Fernandez v.

CA FACTS:
1994 | Puno | Adea  John Paul Fernandez and Claro Antonio Fernandez filed a
case for support against Carlito Fernandez which was
SUMMARY: This is an action for recognition and support dismissed because “nothing in the material allegations
filed by two male children (Claro and John Paul) who are seeks to compel respondent to recognize or acknowledge
claiming that Carlito Fernandez is their father. They petitioners as his illegitimate children.
presented documentary evidence including (1) their  Petitioners filed another action for recognition and
certificates of live birth, identifying Carlito as their father support against Carlito.
and (2) the baptismal certificate of Claro which also  Evidence shows that Violeta Esguerra, the mother of
states that his father is Carlito, as well as some photos. petitioners, met Carlito sometime in 1983 at the Meralco
The SC ruled that there is no sufficient evidence of Compound tennis courts where Violeta’s father served as
filiation. instructor.
 Violeta points to Carlito as the father of her two sons.
DOCTRINES: She claimed that they started an illicit sexual relationship
 As to the baptismal certificates 6 months after meeting. She also claimes that she did not
o Although the baptismal record of a natural child know that Carlito was married until the birth of her two
describes her as a child of the [the father], the children. In fact, she averred that they were married in
baptismal record cannot be held to be a civil rites in October 1983. In March, 1985, however, she
voluntary recognition of parentage because the discovered that the marriage license which they used
[father] did not intervene in making said was spurious.
records. The reason for this rule that canonical  Petitioners presented the following evidence:
records do not constitute the authentic o Certificates of live birth, identifying Carlito as
document to prove the legitimate filiation is that their father
such canonical record is simply proof of the only o Baptismal Certificate of Claro stating that Carlito
act to which the priest may certify by reason of is his father
his personal knowledge, an act done by himself o Photographs of Carlito taken during the baptism
or in his presence, like the administration of the of Claro
sacrament upon a day stated; it is no proof of o Pictures of Carlito and Claro taken at the home
the declarations in the record with respect to of Violeta Esguerra
the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior  Petitioners also presented as witnesses
and distinct facts which require separate and o Rosario Cantoria, Dr. Milagros Villanueva, Rub
concrete evidence. (Berciles vs. Systems) Chua Cu: testified that Vileta has introduced
o While baptismal certificates may be considered Carlito to them as her husband
public documents, they can only serve as o Fr. Liberato Fernandez: testified that Carlito had
evidence of the administration of the presented himself as the father of Claro during
sacraments on the dates so specified. They are Claro’s baptism
not necessarily competent evidence of the  Carlito denied being the father of the two children. He
veracity of entries therein with respect to the claims that he only served as one of the sponsors in the
child's paternity. (Macandang vs. CA) baptism of Claro. This was corroborated by the testimony
 As to the birth certificates of Rodante Pagtakhan, an officemate of Carlito who was
o Section 5 of Act No. 3793 and Article 280, CC also sponsor at Claro’s baptism.
explicitly prohibited, not only the naming of the  Carlito also presented Fidel Arcagua, a waiter of the
father or the child born outside wedlock, when Lighthouse Restaurant, to testify that he never saw
the birth certificates, or the recognition, is not Carlito and Violeta at said restaurant together despite
filed or made by him, but, also, the statement of Violeta’s allegations that they frequented said restaurant
any information or circumstances by which he during the affair.
could be identified. Accordingly, the certificate  Carlito also claims that he only discovered that he was
of birth of an illegitimate child, when signed named as father in the birth certificates of the children
only by the mother of the latter, is incompetent when he was sued for support.
evidence of fathership of said child. (Roces vs.  RTC: Ruled that John and Claro are entitled to support.
Local Civil Registrar) A birth certificate not  CA: decision set aside and complaint dismissed. CA found
signed by the alleged father therein indicated is that “the proof relied upon by the trial court is
not competent evidence of paternity. (Berciles inadequate to prove Carlito’s paternity and filiations of
vs. Systems)
 petitioners. Also held that res judicata applies due to the illegitimate child upon the information of a third
dismissal of the first civil case. person and the certificate of birth of an
illegitimate child, when signed only by the
ISSUES and RATIO: mother of the latter, is incompetent evidence of
Carlito has NOT been established as the father of petitioners fathership of said child.
based on the evidence on record. o The SC also held in Berciles that "a birth
certificate not signed by the alleged father
 Re: Pictures: the SC held that petitioners cannot rely on therein indicated is not competent evidence of
photographs showing the presence of Carlito in the paternity."
baptism of Claro. These are far from proof that he is the  Re: testimony of Fr. Fernandez : there is no proof that
father. The pictures taken in the house of Violeta Father Fernandez is a close friend of Violeta and Carlito
showing Carlito showering affection to Claro also fall which should render unquestionable his identification of
short of the evidence required to prove paternity. the private respondent during Claro's baptism. In the
 Re: Baptismal Certificate: has scant evidentiary value. absence of this proof, we are not prepared to concede
No showing that Carlito participated in its preparation. that Father Fernandez who officiates numerous
o Citing Berciles vs. Systems, et. al (1984): the rule baptismal ceremonies day in and day out can remember
is that although the baptismal record of a the parents of the children he has baptized.
natural child describes her as a child of the o Upon cross-examination, Fr. Fernandez
record the decedent had no intervening, the admitted that he had to be shown a picture of
baptismal record cannot be held to be a Carlito by Victoria to recognize Carlito.
voluntary recognition of parentage. . . . The
reason for this rule that canonical records do RULING: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED and
not constitute the authentic document the Decision of the respondent court in CA-G.R. CV No. 29182
prescribed by Arts. 115 and 117 to prove the is AFFIRMED. 
legitimate filiation of a child is that such
canonical record is simply proof of the only act
to which the priest may certify by reason of his
personal knowledge, an act done by himself or
in his presence, like the administration of the
sacrament upon a day stated; it is no proof of
the declarations in the record with respect to
the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior
and distinct facts which require separate and
concrete evidence.
o Citing Macandang v. CA (1980): While baptismal
certificates may be considered public
documents, they can only serve as evidence of
the administration of the sacraments on the
dates so specified. They are not necessarily
competent evidence of the veracity of entries
therein with respect to the child's paternity.
 Re: Certificate of live birth: also not competent evidence
on the issue of paternity. Records do not show that
Carlito had a hand in the preparation of the certificates.
o Citing Roces v Local Civil Registrar: Section 5 of
Act No. 3793 and Article 280 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines explicity prohibited, not only the
naming of the father or the child born outside
wedlock, when the birth certificates, or the
recognition, is not filed or made by him, but,
also, the statement of any information or
circumstances by which he could be identified.
Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar had no
authority to make or record the paternity of an