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot, Arnel sped off in his van, with the open car door hitting Fes leg. This incident was reported to the police. In July 2001, Fe was diag nosed with leukemia and has, since then, been undergoing chemotherapy. On March 5, 2002, Fe and Martin sued Arnel for support.[6] In his amended answer, Arnel denied having sired Martin because his affair and intimacy with Fe had allegedly ended in 1998, long before Martins conception. He claimed that Fe had at least one other secret lover. Arnel admitted that their relations hip started in 1993 but he never really fell in love with (Fe) not only because (she) had at least one secret lover, a certain Jun, but als o because she proved to be scheming and overly demanding and possessive. As a result, theirs was a stormy on-and-off affair. What started as a romantic liaison between two consenting adults eventually turned out to be a case of fatal attraction where (Fe) became so obsessed with (Arnel), to the point of even entertaining the idea of marrying him, that she resorted to various devious ways and means to alienate (him) from his wife and family. Unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife and children, Arnel termina ted the affair although he still treated her as a friend such as by referring potential customers to the car aircon repair shop[7] where she worked. Later on, Arnel found out that Fe had another erstwhile secret lover. In May 2000, Arnel and his entire family went to the United States for a vacation. Upon their return in June 2000, Arnel learned that Fe was telling people that he had impregnated her. Arnel refused to acknowledge the child as his because their last intimacy was sometime in 1998.[8] Exasperated, Fe started calling Arnels wife and family. On January 19, 2001, Fe followed Arnel to the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot to demand that he acknowledge Martin as his child. According to Arnel, he could not get through Fe and the discussion became so heated that he had no alternative but to move on but without bumping or hitting any part of her body.[9] Finally, Arnel claimed that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) attributed to him in the acknowledgment of Martins birth certificate were falsified. The CTC erroneously reflected his marital status as single when he was actually married and that his birth year was 1965 when it should have been 1964.[10] In his pre-trial brief filed on May 17, 2002, Arnel vehemently denied having sired Martin but expressed willingness to consider any proposal to settle the case.[11] On July 23, 2002, Fe and Martin moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of Court.[12] Arnel opposed said motion by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination.[13] He also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, considering that his signature on the birth certificate was a forgery and that, under the law, an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the putative father.[14] In his motion, Arnel manifested that he had filed criminal charges for falsification of documents against Fe (I.S. Nos. 02-5723 and 02-7192) and a petition for cancellation of his name appearing in Martins birth certificate (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-46669). He attached the certification of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory that his signature in the birth certificate was forged. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing at the expense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Thus, this petition. In a nutshell, petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for recognition and (2) whether DNA paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for support without violating petitioners constitutional right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.[15] The petition is without merit. First of all, the trial court properly denied the petitioners motion to dismiss because the private respondents complaint on its face showed that they had a cause of action against the petitioner. The elements of a cause of action are: (1) the plaintiffs pri mary right and the defendants corresponding primary duty, and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged.[16] In the complaint, private respondents alleged that Fe had amorous relations with the petitioner, as a result of which she gave birth to Martin out of wedlock. In his answer, petitioner admitted that he had sexual relations with Fe but denied that he fathered Martin, claiming that he had ended the relationship long before the childs conception and birth. It is undisputed and even admitted by the parties that there existed a sexual relationship between Arnel and Fe. The only remaining question is whether such sexual relationship produced the child, Martin. If it did, as respondents have alleged, then Martin should be supported by his father Arnel. If not, petitioner and Martin are strangers to each other and Martin has no right to demand and petitioner has no obligation to give support. Preliminaries aside, we now tackle the main issues. Petitioner refuses to recognize Martin as his own child and denies the genuineness and authenticity of the childs birth cert ificate which he purportedly signed as the father. He also claims that the order and resolution of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, effectively converted the complaint for support to a petition for recognition, which is supposedly proscribed by law. According to petitioner, Martin, as an unrecognized child, has no right to ask for support and must first establish his filiation in a separate suit under Article 283[17] in relation to Article 265[18] of the Civil Code and Section 1, Rule 105[19] of the Rules of Court. The petitioners contentions are without merit.

The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying the authenticity of the documentary evidence of acknowledgement. But even if the assailed resolution and order effectively integrated an action to compel recognition with an action for support, such was valid and in accordance with jurisprudence. In Tayag v. Court of Appeals,[20] we allowed the integration of an action to compel recognition with an action to claim ones inheritance: In Paulino, we held that an illegitimate child, to be entitled to support and successional rights from the putative or presu med parent, must prove his filiation to the latter. We also said that it is necessary to allege in the complaint that the putative father had acknowledged and recognized the illegitimate child because such acknowledgment is essential to and is the basis of the right to inherit. There being no allegation of such acknowledgment, the action becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father. The ratio decidendi in Paulino, therefore, is not the absence of a cause of action for failure of the petitioner to allege the fact of acknowledgment in the complaint, but the prescription of the action. Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, although petitioner contends that the complaint filed by herein private respondent merely alleges that the minor Chad Cuyugan is an illegitimate child of the deceased and is actually a claim for inheritance, from the allegations therein the same may be considered as one to compel recognition. Further, that the two causes of action, one to compel recognition and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one complaint is not new in our jurisprudence. As early as [1922] we had occasion to rule thereon in Briz vs. Briz, et al. (43 Phil. 763 [1922]) wherein we said: The question whether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in any event maintain a complex action to compel recognition as a natural child and at the same time to obtain ulterior relief in the character of heir, is one which in the opinion of this court must be answered in the affirmative, provided always that the conditions justifying the joinder of the two distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. In other words, there is no absolute necessity requiring that the action to compel acknowledgment should have been instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in which that same plaintiff seeks additional relief in the character of heir. Certainly, there is nothing so peculiar to the action to compel acknowledgment as to require that a rule should be here applied different from that generally applicable in other cases. x x x The conclusion above stated, though not heretofore explicitly formulated by this court, is undoubtedly to some extent supported by our prior decisions. Thus, we have held in numerous cases, and the doctrine must be considered well settled, that a natural child having a right to compel acknowledgment, but who has not been in fact legally acknowledged, may maintain partition proceedings for the division of the inheritance against his coheirs x x x; and the same person may intervene in proceedings for the distribution of the estate of his deceased natural father, or mother x x x. In neither of these situations has it been thought necessary for the plaintiff to show a prior decree compelling acknowledgment. The obvious reason is that in partition suits and distribution proceedings the other persons who might take by inheritance are before the court; and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedings. (Underscoring supplied) Although the instant case deals with support rather than inheritance, as in Tayag, the basis or rationale for integrating them remains the same. Whether or not respondent Martin is entitled to support depends completely on the determination of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the main issues in both cases are. To paraphrase Tayag, the declaration of filiation is entirely appropriate to these proceedings. On the second issue, petitioner posits that DNA is not recognized by this Court as a conclusive means of proving paternity. He also contends that compulsory testing violates his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. These contentions have no merit. Given that this is the very first time that the admissibility of DNA testing as a means for determining paternity has actually been the focal issue in a controversy, a brief historical sketch of our past decisions featuring or mentioning DNA testing is called for. In the 1995 case of People v. Teehankee[21] where the appellant was convicted of murder on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, we stated as an obiter dictum that while eyewitness identification is significant, it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence such as the fingerprint or the DNA test result (emphasis supplied). Our faith in DNA testing, however, was not quite so steadfast in the previous decade. In Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals,[22] promulgated in 1997, we cautioned against the use of DNA because DNA, being a relatively new science, (had) not as yet been accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity (would) still have to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father. In 2001, however, we opened the possibility of admitting DNA as evidence of parentage, as enunciated in Tijing v. Court of Appeals:[23] A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. The first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence came in 2002 with our en banc decision in People v. Vallejo[24] where the rape and murder victims DNA samples from the bloodstained cl othes of the accused were admitted in evidence. We reasoned that the purpose of DNA testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exist(ed) between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected (were) subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. A year later, in People v. Janson,[25] we acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of evidence because doubts persis t(ed) in our mind as to who (were) the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense (had) been perpetrated but who (were) the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or other scientific evidence to still our doubts! In 2004, in Tecson, et al. v. COMELEC[26] where the Court en banc was faced with the issue of filiation of then presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr., we stated: In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, this Court has acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v. Yatar,[27] we affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide, the principal evidence for which included DNA test results. We did a lengthy discussion of DNA, the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissibility in the context of our own Rules of Evidence:

