Nepomuceno V Lopez

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616 11/17/21, 11:48 AM
G.R. No. 181258. March 18, 2010.*
BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs. ARHBENCEL

ANN LOPEZ, represented by her mother ARACELI
LOPEZ, respondent.
Civil Law; Filiation; Rules on the Establishment of Filiation.

·Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005) summarizes the laws,
rules, and jurisprudence on establishing filiation, discoursing in
relevant part as follows: Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence
Establishing Filiation. The relevant provisions of the Family Code
provide as follows: ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish
their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children. x x x x ART. 172. The filiation of
legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or
a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession
of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed
by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Rules on Evidence
include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule 130
provide: SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.·The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to
the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage,
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word „pedigree‰
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree. SEC. 40. Family reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree.·The reputation or tradition existing
in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of
any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness
testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d2c00c6c9ca7048c2000d00d40059004a/p/ATF691/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family

books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
146
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Nepomoceno vs. Lopez
and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. This CourtÊs

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 fatherÊs 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.
Same; Evidence; A handwritten note where a person merely
undertakes to give and provide financial support does not establish a
childÊs filiation to the writer of the note.·In the present case,
Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note executed by
petitioner which reads: Manila, Aug. 7, 1999 I, Ben-Hur C.
Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and provide financial
support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth day
of each month for a total of P3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15,
1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her
mother Araceli Lopez without the necessity of demand, subject to
adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my

income. The abovequoted note does not contain any statement
whatsoever about ArhbencelÊs 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.
Same; Same; Notarial Law; A notarial agreement must be
accompanied by the putative fatherÊs admission of filiation to be an
147
VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 147
acceptable evidence of filiation.·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 fatherÊs 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.
Same; Same; While 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 fatherÊs legitimate family.·All that Arhbencel really has is
petitionerÊs handwritten undertaking to provide financial support to
her which, without more, fails to establish her claim of filiation. 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 fatherÊs legitimate
family.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Julieta C. Santos for petitioner.
Public AttorneyÊs Office for respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Respondent Arhbencel Ann Lopez (Arhbencel),

represented by her mother Araceli Lopez (Araceli), filed a
Complaint1 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Caloocan City for recognition and support against Ben-Hur
Nepomuceno (petitioner).
Born on June 8, 1999, 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,
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 117-120.
148

1999, petitioner nevertheless obligated himself to give her

financial support in the amount of P1,500 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 P8,000 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 PeopleÊs Army.2
By Order of July 4, 2001,3 Branch 130 of the Caloocan
RTC, on the basis of petitionerÊs handwritten note which it
treated as „contractual support‰ since the issue of
ArhbencelÊs filiation had yet to be determined during the
hearing on the merits, granted ArhbencelÊs prayer for
support pendente lite in the amount of P3,000 a month.
After Arhbencel rested her case, petitioner filed a
demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted by
Order dated June 7, 2006,4 whereupon the case was
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The trial court held that, among other things,
ArhbencelÊs Certificate of Birth was not prima facie
evidence of her filiation to petitioner as it did not bear

petitionerÊs signature; that petitionerÊs 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.
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 29, 87.

3 Id., at pp. 86-90.
4 Id., at pp. 109-116.
149
VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 149

On appeal by Arhbencel, the Court of Appeals, by

Decision of July 20, 2007,5 reversed the trial courtÊs
decision, declared Arhbencel to be petitionerÊs illegitimate
daughter and accordingly ordered petitioner to give
Arhbencel financial support in the increased amount of
P4,000 every 15th and 30th days of the month, or a total of
P8,000 a month.
The appellate court found that from petitionerÊs
payment of AraceliÊs 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 ArhbencelÊs father; that petitioner
merely acted in bad faith in omitting a statement of
paternity in his handwritten undertaking to provide
financial support; and that the amount of P8,000 a month
was reasonable for ArhbencelÊs subsistence and not
burdensome for petitioner in view of his income.
His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by
Resolution dated January 3, 2008,6 petitioner comes before
this Court through the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.7
Petitioner contends that nowhere in the documentary
evidence presented by Araceli is an explicit statement
made by him that he is the father of Arhbencel; that absent
recognition or acknowledgment, illegitimate children are
not entitled to support from the putative parent; that the
supposed payment made by him of AraceliÊs hospital bills

was neither alleged in the complaint nor proven during the
trial; and that ArhbencelÊs claim of paternity and filiation
was not established by clear and convincing evidence.
_______________
5 Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with the

concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina
Arevalo-Zenarosa; Id., at pp. 53-65.
6 Id., at pp. 50-51.
7 Id., at pp. 25-48.
150

