Parties
CASIMIRO MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TEOPISTA TORING TUÑACAO, Respondents.
Petitioner Casimiro, the alleged father, denies that the respondent is his illegitimate child. Casimiro was married to other women, thus, he even filed this case and claimed for damages. Respondent Teopista’s defenses are as follow:
| Petitioner | Respondent |
| • Vicente, illegitimate son: “Teopista’s father is a carpenter named Ondoy, not Casimiro”• It was him who sold the lot to Teopista, not the father. • Julieta Quano, petitioner’s niece, declared she never met Teopista. | • Her mother told her that her father is Casimiro. She called him Papa Miroy. • Casamiro sold his truck and gave the money to Respondent and husband. • Casamiro allowed Teopista’s son, his alleged apo, to build his house. • Casamiro gave her money to buy the lot from Vicente Toring, his other illegitimate child. •Gaudencio Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza, relatives of Casimiro, testified in favor of Teopista. |
Decisions:
RTC: Favored Casimiro. “Casimiro’s act failed to sufficiently show that Teopista continuously possessed the status of being recognized as an illegitimate child.”
CA: Reversed RTC. Favored Teopista: “Teopista sufficiently showed continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family” [Article 283]
Petitioner Casimiro died ~3months before the CA released decision. Rules of Court gives the representation to the child.
Casimiro’s son, Vicente Toring, appealed to SC.
SC
ISSUE:
Whether or not Teopista was in continuous procession of her claimed status of an illegitimate child under Article 283 of the Civil Code.
RULING:
To establish the “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child,” it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. “Continuous” docs not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues. The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own, directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate).
With these guidelines, SC agreed with the trial court that Teopista has not been in continuous possession of the status as a recognized illegitimate child of Casimiro, under both Art.283 of the Civil Code and Ail. 172 of the Family Code. Although Teopista has failed to show that she was in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, she has nevertheless established that status by another method.
Testimonial and Documentary Evidences accepted
Isaac Mendoza’s declaration may be received in evidence as it is in compliance with requisites on pedigree (Rule 130, Section 39, of the Rules of Court,) declarations. The said declarations have not been refuted. If we consider the other circumstances narrated under oath, such as the financial doles, the hiring of Teopista’s husband to drive the truck, the proceeds given to Teopista’s after the sale of the truck, the permission he gave to respondent’s son to build a house on his land and the joint savings account Casimiro opened with Teopista reasonably concluded that Teopista was the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. Judgement is hereby rendered declaring Teopista Toring Tuñaca to be the illegitimate ehild of the late Casimiro Mendoza and entitled to all rights appurtenant to such status. Costs against the petitioner.
English