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A persons DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a persons lifetime; the DNA in a person s blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins. xxx xxx xxx

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungrias testimony, it was determined that the gene type and DNA profile of app ellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of examination. The blood sample taken from the appellant showed that he was of the following gene types: vWA 15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP29/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken from the victims vaginal canal. Verily, a DNA match exists between the semen found in the victim and the blood sample given by the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. Admittedly, we are just beginning to integrate these advances in science and technology in the Philippine criminal justice system, so we must be cautious as we traverse these relatively uncharted waters. Fortunately, we can benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that has developed in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the prevailing doctrine in the U.S. has proven instructive. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow (509 U.S. 579 (1993); 125 L. Ed. 2d 469) it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure. Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology. Significantly, we upheld the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and the admissibility of the results thereof as evidence. In that case, DNA samples from semen recovered from a rape victims vagina were used to positively identify the accused Joel Kawit Yatar as the rapist. Yatar claimed that the compulsory extraction of his blood sample for DNA testing, as well as the testing itself, violated his right against self-incrimination, as embodied in both Sections 12 and 17 of Article III of the Constitution. We addressed this as follows: The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, we have expressly excluded several kinds of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of self-incrimination. These include photographs,[28] hair,[29] and other bodily substances.[30] We have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery,[31] expulsion of morphine from ones mouth[32] and the tracing of ones foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints.[33] In Jimenez v. Caizares,[34] we even authorized the examination of a womans genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, per our ruling in Yatar,[35] are now similarly acceptable. Nor does petitioners invocation of his right to privacy persuade us. In Ople v. Torres,[36] where we struck down the proposed national computerized identification system embodied in Administrative Order No. 308, we said: In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good... Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance public service and the common good. Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches and seizures,[37] and the infringement of privacy of communication[38] where the constitutional right to privacy has been critically at issue. Petitioners case involves neither and, as already stated, his argument that his right against self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water. His hollow invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no sympathy here for the simple reason that they are not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case, an accused whose very life is at stake can be compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no reason why, in this civil case, petitioner herein who does not face such dire consequences cannot be ordered to do the same. DNA paternity testing first came to prominence in the United States, where it yielded its first official results sometime in 1985. In the decade that followed, DNA rapidly found widespread general acceptance.[39] Several cases decided by various State Supreme Courts reflect the total assimilation of DNA testing into their rules of procedure and evidence. The case of Wilson v. Lumb[40] shows that DNA testing is so commonly accepted that, in some instances, ordering the procedure has become a ministerial act. The Supreme Court of St. Lawrence County, New York allowed a party who had already acknowledged paternity to subsequently challenge his prior acknowledgment. The Court pointed out that, under the law, specifically Section 516 of the New York Family Court Act, the Family Court examiner had the duty, upon receipt of the challenge, to order DNA tests:[41] 516-a. Acknowledgment of paternity. (a) An acknowledgment of paternity executed pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law shall establish the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to this act. Such acknowledgment must be reduced to writing and filed pursuant to section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law with the registrar of the district in which the birth occurred and in which the birth certificate has been filed. No further judicial or administrative proceedings are required to ratify an unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity. (b) An acknowledgment of paternity executed pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law may be rescinded by either signators filing of a petitio n with the court to vacate the acknowledgment within the earlier of sixty days of the date of signing the acknowledgment or the date of an administrative or a judicial proceeding (including a proceeding to establish a support order) relating to the child in which either signator is a party. For purposes of this section, the "date of an administrative or a judicial proceeding" shall be the date by which the respondent is required to answer the petition. After the expiration of sixty days of the execution of the acknowledgment, either signator may challenge the acknowledgment of paternity in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof on the party challenging the voluntary acknowledgment. Upon receiving a p artys challenge to an acknowledgment, the court shall order genetic marker tests or DNA tests for the determination of the childs paternity and sh all

make a finding of paternity, if appropriate, in accordance with this article. Neither signators legal obligations, including the obligation for child support arising from the acknowledgment, may be suspended during the challenge to the acknowledgment except for good cause as the court may find. If a party petitions to rescind an acknowledgment and if the court determines that the alleged father is not the father of the child, or if the court finds that an acknowledgment is invalid because it was executed on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, the court shall vacate the acknowledgment of paternity and shall immediately provide a copy of the order to the registrar of the district in which the childs birth certificate is filed and also to the putative father registry operated by the department of social services pursuant to section three hundred seventy-two-c of the social services law. In addition, if the mother of the child who is the subject of the acknowledgment is in receipt of child support services pursuant to title six-A of article three of the social services law, the court shall immediately provide a copy of the order to the child support enforcement unit of the social services district that provides the mother with such services. (c) A determination of paternity made by any other state, whether established through the parents acknowledgment of paternity or through an administrative or judicial process, must be accorded full faith and credit, if and only if such acknowledgment meets the requirements set forth in section 452(a)(7) of the social security act. (emphasis supplied) DNA testing also appears elsewhere in the New York Family Court Act:[42] 532. Genetic marker and DNA tests; admissibility of records or reports of test results; costs of tests. a) The court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic marker tests or DNA tests and, on the courts own motion or the motion of any party, shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests of a type generally acknowledged as reliable by an accreditation body designated by the secretary of the federal department of health and human services and performed by a laboratory approved by such an accreditation body and by the commissioner of health or by a duly qualified physician to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No such test shall be ordered, however, upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman. The record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section or pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law shall be received in evidence by the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of rule forty-five hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules where no timely objection in writing has been made thereto and that if such timely objections are not made, they shall be deemed waived and shall not be heard by the court. If the record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test or tests indicate at least a ninety-five percent probability of paternity, the admission of such record or report shall create a rebuttable presumption of paternity, and shall establish, if unrebutted, the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to this article and article four of this act.

