1. Case Digest: Perla vs Baring and Perla
G.R. No. I72471: November 12, 2012
ANTONIO PERLA, Petitioner, v. MIRASOL BARING and RANDY PERLA, Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Mirasol Baring (Mirasol) and petitioner Antonio Perla (Antonio) were allegedly neighbors.
Eventually, they became sweethearts. When Mirasol became pregnant, Antonio allegedly assured her
that he would support her. However, Antonio started to evade her.
Mirasol and her then minor son, Randy Perla (Randy), filed before the RTC a Complaint for support
against Antonio. Mirasol and Randy thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to support Randy. During the
trial, Mirasol presented Randys Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal Certificate indicating her and
Antonio as parents of the child. Mirasol testified that she and Antonio supplied the information in the
said certificates. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Antonio to support Randy, which was affirmed by
CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Randy is entitled for support from Antonio.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
CIVIL LAW: support
Mirasol and Randys Complaint for support is based on Randys alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio.
Hence, for Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty. The
Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for
x xx support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the
parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing
evidence.
In the case at bar, Mirasol and Randy failed to establish Randys illegitimate filiation to Antonio. The
Certificate of Live Birth and baptismal certificate of Randy have no probative value to establish Randys
filiation to Antonio since the latter had not signed the same. Article 172(2) of the Family Code states
that, An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is
not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in
the preparation of said certificate. Also, while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public
document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but
not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity. Thus, x xx baptismal certificates are
per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as
circumstantial evidence to prove the same.
REMEDIAL LAW: questions of fact
Generally, factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court. However,
this rule admits of certain exceptions such as when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures or when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts. As this
case falls under these exceptions, the Court is constrained to re-examine the factual findings of the
lower courts.
Petition is GRANTED.
2. Mere Physical Resemblance Between Child And Alleged Father Not Enough To Establish Paternity
And Filiation THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004, CAMELO CABATANIA, PETITIONER, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS AND CAMELO REGODOS, RESPONDENTS.
Florencia filed a petition for recognition in behalf of her child Camelo, against Camelo. According to her,
when her husband left her, she sought employment as a household helper and it was there that she met
Camelo who hired her as house helper. While working as a maid, Camelo brought her to Bacolod City
where they had sexual intercourse. Twenty seven days after their sexual intercourse, she discovered that
she was pregnant. Their tryst was repeated in March, 1982. Camelos housewife, suspecting her to be
pregnant, sent her home. Instead of bringing her home, Camelo brought her to Bacolod City where he
rented a house for her. On September 9, 1982, she gave birth to Camelo. On the other hand, Camelo, the
alleged father, denied fathering Camelo the son. He averred that in the course of her employment,
Florencia would often go home to her husband and return to work the next morning, which displeased
his wife and sent home Florencia. On the way to Cadiz City, they were onboard a Ceres bus so he invited
her to dinner, where she confided that she was financially hard-up. They had sexual intercourse, but felt
something jerking. It was then that she admitted being pregnant.
The RTC, after trial, believed the testimony of Florencia, and declared that owing to the physical
resemblance between Camelo the father and Camelo the son who was presented in open court, there
can be no doubt that Camelo is the father of Camelo. Thus it ruled that Camelo is entitled to support
from Camelo the father. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Camelo thus
elevated his case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court:
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and
filiation. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an
irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is
established by clear and convincing evidence.
The applicable provisions of the law are Articles 172 and 175 of the Civil Code:
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.
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children.
xxx xxx xxx
Private respondent presented a copy of his birth and baptismal certificates, the preparation of which
was without the knowledge or consent of petitioner. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father
had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the
paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person.
In the same vein, we have ruled that, while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public
document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but
not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity.[9] Thus, certificates issued by the
local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and
they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same.
Aside from Florencias self-serving testimony that petitioner rented a house for her in Singcang, Bacolod
City, private respondent failed to present sufficient proof of voluntary recognition.
We now proceed to the credibility of Florencias testimony. Both the trial court and the appellate court
brushed aside the misrepresentation of Florencia in the petition for recognition that she was a widow.
Both courts dismissed the lie as minor which did not affect the rest of her testimony. We disagree. The
fact that Florencias husband is living and there is a valid subsisting marriage between them gives rise to
the presumption that a child born within that marriage is legitimate even though the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. The presumption of
legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the broad principles of
natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to
protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.
In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, the extremely subjective test of
physical resemblance or similarity of features will not suffice as evidence to prove paternity and filiation
before the courts of law.
Verceles vs. Posada
G.R. No. 161338, April 27, 2007
Any authentic writing is a ground for compulsory recognition and is in itself a voluntary recognition
of filiation that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. Hence, under FC 172(2), his
private handwritten letters suffice to establish his paternity. He did not present evidence of
his own to rebut Clarissas evidence.
Facts:
Maria Clarissa Posada was employed in the office of Mayor Teofisto Verceles, aclose family
friend.
November 11, 1986: Teofisto tried to flirt with Clarissa while in a hotel restaurant when they were
supposedly attending a conference, but Clarissa managed to escape and leave the hotel
immediately.
December 22, 1986: Teofisto requested Clarissa to brief him on the progress of barangay projects
in his hotel. Once again, Teofisto made his advances, offered her a position. This time,
Clarissa succumbed.
September 23, 1987: Verna Aiza Posada was born to Clarissa.
October 23, 1987: Clarissa and her parents sued Teofisto for damages.