Arhbencel avers in her Comment that petitioner raises

questions of fact which the appellate court had already
addressed, along with the issues raised in the present
petition.8
The petition is impressed with merit.
The relevant provisions of the Family Code9 that treat of
the right to support are Articles 194 to 196, thus:
„Article 194. Support compromises everything indispensable for

sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and
transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to
in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training
for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of
majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from
school, or to and from place of work.
Article 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles,
the following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent
set forth in the preceding article:
1. The spouses;
2. Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
3. Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and
illegitimate children of the latter;
4. Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and
illegitimate children of the latter; and
5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-
blood.
Article 196. Brothers and sisters not legitimately related,

whether of the full or half-blood, are likewise bound to support each
other to the full extent set forth in Article 194, except only when the
need for support of the brother or sister, being of age, is due to a
cause imputable to the claimantÊs fault or negligence.‰ (emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 127-130.

9 Executive Order No. 209 as amended.
151
VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 151

ArhbencelÊs demand for support, being based on her

claim of filiation to petitioner as his illegitimate daughter,
falls under Article 195(4). As such, her entitlement to
support from petitioner is dependent on the determination
of her filiation.
Herrera v. Alba10 summarizes the laws, rules, and
jurisprudence on establishing filiation, discoursing in
relevant part as follows:
Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence

Establishing Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
children.
xxxx
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by
any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document
or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation
shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws.
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The
relevant sections of Rule 130 provide:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.·The act or
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to
the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage,
may
_______________
10 G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 197, 206-208.
152

be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy,

and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The word „pedigree‰ includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.·
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also
a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries
in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings,
family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree.
This CourtÊs 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 fatherÊs 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.‰ (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the

handwritten note executed by petitioner which reads:
153
VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 153

„Manila, Aug. 7, 1999

I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and
provide financial support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen
and thirtieth day of each month for a total of P3,000.00 a month
starting Aug. 15, 1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the
custody of her mother Araceli Lopez without the necessity of
demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the
child and my income.‰
The abovequoted note does not contain any statement

whatsoever about ArhbencelÊs 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 fatherÊs 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,11 has no
probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the latter
not having signed the same.
At bottom, all that Arhbencel really has is petitionerÊs

handwritten undertaking to provide financial support to
her which, without more, fails to establish her claim of
filiation. 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
_______________
11 Rollo, p. 121.
154

paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the

putative fatherÊs legitimate family.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Decision of July 20, 2007 is SET ASIDE. The
Order dated June 7, 2006 of Branch 130 of the Caloocan
City RTC dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of
evidence is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside.
Note.·Where there is a special proceeding for the

settlement of the estate of a decedent that is pending,
questions regarding heirship, including prescription in
relation to recognition and filiation, should be raised and
settled in the said proceeding. (Montañer vs. ShariÊa
District Court, Fourth ShariÊa Judicial District, Marawi
City, 576 SCRA 746 [2009])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Nepomuceno V Lopez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nepomuceno V Lopez

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Nepomuceno V Lopez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 616 11/17/21, 11:48 AM

G.R. No. 181258. March 18, 2010.*

BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs. ARHBENCEL

Civil Law; Filiation; Rules on the Establishment of Filiation.

consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nepomoceno vs. Lopez

and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. This CourtÊs

adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my

VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 147

Nepomoceno vs. Lopez

acceptable evidence of filiation.·The note cannot also be accorded

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Respondent Arhbencel Ann Lopez (Arhbencel),

1 Rollo, pp. 117-120.

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1999, petitioner nevertheless obligated himself to give her

evidence of her filiation to petitioner as it did not bear

2 Id., at pp. 29, 87.

VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 149

On appeal by Arhbencel, the Court of Appeals, by

supposed payment made by him of AraceliÊs hospital bills

5 Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with the

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arhbencel avers in her Comment that petitioner raises

„Article 194. Support compromises everything indispensable for

Article 196. Brothers and sisters not legitimately related,

8 Id., at pp. 127-130.

VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 151

ArhbencelÊs demand for support, being based on her

Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy,

In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the

VOL. 616, MARCH 18, 2010 153

„Manila, Aug. 7, 1999

The abovequoted note does not contain any statement

At bottom, all that Arhbencel really has is petitionerÊs

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Petition granted, judgment set aside.

Note.·Where there is a special proceeding for the

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like