(b) Whenever the court directs a genetic marker or DNA test pursuant to this section, a report made as provided in subdivision (a) of this section may be received in evidence pursuant to rule forty-five hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules if offered by any party. (c) The cost of any test ordered pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section shall be, in the first instance, paid by the moving party. If the moving party is financially unable to pay such cost, the court may direct any qualified public health officer to conduct such test, if practicable; otherwise, the court may direct payment from the funds of the appropriate local social services district. In its order of disposition, however, the court may direct that the cost of any such test be apportioned between the parties according to their respective abilities to pay or be assessed against the party who does not prevail on the issue of paternity, unless such party is financially unable to pay. (emphasis supplied) In R.E. v. C.E.W.,[43] a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court, DNA tests were used to prove that H.W., previously thought to be an offspring of the marriage between A.C.W. and C.E.W., was actually the child of R.E. with whom C.E.W. had, at the time of conception, maintained an adulterous relationship. In Erie County Department of Social Services on behalf of Tiffany M.H. v. Greg G.,[44] the 4th Department of the New York Supreme Courts Appellate Division allowed G.G., who had been adjudicated as T.M.H.s father by default, to have the said judgment vacated, even after six years, once he had shown through a genetic marker test that he was not the childs father. In this case, G.G. only requested the tests after the Department of Social Services, six years after G.G. had been adjudicated as T.M .H.s father, sought an increase in his support obligation to her. In Greco v. Coleman,[45] the Michigan Supreme Court while ruling on the constitutionality of a provision of law allowing nonmodifiable support agreements pointed out that it was because of the difficulty of determining paternity before the advent of DNA testing that such support agreements were necessary: As a result of DNA testing, the accuracy with which paternity can be proven has increased significantly since the parties in this lawsuit entered into their support agreement(current testi ng methods can determine the probability of paternity to 99.999999% accuracy). However, at the time the parties before us entered into the disputed agreement, proving paternity was a very significant obstacle to an illegitimate child's access to child support. The first reported results of modern DNA paternity testing did not occur until 1985. ("In fact, since its first reported results in 1985, DNA matching has progressed to 'general acceptance in less than a decade'"). Of course, while prior blood-testing methods could exclude some males from being the possible father of a child, those methods could not affirmatively pinpoint a particular male as being the father. Thus, when the settlement agreement between the present parties was entered in 1980, establishing paternity was a far more difficult ordeal than at present. Contested paternity actions at that time were often no more than credibility contests. Consequently, in every contested paternity action, obtaining child support depended not merely on whether the putative father was, in fact, the child's biological father, but rather on whether the mother could prove to a court of law that she was only sexually involved with one man--the putative father. Allowing parties the option of entering into private agreements in lieu of proving paternity eliminated the risk that the mother would be unable meet her burden of proof. It is worth noting that amendments to Michigans Paternity law have included the use of DNA testing:[46] 722.716 Pretrial proceedings; blood or tissue typing determinations as to mother, child, and alleged father; court order; refusal to submit to typing or identification profiling; qualifications of person conducting typing or identification profiling; compensation of expert; result of typing or identification profiling; filing summary report; objection; admissibility; presumption; burden of proof; summary disposition. Sec. 6. (1) In a proceeding under this act before trial, the court, upon application made by or on behalf of either party, or on its own motion, shall order that the mother, child, and alleged father submit to blood or tissue typing determinations, which may include, but are not limited to, determinations of red cell antigens, red cell isoenzymes, human leukocyte antigens, serum proteins, or DNA identification profiling, to determine whether the alleged father is likely to be, or is not, the father of the child. If the court orders a blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling to be conducted and a party refuses to submit to the typing or DNA identification profiling, in addition to any other remedies available, the court may do either of the following: (a) Enter a default judgment at the request of the appropriate party.

(b) If a trial is held, allow the disclosure of the fact of the refusal unless good cause is shown for not disclosing the fact of refusal. (2) A blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling shall be conducted by a person accredited for paternity determinations by a nationally recognized scientific organization, including, but not limited to, the American association of blood banks.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(5) If the probability of paternity determined by the qualified person described in subsection (2) conducting the blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling is 99% or higher, and the DNA identification profile and summary report are admissible as provided in subsection (4), paternity is presumed. If the results of the analysis of genetic testing material from 2 or more persons indicate a probability of paternity greater than 99%, the contracting laboratory shall conduct additional genetic paternity testing until all but 1 of the putative fathers is eliminated, unless the dispute involves 2 or more putative fathers who have identical DNA. (6) Upon the establishment of the presumption of paternity as provided in subsection (5), either party may move for summary disposition under the court rules. this section does not abrogate the right of either party to child support from the date of birth of the child if applicable under section 7. (emphasis supplied) In Rafferty v. Perkins,[47] the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that DNA test results showing paternity were sufficient to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the course of a marriage: The presumption of legitimacy having been rebutted by the results of the blood test eliminating Perkins as Justin's father, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Perkins, we find that no reasonable jury could find that Easter is not Justin's father based upon the 99.94% probability of paternity concluded by the DNA testing. In S.J.F. and J.C.F. v. R.C.W.,[48] the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld an order for genetic testing given by the Court of Appeals, even after trial on the merits had concluded without such order being given. Significantly, when J.C.F., the mother, first filed the case for paternity and support with the District Court, neither party requested genetic testing. It was only upon appeal from dismissal of the case that the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the testing, which the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld. The case of Kohl v. Amundson,[49] decided by the Supreme Court of South Dakota, demonstrated that even default judgments of paternity could be vacated after the adjudicated father had, through DNA testing, established non-paternity. In this case, Kohl, having excluded himself as the father of Amundsons child through DNA testing, was able to have the defaul t judgment against him vacated. He then obtained a ruling ordering Amundson to reimburse him for the amounts withheld from his wages for child support. The Court said (w)hile Amundson may have a remedy against the father of the child, she submit(ted) no authority that require(d) Kohl to support her child. Contrary to Amundson's position, the fact that a default judgment was entered, but subsequently vacated, (did) not foreclose Kohl from obtaining a money judgment for the amount withheld from his wages. In M.A.S. v. Mississippi Dept. of Human Services,[50] another case decided by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, it was held that even if paternity was established through an earlier agreed order of filiation, child support and visitation orders could still be vacated once DNA testing established someone other than the named individual to be the biological father. The Mississippi High Court reiterated this doctrine in Williams v. Williams.[51] The foregoing considered, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court which both denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for DNA testing. Under Ru le 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy of certiorari is only available when any tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[52] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. the Court of Appeals[53] where we dismissed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, we discussed at length the nature of such a petition and just what was meant by grave abuse of discretion: Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison detre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive i t of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decisionthe same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. (emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the petitioner has in no way shown any arbitrariness, passion, prejudice or personal hostility that would amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The respondent court acted entirely within its jurisdiction in promulgating its decision and resolution, and any error made would have only been an error in judgment. As we have discussed, however, the decision of the respondent court, being firmly anchored in law and jurisprudence, was correct. Epilogue For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals decision dated January 28, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80961 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 124814. October 21, 2004]

