Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Yna Novo
    1) Arhbencel claimed that Ben-Hur Nepomuceno was her biological father from an extramarital affair and that he refused to acknowledge her birth certificate but provided a handwritten note agreeing to monthly financial support. 2) The trial court and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented did not clearly establish filiation under Philippine law because the note did not contain an admission of paternity and the birth certificate was not signed by Nepomuceno. 3) For a claim of illegitimate filiation to be proven, Philippine law requires conventional evidence like verbal or written admission of paternity signed by the putative father, not just an agreement to provide financial support.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Yna Novo
    58 views2 pages
    1) Arhbencel claimed that Ben-Hur Nepomuceno was her biological father from an extramarital affair and that he refused to acknowledge her birth certificate but provided a handwritten note agreeing to monthly financial support. 2) The trial court and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented did not clearly establish filiation under Philippine law because the note did not contain an admission of paternity and the birth certificate was not signed by Nepomuceno. 3) For a claim of illegitimate filiation to be proven, Philippine law requires conventional evidence like verbal or written admission of paternity signed by the putative father, not just an agreement to provide financial support.

    Original Description:

    PFR

    Original Title

    10 Jessette Amihope n Castor Nepomuceno vs Lopez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Arhbencel claimed that Ben-Hur Nepomuceno was her biological father from an extramarital affair and that he refused to acknowledge her birth certificate but provided a handwritten note agreeing to monthly financial support. 2) The trial court and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented did not clearly establish filiation under Philippine law because the note did not contain an admission of paternity and the birth certificate was not signed by Nepomuceno. 3) For a claim of illegitimate filiation to be proven, Philippine law requires conventional evidence like verbal or written admission of paternity signed by the putative father, not just an agreement to provide financial support.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    58 views2 pages

    10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Yna Novo
    1) Arhbencel claimed that Ben-Hur Nepomuceno was her biological father from an extramarital affair and that he refused to acknowledge her birth certificate but provided a handwritten note agreeing to monthly financial support. 2) The trial court and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented did not clearly establish filiation under Philippine law because the note did not contain an admission of paternity and the birth certificate was not signed by Nepomuceno. 3) For a claim of illegitimate filiation to be proven, Philippine law requires conventional evidence like verbal or written admission of paternity signed by the putative father, not just an agreement to provide financial support.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    JESSETTE AMIHOPE N.

    CASTOR LLB-5A

    BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, Petitioner,


    vs
    ARHBENCEL ANN LOPEZ, represented by her mother ARACELI LOPEZ,
    Respondent.
    March 18, 2010
    G.R. No. 181258
    Principle: Proof of Filiation

    CARPIO MORALES, J.

    Facts:
    Arhbencel claimed to have been begotten out of an extramarital affair of
    petitioner with Araceli; that petitioner refused to affix his signature on her Certificate of
    Birth; and that, by a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner nevertheless
    obligated himself to give her financial support in the amount of ₱1,500 on the 15th and
    30th days of each month beginning August 15, 1999. Arguing that her filiation to
    petitioner was established by the handwritten note, Arhbencel prayed that petitioner be
    ordered to: (1) recognize her as his child, (2) give her support pendente lite in the
    increased amount of ₱8,000 a month, and (3) give her adequate monthly financial
    support until she reaches the age of majority.

    Petitioner countered that Araceli had not proven that he was the father of
    Arhbencel; and that he was only forced to execute the handwritten note on account of
    threats coming from the National People’s Army. The trial court held that, among other
    things, Arhbencel’s Certificate of Birth was not prima facie evidence of her filiation to
    petitioner as it did not bear petitioner’s signature; that petitioner’s handwritten
    undertaking to provide support did not contain a categorical acknowledgment that
    Arhbencel is his child; and that there was no showing that petitioner performed any
    overt act of acknowledgment of Arhbencel as his illegitimate child after the execution of
    the note.

    On appeal by Arhbencel, the appellate court found that from petitioner’s payment
    of Araceli’s hospital bills when she gave birth to Arhbencel and his subsequent
    commitment to provide monthly financial support, the only logical conclusion to be
    drawn was that he was Arhbencel’s father; that petitioner merely acted in bad faith in
    omitting a statement of paternity in his handwritten undertaking to provide financial
    support.
    Issue:
    Whether or not Arhbencel’s claim of paternity and filiation was established by
    clear and convincing evidence

    Held:
    No. This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as
    evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we stated
    that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the
    relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of
    the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of
    birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be
    effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the
    writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a child
    whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable evidence,
    letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative
    father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth,
    proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's
    operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be
    taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family
    pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.

    In the present case, Arhbencel relies only on the handwritten note executed by
    petitioner which does not contain any statement whatsoever about Arhbencel’s filiation
    to petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of Article 172(2) vis-à-vis Article 175 of
    the Family Code which admits as competent evidence of illegitimate filiation an
    admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent
    concerned. The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial
    agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera. For it is not even notarized. And
    Herrera instructs that the notarial agreement must be accompanied by the putative
    father’s admission of filiation to be an acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however,
    not only has petitioner not admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. He has
    consistently denied it.

    The only other documentary evidence submitted by Arhbencel, a copy of her


    Certificate of Birth, has no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter not
    having signed the same. The Court is mindful that the best interests of the child in cases
    involving paternity and filiation should be advanced. It is, however, just as mindful of the
    disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the
    putative father’s legitimate family.

    You might also like