9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

G.R. No. 182367. December 15, 2010.*

CHERRYL B. DOLINA, petitioner, vs. GLENN
D. VALLECERA, respondent.

Support; Anti-Violence against Women and

Their Children Act (R.A. No. 9262); The petitioner
evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for
her child—the object of R.A. 9262 under which she
filed the case is the protection and safety of women
and children who are victims of abuse or violence.—
Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain
support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under
which she filed the case is the protection and safety
of women and children who are victims of abuse or
violence. Although the issuance of a protection order
against the respondent in the case can include the
grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this
assumes that both are entitled to a protection order
and to legal support. Dolina of course alleged that
Vallecera had been abusing her and her child. But it
became apparent to the RTC upon hearing that this
was not the case since, contrary to her claim, neither
she nor her child ever lived with Vallecera. As it
turned out, the true object of her action was to get
financial support from Vallecera for her child, her
claim being that he is the father. He of course
vigorously denied this.
Same; To be entitled to legal support, petitioner
must, in proper action, first establish the filiation of
the child, if the same is not admitted or
acknowledged; Illegitimate children are entitled to
support and successional rights but their filiation
must be duly proved.—To be entitled to legal
support, petitioner must, in proper action, first
establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand

for support for her son is based on her claim that he
is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not
entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to
him. The child’s remedy is to file through her mother
a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory
recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support
follows as matter of obligation. In short, illegitimate
children are entitled to support and successional
rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
Same; While the Court is mindful of the best
interests of the child in cases involving paternity and
filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that
unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and
peace of the putative

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolina vs. Vallecera

father’s legitimate family.—While the Court is

mindful of the best interests of the child in cases
involving paternity and filiation, it is just as aware
of the disturbance that unfounded paternity suits
cause to the privacy and peace of the putative
father’s legitimate family. Vallecera disowns
Dolina’s child and denies having a hand in the
preparation and signing of its certificate of birth.
This issue has to be resolved in an appropriate case.

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order

of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

    The facts are stated in the opinion of the

Court.
  Vispero LL. Mayor for respondent.

ABAD, J.:
This case is about a mother’s claim for
temporary support of an unacknowledged child,
which she sought in an action for the issuance
of a temporary protection order that she
brought against the supposed father.

The Facts and the Case

In February 2008 petitioner Cherryl B.

Dolina filed a petition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary protection order
against respondent Glenn D. Vallecera before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban
City in P.O. 2008-02-071 for alleged woman and
child abuse under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262.2 In
filling out the blanks in the pro-forma
complaint, Dolina added a handwritten prayer
for financial support3 from Vallecera for their
supposed child. She based her prayer on the
latter’s Certificate of Live Birth which listed
Vallecera as the child’s father. The petition also
asked the RTC to order Philippine Airlines,
Vallecera’s employer, to withhold from his pay
such amount of support as the RTC may deem
appropriate.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 12-23.

2 “An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their
Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims,
Prescribing Penalties Therefore, And For Other Purposes.”
3 Rollo, p. 22.

709

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 15, 2010 709

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

Dolina vs. Vallecera

Vallecera opposed the petition. He claimed

that Dolina’s petition was essentially one for
financial support rather than for protection
against woman and child abuses; that he was
not the child’s father; that the signature
appearing on the child’s Certificate of Live
Birth is not his; that the petition is a
harassment suit intended to force him to
acknowledge the child as his and give it
financial support; and that Vallecera has never
lived nor has been living with Dolina,
rendering unnecessary the issuance of a
protection order against him.
On March 13, 20084 the RTC dismissed the
petition after hearing since no prior judgment
exists establishing the filiation of Dolina’s son
and granting him the right to support as basis
for an order to compel the giving of such
support. Dolina filed a motion for
reconsideration but the RTC denied it in its
April 4, 2008 Order,5 with an admonition that
she first file a petition for compulsory
recognition of her child as a prerequisite for
support. Unsatisfied, Dolina filed the present
petition for review directly with this Court.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is

whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed
Dolina’s action for temporary protection and
denied her application for temporary support
for her child.

The Court’s Ruling

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to

obtain support for her child. The object of R.A.
9262 under which she filed the case is the
protection and safety of women and children
6
who are victims of abuse or violence. Although
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

who are victims of abuse or violence.6 Although

the issuance of a protection order against the
respondent in the case can include the grant of
legal support for the wife and the child, this
assumes that both are entitled to a protection
order and to legal support.

_______________

4 Id., at p. 41.
5 Id., at p. 40.
6 Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008,
567 SCRA 231, 238.

710

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Dolina vs. Vallecera

Dolina of course alleged that Vallecera had

been abusing her and her child. But it became
apparent to the RTC upon hearing that this
was not the case since, contrary to her claim,
neither she nor her child ever lived with
Vallecera. As it turned out, the true object of
her action was to get financial support from
Vallecera for her child, her claim being that he
is the father. He of course vigorously denied
this.
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner
must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted
or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand for
support for her son is based on her claim that
he is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is
not entitled to such support if he had not
acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have
proved his relation to him.7 The child’s remedy
is to file through her mother a judicial action
against Vallecera for compulsory recognition.8
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

If filiation is beyond question, support follows

as matter of obligation.9 In short, illegitimate
children are entitled to support and
successional rights but their filiation must be
duly proved.10
Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of
her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish
filiation and then demand support.
Alternatively, she may directly file an action
for support, where the issue of compulsory
recognition may be integrated and resolved.11
It must be observed, however, that the RTC
should not have dismissed the entire case
based solely on the lack of any judicial
declaration of filiation between Vallecera and
Dolina’s child since the main issue remains to
be the alleged violence committed by Vallecera
against Dolina and her child and whether they
are entitled to protec-

_______________

7  Article 195, paragraph 4 of the Family Code requires

support between parents and their illegitimate children.
8  Tayag v. Tayag-Gallor, G.R. No. 174680, March 24,
2008, 549 SCRA 68, 74.
9  Montefalcon v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17,
2008, 554 SCRA 513, 527.
10  De la Puerta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867,
February 6, 1990, 181 SCRA 861, 869.
11 Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 499 Phil. 307, 317; 460
SCRA 315, 323-324 (2005).

711

VOL. 638, DECEMBER 15, 2010 711

Dolina vs. Vallecera

tion. But of course, this matter is already water

under the bridge since Dolina failed to raise
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

this error on review. This omission lends

credence to the conclusion of the RTC that the
real purpose of the petition is to obtain support
from Vallecera.
While the Court is mindful of the best
interests of the child in cases involving
paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the
disturbance that unfounded paternity suits
cause to the privacy and peace of the putative
father’s legitimate family.12 Vallecera disowns
Dolina’s child and denies having a hand in the
preparation and signing of its certificate of
birth. This issue has to be resolved in an
appropriate case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the
petition and AFFIRMS the Regional Trial
Court of Tacloban City’s Order dated March 13,
2008 that dismissed petitioner Cherryl B.
Dolina’s action in P.O. 2008-02-07, and Order
dated April 4, 2008, denying her motion for
reconsideration dated March 28, 2008.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairman), Nachura, Peralta and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, order affirmed.

Note.—While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262

provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it
does not preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). (Go-Tan v. Tan, 567 SCRA 231
[2008])
——o0o—— 

_______________

12  Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18,

2010, 616 SCRA 145, 153-154.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
9/8/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 638

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e5f5e52d6f15594ed003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8