CAMELO CABATANIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMELO REGODOS, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 15, 1996 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 36708 which in turn affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60 in Spec. Proc. No. 88-C which compelled petitioner Camelo Cabatania to acknowledge private respondent Camelo Regodos as his illegitimate son and to give support to the latter in the amount of P 500 per month. This controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son, private respondent Camelo Regodos. During the trial, Florencia testified that she was the mother of private respondent who was born on September 9, 1982 and that she was the one supporting the child. She recounted that after her husband left her in the early part of 1981, she went to Escalante, Negros Occidental to look for work and was eventually hired as petitioners household help. It was while working there as a maid that, on January 2, 1982, petitioner brought her to Bacolod City where they checked in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse. Petitioner promised to support her if she got pregnant. Florencia claimed she discovered she was carrying petitioners child 27 days after their sexual encounter. The sexual intercourse was repeated in March 1982 in San Carlos City. Later, on suspicion that Florencia was pregnant, petitioners wife sent her home. But petit ioner instead brought her to Singcang, Bacolod City where he rented a house for her. On September 9, 1982, assisted by a hilot in her aunts house in Tiglawigan, Cadiz City, she gave birth to her child, private respondent Camelo Regodos. Petitioner Camelo Cabatanias version was different. He testified that he was a sugar planter and a businessman. Sometime in December, 1981, he hired Florencia as a servant at home. During the course of her employment, she would often go home to her husband in the afternoon and return to work the following morning. This displeased petitioners wife, hence she was told to look for another job. In the meantime, Florencia asked permission from petitioner to go home and spend New Years Eve in Cadiz City. Petitioner met her on board the Ceres bus bound for San Carlos City and invited her to dinner. While they were eating, she confided that she was hard up and petitioner offered to lend her save money. Later, they spent the night in San Carlos City and had sexual intercourse. While doing it, he felt something jerking and when he asked her about it, she told him she was pregnant with the child of her husband. They went home the following day. In March 1982, Florencia, then already working in another household, went to petitioners house hoping to be re -employed as a servant there. Since petitioners wife was in need of one, she was re-hired. However petitioners wife noticed that her stomach was bulging and inquired about the father of the unborn child. She told petitioners wife that the baby was by her husband. Because of her condition, she was again told to go home and they did not see each other anymore. Petitioner was therefore surprised when summons was served on him by Florencias counsel. She was demanding support for priva te respondent Camelo Regodos. Petitioner refused, denying the alleged paternity. He insisted she was already pregnant when they had sex. He denied going to Bacolod City with her and checking in at the Visayan Motel. He vehemently denied having sex with her on January 2, 1982 and renting a house for her in Singcang, Bacolod City. After trial, the court a quo gave more probative weight to the testimony of Florencia despite its discovery that she misrepresented herself as a widow when, in reality, her husband was alive. Deciding in favor of private respondent, the trial court declared: The child was presented before the Court, and if the Court is to decide this case, based on the personal appearance of the child then there can never be a doubt that the plaintiff-minor is the child of the defendant with plaintiff-minors mother, Florencia Regodos.

xxx

xxx

xxx

In view of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the Court finds the evidence of the plaintiff in support of the claim to be meritorious; defendant admitted having a sexual intercourse with the plaintiffs mother, Florencia Regodos, but denied paternity to the child. The child was presented before the Court, and if the Court is to decide this case, based on the personal appearance of the child, then there can never be a doubt that the plaintiff-minor is the child of the defendant with plaintiff-minors mother, Florencia Regodos.*2+ On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC: The misrepresentation made by Florencia in the petition that she was a widow should not prejudice the right of petitioner-appellee. As held by the Supreme Court, even where a witness has been found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particulars, it is not required that the whole of her testimony be rejected (People vs. Bohol, 170 SCRA 585). It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts (People vs. Delas, 199 SCRA 574, 575). There is therefore no reason to disbelieve Florencia that her first intercourse with appellant occurred on January 2, 1982 and nine (9) months later or on September 9, 1982, she gave birth to appellee (TSN, Hearing of June 10, 1991 and Exhibit A). In the absence of arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence adduced before the trial court and there being no evidence that the latter had overlooked or mis appreciated, we find no cogent reason to disturb the trial courts findings. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.[3] Hence this petition which assigns the following errors: A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 283 OF THE CIVIL CODE ON THE COMPULSORY RECOGNITION AND AWARD OF SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT-APPELLEE CAMELO REGODOS; B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY RESPONDENT CAMELO REGODOS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.[4] Clearly, this petition calls for a review of the factual findings of the two lower courts. As a general rule, factual issues are not within the province of this Court. Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, become final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, goes

beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooks certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, justifies a different conclusion, and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. The Court is convinced that this case falls within one of the exceptions. The trial courts finding of a paternal relationship between petitioner and private respondent was based on the testimony of the childs mother and the personal appearance of the child. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation.[6] An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.[7] The applicable provisions of the law are Articles 172 and 175 of the Civil Code: 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. Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. xxx xxx xxx

Private respondent presented a copy of his birth and baptismal certificates, the preparation of which was without the knowledge or consent of petitioner. 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. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person. In the same vein, we have ruled that, while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child s paternity.*9+ Thus, certificates issued by the local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same.[10] Aside from Florencias self-serving testimony that petitioner rented a house for her in Singcang, Bacolod City, private respondent failed to present sufficient proof of voluntary recognition. We now proceed to the credibility of Florencias testimony. Both the trial court and the appellate court brushed aside the misrepresentation of Florencia in the petition for recognition that she was a widow. Both courts dismissed the lie as minor which did not affect the rest of her testimony. We disagree. The fact that Florencias husband is living and there is a valid subsisting marriage between them gives rise to the presumption that a child born within that marriage is legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, the extremely subjective test of physical resemblance or similarity of features will not suffice as evidence to prove paternity and filiation before the courts of law. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 36708 dated March 15, 1996, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60, in Spec. Proc. No. 88-C is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents petition for recognition and support is dismissed. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

ADOPTION

Adoption of Stephanie Garcia

Facts: Honorato B. Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Astorga Garcia. He averred that Stephanie was born on June 26, 1994; that Stephanie had been using her mothers middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanies middle name be changed to Garcia, her mothers surname, and that her surname Garcia be changed to Catindig his surname. The RTC granted the petition for adoption, and ordered that pursuant to article 189 of the Family Code, the minor shall be known as Stephanie Nathy Catindig. Honorato filed a motion for classification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother (Garcia) as her middle name. The lower court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration holding that there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of his biological mother as his middle name.

Issue: Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name when she is subsequently adopted by her natural father.

