Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Charles Gotardo, Petitioner v. Divina Buling, Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Guinto
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' (CA) ruling that ordered Charles Gotardo to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Griffie Buling. The CA set aside the trial court's (RTC) dismissal of the complaint filed by Divina Buling against Charles for compulsory recognition and support of their son. The Supreme Court found that Divina established through testimony that she had only been sexually involved with Charles at the time of conception. Charles did not deny having a sexual relationship with Divina but claimed it occurred later than she stated, making it physically impossible for her to be three months pregnant when he learned of it. However, Charles failed to substantiate his claims. Since paternity was established, support is

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Charles Gotardo, Petitioner v. Divina Buling, Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Guinto
    49 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' (CA) ruling that ordered Charles Gotardo to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Griffie Buling. The CA set aside the trial court's (RTC) dismissal of the complaint filed by Divina Buling against Charles for compulsory recognition and support of their son. The Supreme Court found that Divina established through testimony that she had only been sexually involved with Charles at the time of conception. Charles did not deny having a sexual relationship with Divina but claimed it occurred later than she stated, making it physically impossible for her to be three months pregnant when he learned of it. However, Charles failed to substantiate his claims. Since paternity was established, support is

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Gotardo v. Buling

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' (CA) ruling that ordered Charles Gotardo to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Griffie Buling. The CA set aside the trial court's (RTC) dismissal of the complaint filed by Divina Buling against Charles for compulsory recognition and support of their son. The Supreme Court found that Divina established through testimony that she had only been sexually involved with Charles at the time of conception. Charles did not deny having a sexual relationship with Divina but claimed it occurred later than she stated, making it physically impossible for her to be three months pregnant when he learned of it. However, Charles failed to substantiate his claims. Since paternity was established, support is

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Charles Gotardo, Petitioner v. Divina Buling, Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Guinto
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' (CA) ruling that ordered Charles Gotardo to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Griffie Buling. The CA set aside the trial court's (RTC) dismissal of the complaint filed by Divina Buling against Charles for compulsory recognition and support of their son. The Supreme Court found that Divina established through testimony that she had only been sexually involved with Charles at the time of conception. Charles did not deny having a sexual relationship with Divina but claimed it occurred later than she stated, making it physically impossible for her to be three months pregnant when he learned of it. However, Charles failed to substantiate his claims. Since paternity was established, support is

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Charles Gotardo, petitioner v. Divina Buling, respondent G.R. No.

    165166, August 15, 2012 Nature: Petition for review on certiorari questioning the CA decision ordering the etitioner to recogni!e and rovide "ega" su ort to his #inor son, G"iff!e $u"ing. Topic: %i"iation& 'u Facts: Char"es Gotardo and (ivina $u"ing )eca#e sweethearts in the "ast wee* of +anuar, 1--. and started inti#ate se/ua" re"ations so#eti#e in 'e te#)er 1--.. 0he se/ua" encounters occurred twice a #onth and )eca#e #ore frequent in +une 1--1. (ivina eventua"", got regnant which she found out on August 2, 1--1. 3hen to"d of the regnanc,, Char"es was ha , and #ade "ans to #arr, (ivina. 4owever, Char"es )ac*ed out of the wedding "ans. (ivina de#anded recognition and su ort of the chi"d )orn on 5arch -, 1--5. 3hen Char"es did not answer the de#and, (ivina fi"ed her co# "aint for co# u"sor, recognition and su ort endent "ite. Char"es denied the i# uted aternit,, c"ai#ing that he first had se/ua" contact with (ivina in the first wee* of August 1--1 and she cou"d not have )een regnant for 12 wee*s when he was infor#ed of the regnanc,. R0C dis#issed the co# "aint for insufficienc, of evidence roving G"iff!e6s fi"iation. 0he CA however, set aside the R0C decision and ordered the etitioner to recogni!e his #inor son. Issue: 3as CA correct in setting aside the R0C findings and ordered Char"es to recogni!e and rovide "ega" su ort to his #inor son7 Ruling: 3e do not find an, reversi)"e error in the CA6s ru"ing. 3e have recogni!ed that 89f:i"iation roceedings are usua"", fi"ed not ;ust to ad;udicate aternit, )ut a"so to secure a "ega" right associated with aternit,, such as citi!enshi , su ort <as in this case= or inheritance. 9>n aternit, cases, the )urden of roof: is on the erson who a""eges that the utative father is the )io"ogica" father of the chi"d.8 ?ne can rove fi"iation, either "egiti#ate or i""egiti#ate, through the record of )irth a earing in the civi" register or a fina" ;udg#ent, an ad#ission of fi"iation in a u)"ic docu#ent or a rivate handwritten instru#ent and signed ), the arent concerned, or the o en and continuous ossession of the status of a "egiti#ate or i""egiti#ate chi"d, or an, other #eans a""owed ), the Ru"es of Court and s ecia" "aws. 3e have he"d that such other roof of one@s fi"iation #a, )e a 8)a tis#a" certificate, a ;udicia" ad#ission, a fa#i", )i)"e in which 9his: na#e has )een entered, co##on re utation res ecting 9his: edigree, ad#ission ), si"ence, the 9testi#onies: of witnesses, and other *inds of roof 9ad#issi)"e: under Ru"e 1.0 of the Ru"es of Court. >n this case, the res ondent esta)"ished a prima facie case that the etitioner is the utative father of G"iff!e through testi#on, that she had )een se/ua"", invo"ved on", with one #an, the etitioner, at the ti#e of her conce tion. Rodu"fo corro)orated her testi#on, that the etitioner and the res ondent had inti#ate re"ationshi . 0he etitioner did not den, that he had se/ua" encounters with the res ondent, on", that it occurred on a #uch "ater date than the res ondent asserted, such that it was h,sica"", i# ossi)"e for the res ondent to have )een three <.= #onths regnant a"read, in 'e te#)er 1--1 when he was infor#ed of the regnanc,. 4owever, the etitioner fai"ed to su)stantiate his a""egations of infide"it, and insinuations of ro#iscuit,. 4is a""egations, therefore, cannot )e given credence for "ac* of evidentiar, su ort. 0he etitioner6s denia" cannot overco#e the res ondent6s c"ear and categorica" assertions. ort

    Avident",, the tota"it, of the res ondent@s testi#on, ositive", and convincing", shows that no rea" inconsistenc, e/ists. 0he res ondent has consistent", asserted that she started inti#ate se/ua" re"ations with the etitioner so#eti#e in 'e te#)er 1--.. 'ince fi"iation is )e,ond question, su ort fo""ows as a #atter of o)"igation& a arent is o)"iged to su ort his chi"d, whether "egiti#ate or i""egiti#ate. 'u ort consists of ever,thing indis ensa)"e for sustenance, dwe""ing, c"othing, #edica" attendance, education and trans ortation, in *ee ing with the financia" ca acit, of the fa#i",. 0hus, the a#ount of su ort is varia)"e and, for this reason, no fina" ;udg#ent on the a#ount of su ort is #ade as the a#ount sha"" )e in ro ortion to the resources or #eans of the giver and the necessities of the reci ient. >t #a, )e reduced or increased ro ortionate", according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the reci ient and the resources or #eans of the erson o)"iged to su ort.

    You might also like