Facts
Petitioner Amelita filed an action for acknowledgement, support, and damages against private respondent Ivan Mendez. Sometime in Aug 1974, she was a waitress and met Ivan in a restaurant in Manila. Ivan met him the next day in a Hotel and Ivan professed love. They had sex, but afterwards, Ivan confessed he was a married man. They repeated sexual encounters within 3 months but when she became pregnant, Ivan became unresponsive (“ghosting”). Hence, the action.
RTC: Ordered Ivan to Pay Amelita actual and moral damages, and fees
CA: Dismissed Amelita’s complaint
Issue:
Should Ivan support Amelita’s son?
Ruling:
No.
- Recognition and support must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.
- The burden of proof is on Amelita to establish her affirmative allegations that Ivan is the father of her son.
- Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed.
On the sexual relations:
mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire.
Her attraction to Ivan is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact sometime in August, 1974, that he was a married man.
Testimony alone will not be sufficient to have the petitioner for recognition of illegitimate filiation because the burden of proof of illegitimate filiation is on the part of the person claiming it.
English