Held: One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adapter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code and Section 17 of Article V of RA 8557. Being a legitimate by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear the surname of her father and her mother. This is consistent with the intention of the members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees. In fact, it is a Filipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of the father.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIAHONORATO B. CATINDIG, Petitioner G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005Facts:On August 31, 2000,

Honorato B. Catindig, herein petitioner, filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He alleged therein, among others, that Stephanie was born on June 26, 1994; that her mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie has been using her mother's middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie's middle name Astorga be changed to 'Garcia, her mother's surname, and that her surname' Garcia be changed to ' Catindig, his surname. Finding the petition to be meritorious, the same is GRANTED. Henceforth, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia is hereby freed from all obligations of obedience and maintenance with respect to her natural mother, and for civil purposes, shall henceforth be the petitioner's legitimate child and legal heir. Pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the minor shall be known as STEPHANIE NATHY CATINDIG. On April 20, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother (GARCIA) as her middle name. Issue: Whether or not, an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name? Held: Notably, the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an adoptee may use. Article 10 of the New Civil Code provides that: In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is partly MODIFIED in the sense that Stephanie should be allowed to use her mother's surname 'GARCIA as her middle name. Let the corresponding entry of her correct and complete name be entered in the decree of adoption.

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 143989. July 14, 2003]

ISABELITA S. LAHOM, petitioner, vs. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to as DR. MELVIN S. LAHOM), respondent. DECISION VITUG, J.: The bliss of marriage and family would be to most less than complete without children. The realization could have likely prodded the spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom to take into their care Isabelitas nephew Jose Melvin Sibulo and to bring him up as their own. At the tender age of two, Jose Melvin enjoyed the warmth, love and support of the couple who treated the child like their own. Indeed, for years, Dr. and Mrs. Lahom fancied on legally adopting Jose Melvin. Finally, in 1971, the couple decided to file a petition for adoption. On 05 May 1972, an order granting the petition was issued that made all the more intense than before the feeling of affection of the spouses for Melvin. In keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin Lahom. A sad turn of events came many years later. Eventually, in December of 1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City. In her petition, she averred 7. That x x x despite the proddings and pleadings of said spouses, respondent refused to change his surname from Sibulo to Lahom, to the frustrations of petitioner particularly her husband until the latter died, and even before his death he had made known his desire to revoke respondents adoption, but was prevented by petitioners supplication, however with his further request upon petitioner to give to charity whatever properties or interest may pertain to respondent in the future. x x x xxx xxx

10. That respondent continued using his surname Sibulo to the utte r disregard of the feelings of herein petitioner, and his records with the Professional Regulation Commission showed his name as Jose Melvin M. Sibulo originally issued in 1978 until the present, and in all his dealings and activities in connection with his practice of his profession, he is Jose Melvin M. Sibulo. x x x xxx xxx

13. That herein petitioner being a widow, and living alone in this city with only her household helps to attend to her, has yearned for the care and show of concern from a son, but respondent remained indifferent and would only come to Naga to see her once a year. 14. That for the last three or four years, the medical check-up of petitioner in Manila became more frequent in view of a leg ailment, and those were the times when petitioner would need most the care and support from a love one, but respondent all the more remained callous and utterly indifferent towards petitioner which is not expected of a son. 15. That herein respondent has recently been jealous of petitioners nephews and nieces whenever they would find time to visit her, respondent alleging that they were only motivated by their desire for some material benefits from petitioner. 16. That in view of respondents insensible attitude resulting in a strained and uncomfortable relationship between him an d petitioner, the latter has suffered wounded feelings, knowing that after a ll respondents only motive to his adoption is his expectancy of his alleged rights over the properties of herein petitioner and her late husband, clearly shown by his recent filing of Civil Case No. 99-4463 for partition against petitioner, thereby totally eroding her love and affection towards respondent, rendering the decree of adoption, considering respondent to be the child of petitioner, for all legal purposes, has been negated for which reason there is no more basis for its existence, hence this petition for revocation.*1+ Prior to the institution of the case, specifically on 22 March 1998, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552, also known as the Domestic Adoption Act, went into effect. The new statute deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption. Section 19 of Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 now reads: SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. Upon petition of the adoptee, with the assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but is incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the following grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations. Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). However, the adopt er(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code. (emphasis supplied) Jose Melvin moved for the dismissal of the petition, contending principally (a) that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case and (b) that the petitioner had no cause of action in view of the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 8552. Petitioner asseverated, by way of opposition, that the proscription in R.A. No. 8552 should not retroactively apply, i.e., to cases where the ground for rescission of the adoption vested under the regime of then Article 348[2] of the Civil Code and Article 192[3] of the Family Code. In an order, dated 28 April 2000, the trial court held thusly: On the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 8369 confers jurisdiction to this Court, having been designated Family Court in A.M. No. 99-11-07 SC.

On the matter of no cause of action, the test on the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the Court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of said complaint (De Jesus, et al. vs. Belarmino, et al., 95 Phil. 365). Admittedly, Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 deleted the right of an adopter to rescind an adoption earlier g ranted under the Family Code. Conformably, on the face of the petition, indeed there is lack of cause of action. Petitioner however, insists that her right to rescind long acquired under the provisions of the Family Code should be respected. Assuming for the sake of argument, that petitioner is entitled to rescind the adoption of respondent granted on May 5, 1972, said right should have been exercised within the period allowed by the Rules. From the averments in the petition, it appears clear that the legal grounds for the petition have been discovered and known to petitioner for more than five (5) years, prior to the filing of the instant petition on December 1, 1999, hence, the action if any, had already prescribed. (Sec. 5, Rule 100 Revised Rules of Court) WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the petition is ordered dismissed.*4+ Via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, petitioner raises the following questions; viz: 1. May the subject adoption, decreed on 05 May 1972, still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552? 2. In the affirmative, has the adopters action prescribed? A brief background on the law and its origins could provide some insights on the subject. In ancient times, the Romans undertook adoption to assure male heirs in the family.*5+ The continuity of the adopters family was the primary purpose of adoption and all matters relating to it basically focused on the rights of the adopter. There was hardly any mention about the rights of the adopted.[6] Countries, like Greece, France, Spain and England, in an effort to preserve inheritance within the family, neither allowed nor recognized adoption.[7] It was only much later when adoption was given an impetus in law and still later when the welfare of the child became a paramount concern.[8] Spain itself which previously disfavored adoption ultimately relented and accepted the Roman law concept of adoption which, subsequently, was to find its way to the archipelago. The Americans came and introduced their own ideas on adoption which, unlike most countries in Europe, made the interests of the child an overriding consideration.[9] In the early part of the century just passed, the rights of children invited universal attention; the Geneva Declaration of Rights of the Child of 1924 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,[10] followed by the United Nations Declarations of the Rights of the Child,[11] were written instruments that would also protect and safeguard the rights of adopted children. The Civil Code of the Philippines[12] of 1950 on adoption, later modified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code[13] and then by the Family Code of the Philippines,[14] gave immediate statutory acknowledgment to the rights of the adopted. In 1989, the United Nations initiated the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The Philippines, a State Party to the Convention, accepted the principle that adoption was impressed with social and moral responsibility, and that its underlying intent was geared to favor the adopted child. R.A. No. 8552 secured these rights and privileges for the adopted. Most importantly, it affirmed the legitimate status of the adopted child, not only in his new family but also in the society as well. The new law withdrew the right of an adopter to rescind the adoption decree and gave to the adopted child the sole right to sever the legal ties created by adoption. Petitioner, however, would insist that R.A. No. 8552 should not adversely affect her right to annul the adoption decree, nor deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to hear the case, both being vested under the Civil Code and the Family Code, the laws then in force. The concept of vested right is a consequence of the c onstitutional guaranty of due process[15] that expresses a present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action;[16] it includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the right has become vested.[17] Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present interest,[18] absolute, unconditional, and perfect[19] or fixed and irrefutable. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals,[20] a petition to adopt Jason Condat was filed by Zenaida C. Bobiles on 02 February 1988 when the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603) allowed an adoption to be sought by either spouse or both of them. After the trial court had rendered its decision and while the case was still pending on appeal, the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), mandating joint adoption by the husband and wife, took effect. Petitioner Republic argued that the case should be dismissed for having been filed by Mrs. Bobiles alone and without being joined by the husband. The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. The petition to adopt Jason, having been filed with the court at the time when P.D. No. 603 was still in effect, the right of Mrs. Bobiles to file the petition, without being joined by her husband, according to the Court had become vested. In Republic vs. Miller,[21] spouses Claude and Jumrus Miller, both aliens, sought to adopt Michael Madayag. On 29 July 1988, the couple filed a petition to formalize Michaels adoption having theretofore been taken into their care. At the time the actio n was commenced, P.D. No. 603 allowed aliens to adopt. After the decree of adoption and while on appeal before the Court of Appeals, the Family Code was enacted into law on 08 August 1988 disqualifying aliens from adopting Filipino children. The Republic then prayed for the withdrawal of the adoption decree. In discarding the argument posed by the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the controversy should be resolved in the light of the law governing at the time the petition was filed. It was months after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 that herein petitioner filed an action to revoke the decree of adoption granted in 1975. By then, the new law,[22] had already abrogated and repealed the right of an adopter under the Civil Code and the Family Code to rescind a decree of adoption. Consistently with its earlier pronouncements, the Court should now hold that the action for rescission of the adoption decree, having been initiated by petitioner after R.A. No. 8552 had come into force, no longer could be pursued. Interestingly, even before the passage of the statute, an action to set aside the adoption is subject to the five year bar rule under Rule 100[23] of the Rules of Court and that the adopter would lose the right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that period. The exercise of the right within a prescriptive period is a condition that could not fulfill the requirements of a vested right entitled to protection. It must also be acknowledged that a person has no vested right in statutory privileges.[24] While adoption has often been referred to in the context of a right, the privilege to adopt is itself not naturally

