“The handwritten note to support is not sufficient.”
Topic: Persons and Family > Paternity and Filiation > Illegitimate Children > Proof of Filiation
Facts
Respondent claims that she was the daughter of the petitioner out of his extramarital affair with her mother, Araceli and her defense is the handwritten note given by the petitioner to her mother. Petitioner’s defense is it DOES NOT prove that he is the father. He also refused to sign in the birth certificate, but admitted he wrote the said note that obligated himself to give her financial support. Respondent argues that the handwritten note establishes her child’s filiation with petitioner.
Court decisions:
RTC held that birth certificate was not sufficient since it had no signature of petitioner, private note did not contain acknowledgement that Arhbencel is his illegitimate child.
Reasons:
(1) Arhbencel’s Certificate of Birth was not prima facie evidence of her filiation to petitioner as it did not bear petitioner’s signature;
(2) That petitioner’s handwritten undertaking to provide support did not contain a categorical acknowledgment that Arhbencel is his child;
(3) There was no showing that petitioner performed any overt act of acknowledgment of Arhbencel as his illegitimate child after the execution of the note.
CA reversed RTC on the grounds the petitioner paid for hospital bills during the birth of respondent. Hospital bills = logical conclusion
Issue:
Are the private handwritten note and hospital bills payment sufficient documentary evidence to prove petitioner’s filiation with respondent?
Ruling:
No. Relevant provision is Article 175: “Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.” and under Par 2: (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. Respondent relies on the following note:
Manila, Aug. 7, 1999
I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and provide financial support in the amount of ₱1,500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth day of each month for a total of ₱3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15, 1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother Araceli Lopez without the necessity of demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my income.
(1) The abovequoted note does not contain any statement whatsoever about Arhbencel’s filiation to petitioner or admission by the petitioner that Arhbencel was his daughter. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of Article 172(2) vis-à-vis Article 175
(2) The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera.
(3) The only other documentary evidence submitted by Arhbencel, a copy of her Certificate of Birth,11 has no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter not having signed the same.
Ratio: 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.
English