10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

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.

10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Jessette Amihope N Castor Nepomuceno Vs Lopez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESSETTE AMIHOPE N.

BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, Petitioner,

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

You might also like