innate or fundamental but rather a right merely created by statute.*25+ It is a privilege that is governed by the states determination on what it may deem to be for the best interest and welfare of the child.[26] Matters relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of an adopter to nullify the adoption decree, are subject to regulation by the State.[27] Concomitantly, a right of action given by statute may be taken away at anytime before it has been exercised.[28] While R.A. No. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a consequential right to rescind the adoption decree even in cases where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable, it remains, nevertheless, the bounden duty of the Court to apply the law. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed truism that those caught in the law have to live with. It is still noteworthy, however, that an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. For instance, upon the grounds recognized by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime and, by a will and testament, may freely exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate. WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

SUPPORT
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 125041 June 30, 2006

MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, for and in behalf of her minor children REBECCA ANGELA DELGADO and REGINA ISABEL DELGADO. Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge, RTC-Makati, Branch 149, FEDERICO C. DELGADO and FRANCISCO C. DELGADO, Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 20 March 1996, affirming the Order, dated 12 September 19952 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 149, Makati, granting support pendente lite to Rebecca Angela (Rica) and Regina Isabel (Rina), both surnamed Delgado. The generative facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows: On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then minor children Rica and Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with application for support pendente lite with the RTC Makati.3 In said petition, it was alleged that on 16 February 1975, petitioner and respondent Federico Delgado were civilly married by then City Court Judge Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi City, Albay. At that time, petitioner was only 21 years old while respondent Federico was only 19 years old. As the marriage was solemnized without the required consent per Article 85 of the New Civil Code,4 it was annulled on 11 August 1975 by the Quezon City Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.5 On 25 March 1976, or within seven months after the annulment of their marriage, petitioner gave birth to twins Rica and Rina. According to petitioner, she, with the assistance of her second husband Danny Mangonon, raised her twin daughters as private respondents had totally abandoned them. At the time of the institution of the petition, Rica and Rina were about to enter college in the United States of America (USA) where petitioner, together with her daughters and second husband, had moved to and finally settled in. Rica was admitted to the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) while Rina was accepted by the Long Island University and Western New England College. Despite their admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina were, however, financially incapable of pursuing collegiate education because of the following: i) The average annual cost for college education in the US is about US$22,000/year, broken down as follows: Tuition Fees US$13,000.00 Room & Board 5,000.00 Books 1,000.00 Yearly Transportation & Meal Allowance 3,000.00 Total US$ 22,000.00 or a total of US$44,000.00, more or less, for both Rica and Rina ii) Additionally, Rica and Rina need general maintenance support each in the amount of US$3,000.00 per year or a total of US$6,000 per year. iii) Unfortunately, petitioners monthly income from her 2 jobs is merely US$1,200 after taxes which she can hardly give general support to Rica and Rina, much less their required college educational support. iv) Neither can petitioners present husband be compelled to share in the general support and college education of Rica and Rina since he has his own son with petitioner and own daughter (also in college) to attend to. v) Worse, Rica and Rinas petitions for Federal Student Aid have been rejected by the U.S. Department of Education.6 Petitioner likewise averred that demands7 were made upon Federico and the latters father, Francisco,8 for general support and for the payment of the required college education of Rica and Rina. The twin sisters even exerted efforts to work out a settlement concerning these matters with respondent Federico and respondent Francisco, the latter being generally known to be financially well-off.9 These demands, however, remained unheeded. Considering the impending deadline for admission to college and the opening of classes, petitioner and her then minor children had no choice but to file the petition before the trial court. Petitioner also alleged that Rica and Rina are her legitimate daughters by respondent Federico since the twin sisters were born within seven months from the date of the annulment of her marriage to respondent Federico. However, as respondent Federico failed to sign the birth certificates of Rica and Rina, it was imperative that their status as legitimate children of respondent Federico, and as granddaughters of respondent Francisco, be judicially declared pursuant to Article 173 of the Family Code.10 As legitimate children and grandchildren, Rica and Rina are entitled to general and educational support under Articles 17411 and 195(b)12 in relation to Articles 194(1 and 2)13 and 199(c)14 of the Family Code. Petitioner alleged that under these provisions, in case of default on the part of the parents, the obligation to provide support falls upon the grandparents of the children; thus, respondent Federico, or in his default, respondent Francisco should be ordered to provide general and educational support for Rica and Rina in the amount of US$50,000.00, more or less, per year. Petitioner also claimed that she was constrained to seek support pendente lite from private respondents - who are millionaires with extensive assets both here and abroad - in view of the imminent opening of classes, the possibility of a protracted litigation, and Rica and Rinas lack of financial means to pursue their college education in the USA. In his Answer,15 respondent Francisco stated that as the birth certificates of Rica and Rina do not bear the signature of respondent Federico, it is essential that their legitimacy be first established as "there is no basis to claim support until a final and executory judicial declaration has been made as to the civil status of the children."16 Whatever good deeds he may have done to Rica and Rina, according to respondent

