SUBJECT: TOPIC: CASE NAME:

Persons Custody and Support of Children Gotardo v. Buling

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Article 176, FC. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother,
and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of
their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the
civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.
Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his
lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. (as
amended by Republic Act 9255)
PONENTE: Brion Case Date: August 15, 2012
CASE SUMMARY:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Charles Gotardo challenging the CA
decision ordering the petitioner to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son, Gliffze O.
Buling.

DETAILED FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent first met on December 1, 1992. The petitioner started courting the
respondent in the third week of December 1992 and they became a couple in January 1993.
Sometime in September 1993, the couple started having intimate sexual relationships in the boarding
house managed by Rodulfo, the respondents uncle. The sexual encounters continued and eventually,
on August 8, 1994, the respondent found out that she was pregnant. When she told the petitioner, he
was happy and even promised to marry her. Subsequently, however, the petitioner backed out of the
wedding plans.
The respondent filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner for breach of promise to marry but
both parties managed to amicably settle the case.
The respondent gave birth to their son Gliffze on March 9, 1995. Petitioner failed to show up, recognize
and demand support for the child so the respondent filed her complaint for compulsory recognition and
support pendente lite.
On the witness stand, petitioner denied the imputed paternity claiming that he first had sexual contact
with the respondent in the first week of August 1994 and she could not have been pregnant for 12
weeks when he was informed of the pregnancy on September 15, 1994.
ISSUE: HOLDING:
W/N the CA committed a reversible error when it set aside the RTCs NO The burden of proof in paternity cases is on the person alleging.
findings and ordered the petitioner to recognize and provide legal Divina established prima facie case against Charles through her
support to his minor son Gliffze. NO testimony, corroborated by Charles uncle (dorm owner), that shes
only been involved with one man at the time of conception. Charles
did not deny his sexual relations with her, only that it occurred at a
later date.
One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through the
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, an
admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or the open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate or illegitimate
child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. We have held that such other proof of ones filiation may be a
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which his
name has been entered, common reputation respecting [his]
pedigree, admission by silence, the [testimonies] of witnesses, and

M.A. SICAD_A2021 1
 other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.
In Herrera v. Alba, we stressed that there are four significant
procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action that parties have
to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and
the child.35 We explained that a prima facie case exists if a woman
declares supported by corroborative proof that she had sexual
relations with the putative father; at this point, the burden of
evidence shifts to the putative father. We explained further that the
two affirmative defenses available to the putative father are: (1)
incapability of sexual relations with the mother due to either physical
absence or impotency, or (2) that the mother had sexual relations
with other men at the time of conception.

RULING:
Petition denied

M.A. SICAD_A2021 2