Francisco, was founded on pure acts of Christian charity. He, likewise, averred that the order of liability for support under Article 199 of the Family Code is not concurrent such that the obligation must be borne by those more closely related to the recipient. In this case, he maintained that responsibility should rest on the shoulders of petitioner and her second husband, the latter having voluntarily assumed the duties and responsibilities of a natural father. Even assuming that he is responsible for support, respondent Francisco contends that he could not be made to answer beyond what petitioner and the father could afford. On 24 May 1994, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant (respondent herein) Federico in Default.17 This was favorably acted upon by the trial court in the Order dated 16 June 1994.18 On 5 August 1994, respondent Federico filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default alleging that the summons and a copy of the petition were not served in his correct address.19 Attached thereto was his Answer20 where he claimed that petitioner had no cause of action against him. According to him, he left for abroad and stayed there for a long time "[w]ithin the first one hundred twenty (120) days of the three hundred days immediately preceding March 25, 1976" and that he only came to know about the birth of Rica and Rina when the twins introduced themselves to him seventeen years later. In order not to antagonize the two, respondent Federico claimed he did not tell them that he could not be their father. Even assuming that Rica and Rina are, indeed, his daughters, he alleged that he could not give them the support they were demanding as he was only making P40,000.00 a month. Finding sufficient ground in the motion filed by respondent Federico, the trial court lifted its Order dated 16 June 1994 and admitted his Answer.21 In the meantime, on 25 April 1994, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Set Application for Support Pendente Lite for Hearing because Rica and Rina both badly needed immediate financial resources for their education.22 This Motion was opposed by respondent Francisco.23 After both parties submitted supplemental pleadings to bolster their respective positions, the trial court resolved the motion in an Order dated 12 September 1995 in this wise: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, respondents are hereby directed to provide a monthly support (pendente lite) of P5,000.00 each or a total of P10,000.00 for the education of Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel Delgado to be delivered within the first five days of each month without need of demand.24 Unsatisfied with the Order of the trial court, petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals via Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the trial court and disposed the petition in the following manner: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED and the Order of the lower court dated September 12, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.25 Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied through the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 16 May 1996.26 Petitioner is now before this Court claiming that the Decision of the Court of Appeals was tainted with the following errors: RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE GRANTED TO PETITIONERS CHILDREN AT A MEASLEY P5,000.00 PER CHILD. I. RESPONDENT COURT IGNORED EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF THE FINANCIAL INCAPACITY OF RICA AND RINAS PARENTS IN DEFAULT OF WHOM THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE SUPPORT DEVOLVES ON THE GRANDFATHER. II. IT BEING ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERSON OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT GRANDFATHER DON PACO IS UNDOUBTEDLY CAPABLE OF GIVING THE AMOUNT DEMANDED, RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FIXING AN AMOUNT OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RECIPIENTS.27 At the time of the filing of the present Petition, it is alleged that Rica had already entered Rutgers University in New Jersey with a budget of US$12,500.00 for academic year 1994-1995. She was able to obtain a tuition fee grant of US$1,190.00 and a Federal Stafford loan from the US government in the amount of US$2,615.00.28 In order to defray the remaining balance of Ricas education for said school year, petitioner claims that she had to secure a loan under the Federal Direct Student Loan Program. Meanwhile, Rina entered CW Post, Long Island University, where she was expected to spend US$20,000.00 for the school year 1994-1995. She was given a financial grant of US$6,000.00, federal work study assistance of US$2,000.00, and a Federal Stafford loan of US$2,625.00.29 Again, petitioner obtained a loan to cover the remainder of Rinas school budget for the year. Petitioner concedes that under the law, the obligation to furnish support to Rica and Rina should be first imposed upon their parents. She contends, however, that the records of this case demonstrate her as well as respondent Federicos inability to give the support needed f or Rica and Rinas college education. Consequently, the obligation to provide support devolves upon respondent Francisco being the grandfather of Rica and Rina. Petitioner also maintains that as respondent Francisco has the financial resources to help defray the cost of Rica and Rinas schooling, the Court of Appeals then erred in sustaining the trial courts Order directing respondent Federico to pay Rica and Rina the amount of award P5,000.00 each as monthly support pendente lite. On the other hand, respondent Francisco argues that the trial court correctly declared that petitioner and respondent Federico should be the ones to provide the support needed by their twin daughters pursuant to Article 199 of the Family Code. He also maintains that aside from the financial package availed of by Rica and Rina in the form of state tuition aid grant, work study program and federal student loan program, petitioner herself was eligible for, and had availed herself of, the federal parent loan program based on her income and properties in the USA. He, likewise, insists that assuming he could be held liable for support, he has the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the support or receiving and maintaining in the dwelling here in the Philippines the person claiming support.30 As an additional point to be considered by this Court, he posits the argument that because petitioner and her twin daughters are now US citizens, they cannot invoke the Family Code provisions on support as "[l]aws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad."31 Respondent Federico, for his part, continues to deny having sired Rica and Rina by reiterating the grounds he had previously raised before the trial court. Like his father, respondent Federico argues that assuming he is indeed the father of the twin sisters, he has the option under the law as to how he would provide support. Lastly, he assents with the declaration of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the parents of a child should primarily bear the burden of providing support to their offspring. The petition is meritorious.

As a preliminary matter, we deem it necessary to briefly discuss the essence of support pendente lite. The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides: Rule 61 SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE SECTION 1. Application.- At the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior to the judgment or final order, a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by any party stating the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, and accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support thereof. xxxx SEC. 4. Order.- The court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render such orders as justice and equity may require, having due regard to the probable outcome of the case and such other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution of the question involved. If the application is granted, the court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally paid or such other forms of support as should be provided, taking into account the necessities of the applicant and the resources or means of the adverse party, and the terms of payment or mode for providing the support. If the application is denied, the principal case shall be tried and decided as early as possible. Under this provision, a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final order. Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record.32lavvphi1.net After the hearings conducted on this matter as well as the evidence presented, we find that petitioner was able to establish, by prima facie proof, the filiation of her twin daughters to private respondents and the twins entitlement to support pendente lite. In the words of the trial court By and large, the status of the twins as children of Federico cannot be denied. They had maintained constant communication with their grandfather Francisco. As a matter of fact, respondent Francisco admitted having wrote several letters to Rica and Rina (Exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, G-1 to G-30). In the said letters, particularly at the bottom thereof, respondent Francisco wrote the names of Rica and Rina Delgado. He therefore was very well aware that they bear the surname Delgado. Likewise, he referred to himself in his letters as either "Lolo Paco" or "Daddy Paco." In his letter of October 13, 1989 (Exh. G-21), he said "as the grandfather, am extending a financial help of US$1,000.00." On top of this, respondent Federico even gave the twins a treat to Hongkong during their visit to the Philippines. Indeed, respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt that the twins are the children of Federico.33 Having addressed the issue of the propriety of the trial courts grant of support pendente lite in favor of Ri ca and Rina, the next question is who should be made liable for said award. The pertinent provision of the Family Code on this subject states: ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided: (1) The spouse; (2) The descendants in the nearest degree; (3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and (4) The brothers and sisters. An eminent author on the subject explains that the obligation to give support rests principally on those more closely related to the recipient. However, the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so.34 In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held respondent Federico liable to provide monthly support pendente lite in the total amount of P10,000.00 by taking into consideration his supposed income of P30,000.00 to P40,000.00 per month. We are, however, unconvinced as to the veracity of this ground relied upon by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It is a basic procedural edict that questions of fact cannot be the proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule finds a more stringent application where the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the trial court; in such a situation, this Court, as the final arbiter, is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the appellate and the lower courts. This rule, however, is not ironclad as it admits of the following recognized exceptions: "(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not dis puted by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion."35 The case at bar falls within the seventh and eleventh exceptions. The trial court gave full credence to respondent Federicos allegation in his Answer36 and his testimony37 as to the amount of his income. We have, however, reviewed the records of this case and found them bereft of evidence to support his assertions regarding his employment and his earning. Notably, he was even required by petitioners counsel to present to the court his income tax return and yet the records of this case do not bear a copy of said document.38 This, to our mind, severely undermines the truthfulness of respondent Federicos asser tion with respect to his financial status and capacity to provide support to Rica and Rina. In addition, respondent Francisco himself stated in the witness stand that as far as he knew, his son, respondent Federico did not own anything "Atty. Lopez: I have here another letter under the letter head of Mr. & Mrs. Dany Mangonon, dated October 19, 1991 addressed to Mr. Francisco Delgado signed by "sincerely, Danny Mangonon, can you remember." xxxx

WITNESS: A: I do remember this letter because it really irritated me so much that I threw it away in a waste basket. It is a very demanding letter, that is what I do not like at all. ATTY. LOPEZ: Q: It is stated in this letter that "I am making this request to you and not to your son, Rico, for reasons we both are aware of." Do you know what reason that is? A: Yes. The reason is that my son do not have fix employment and do not have fix salary and income and they want to depend on the lolo. x x x xlavvphi1.net Q: Would you have any knowledge if Federico owns a house and lot? A: Not that I know. I do not think he has anything. Q: How about a car? A: Well, his car is owned by my company.39 Respondent Federico himself admitted in court that he had no property of his own, thus: Q: You also mentioned that you are staying at Mayflower Building and you further earlier testified that this building belongs to Citadel Corporation. Do you confirm that? A: Yes, sir. Q: What car are you driving, Mr. Witness? A: I am driving a lancer, sir. Q: What car, that registered in the name of the corporation? A: In the corporation, sir. Q: What corporation is that? A: Citadel Commercial, Inc., sir. Q: What properties, if any, are registered in your name, do you have any properties, Mr. Witness? A: None, sir."40 (Emphasis supplied.) Meanwhile, respondent Francisco asserts that petitioner possessed the capacity to give support to her twin daughters as she has gainful employment in the USA. He even went as far as to state that petitioners income abroad, when converted to Philippine peso, wa s much higher than that received by a trial court judge here in the Philippines. In addition, he claims that as she qualified for the federal parent loan program, she could very well support the college studies of her daughters. We are unconvinced. Respondent Franciscos assertion that petitioner had the means to support her daughters education is bel ied by the fact that petitioner was even forced by her financial status in the USA to secure the loan from the federal government. If petitioner were really making enough money abroad, she certainly would not have felt the need to apply for said loan. The fact that petitioner was compelled to take out a loan is enough indication that she did not have enough money to enable her to send her daughters to college by herself. Moreover, even Rica and Rina themselves were forced by the circumstances they found themselves in to secure loans under their names so as not to delay their entrance to college. There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents of Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily charged to support their childrens college education. In view however of their incapacities, the obli gation to furnish said support should be borne by respondent Francisco. Under Article 199 of the Family Code, respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in default of their parents. It bears stressing that respondent Francisco is the majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citadel Commercial, Incorporated, which owns and manages twelve gasoline stations, substantial real estate, and is engaged in shipping, brokerage and freight forwarding. He is also the majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citadel Shipping which does business with Hyundai of Korea. Apart from these, he also owns the Citadel Corporation which, in turn, owns real properties in different parts of the country. He is likewise the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Isla Communication Co. and he owns shares of stocks of Citadel Holdings. In addition, he owns real properties here and abroad.41 It having been established that respondent Francisco has the financial means to support his granddaughters education, he, in lieu of petitioner and respondent Federico, should be held liable for support pendente lite. Anent respondent Francisco and Federicos claim that they have the option under the law as to h ow they could perform their obligation to support Rica and Rina, respondent Francisco insists that Rica and Rina should move here to the Philippines to study in any of the local universities. After all, the quality of education here, according to him, is at par with that offered in the USA. The applicable provision of the Family Code on this subject provides: Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. Under the abovecited provision, the obligor is given the choice as to how he could dispense his obligation to give support. Thus, he may give the determined amount of support to the claimant or he may allow the latter to stay in the family dwelling. The second option cannot be availed of in case there are circumstances, legal or moral, which should be considered. In this case, this Court believes that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of the second option. From the records, we gleaned that prior to the commencement of this action, the relationship between respondent Francisco, on one hand, and petitioner and her twin daughters, on the other, was indeed quite pleasant. The correspondences exchanged among them expressed profound feelings of thoughtfulness and concern for one anothers well-being. The photographs presented by petitioner as part of her exhibits presented a seemingly typical family celebrating kinship. All of these, however, are now things of the past. With the filing of this case, and the allegations hurled at one another by

the parties, the relationships among the parties had certainly been affected. Particularly difficult for Rica and Rina must be the fact that those who they had considered and claimed as family denied having any familial relationship with them. Given all these, we could not see Rica and Rina moving back here in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned them. Finally, as to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our bearings from the provision of the law mandating the amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient.42 Guided by this principle, we hold respondent Francisco liable for half of the amount of school expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente lite. As established by petitioner, respondent Francisco has the financial resources to pay this amount given his various business endeavors. Considering, however, that the twin sisters may have already been done with their education by the time of the promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to award support pendente lite in arrears43 to be computed from the time they entered college until they had finished their respective studies. The issue of the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil Code on petitioner and her twin daughters raised by respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the trial court. After all, in case it would be resolved that Rica and Rina are not entitled to support pendente lite, the court shall then order the return of the amounts already paid with legal interest from the dates of actual payment.44 WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 March 1996 and Resolution dated 16 May 1996 affirming the Order dated 12 September 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati, fixing the amount of support pendente lite to P5,000.00 for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, are hereby MODIFIED in that respondent Francisco Delgado is hereby held liable for support pendente lite in the amount to be determined by the trial court pursuant to this Decision. Let the records of this case be remanded to the trial court for the determination of the proper amount of support pendente lite for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel as well as the arrearages due them in accordance with this Decision within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Concomitantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the main case and the immediate resolution of the same with deliberate dispatch. The RTC Judge, Branch 149, Makati, is further directed to submit a report of his compliance with the directive regarding the support pendente lite within ten (10) days from compliance thereof. SO ORDERED. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: On Official Leave ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice Chairperson CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Acting Chairman MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Asscociate Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Acting Chairman, First Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Acting Chief Justice