Issues
1. W/N filiation of Verna was sufficiently established
2. W/N filiation can be resolved in an action for damages with support pendente lite\
3. W/N respondents are entitled to damages
Held
1. YES. Any authentic writing is a ground for compulsory recognition and is in itself a voluntary
recognition of filiation that does not require a separate action for judicial approval. The
handwritten letters of Teofisto in response to Clarissas confession of her pregnancy, two of which were
in his letterhead as Mayor, are conclusive that he had sired Verna. His handwriting was also proven by
comparison with the pictures of his youth and as a public servant he had given Clarissa that bear his
handwritten notes at the back. Moreover, in his Memorandum he admitted his affair with
Clarissa, his exchange of love letters, and his giving money during her pregnancy. Hence, under
FC 172(2), his private handwritten letters suffice to establish his paternity. He did not resent
evidence of his own to rebut Clarissas evidence.
2. YES. Although the caption states Damages coupled with Support pendente lite, the
caption is not determinative of its nature of a pleading where Clarissas averments (meeting with
Teofisto, his offer of a job, his amorous advances, her seduction, their trysts, her pregnancy, birth of her
child, his letters, her demand for support of the child) were essentially a case for recognition of
paternity. Petition denied.
3. NO. Respondents are not entitled to damages. Art. 2219 of the Civil Code which states moral damages
may be recovered in cases of seduction is inapplicable in this case because Clarissa was already an adult
at the time she had an affair with petitioner. Neither can her parents be entitled to damages. Besides,
there is nothing in law or jurisprudence that entitles a parents of a consenting adult who begets a love
child to damages and the same have not cited any law or jurisprudence to justify awarding damages to
them.
3. G.R. No. 125041 June 30, 2006
MANGONON V. CA
FACTS:1)
On 16 February 1975, petitioner and respondent Federico Delgado were civilly married by then City
Court Judge Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi City, Albay. At that time, petitioner was only 21 years old while
responden tFederico was only 19 years old. As the marriage was solemnized without the required
consent per Article 85 of the New Civil Code, it was annulled on 11 August 1975 by the Quezon City
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.2)
25 March 1976, or within seven months after the annulment of their marriage, petitioner gave birth to
twins Rica and Rina. According to petitioner, she, with the assistance of her second husband Danny
Mangonon,raised her twin daughters as private respondents had totally abandoned them.3)
Rica and Rina were about to enter college in the United States of America (USA) where petitioner,
together with her daughters and second husband, had moved to and finally settled in. Rica was admitted
to the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) while Rina was accepted by the Long Island University and
Western New England College. Despite their admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina were,
however, financially incapable of pursuing collegiate education because of the following :a)
The average annual cost for college education in the US is about US$22,000/year or a total
of US$44,000.00, more or less, for both Rica and Rina)
Rica and Rina need general maintenance support each in the amount of US$3,000.00 per year or a total
of US$6,000 per year.)
Unfortunately, petitioners monthly income from her 2 jobs is merely US$1,200 after taxes which she can
hardly give general support to Rica and Rina, much less their required college educational support.)
Neither can petitioners present husband be compelled to share in the general support and college
education of Rica and Rina since he has his own son with petitioner and own daughter(also in college) to
attend to.e)
Worse, Rica and Rinas petitions for Federal Student Aid have been rejected by the U.S. Department of
Education.4)
On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangononfiled, in behalf of her then minor children Rica and
Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with application for support pendente
lite with the RTC Makati5)
Petitioner averred that demands were made upon Federico and the latters father, Francisco, for general
support and for the payment of the required college ducation of Rica and Rina. The twin sisters even
exerted efforts to work out a settlement concerning these matters with respondent Federico and
respondent Francisco, the latter being generally known to be financially well-off.
ISSUE: Whether or not, respondent Francisco Delgado be held liable for her granddaughters educational
support
HELD:
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon
the following persons in the order herein provided: (1) The spouse; (2) The descendants in the nearest
degree; (3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and (4) The brothers and sisters.
There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents of
Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily charged to support their childrens
college education but being restricted by their financial income- respondent Francisco, as the next
immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in default of their
parents, it having been established that respondent Francisco has the financial means to support his
granddaughters education.
Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by
paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a
right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal
obstacle thereto.
The obligor is given the choice as to how he could dispense his obligation to give support. Respondent
Francisco and Federicos claim that they have the option under the law as to how they could perform
their obligation to support Rica and Rina, respondent Francisco insists that Rica and Rina should move
here to the Philippines to study in any of the local universities. Thus, he may give the determined
amount of support to the claimant or he may allow the latter to stay in the family dwelling. This option
cannot be availed of in this case since there are circumstances, legal or moral, between respondent and
petitioner which should be considered. Respondent Francisco is held liable for half of the amount of
school expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendent lite. As established by petitioner,
respondent Francisco has the financial resources to pay this amount given his various business
endeavors, thus the amount of support should be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver
and to the necessities of the recipient. The Decision of the Court of Appeals fixing the amount of support
pendente lite to P5,000.00 for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, are hereby MODIFIED in that
respondent Francisco Delgado is hereby held liable for support pendente lite in the amount to be
determined by the trial court pursuant to this Decision.**Considering, however, that the twin sisters
may have already been done with their education by the time of the promulgation of this decision, we
deem it proper to award support pendente lite in arrears to be computed from the time they entered
college until they had finished their respective studies.
NOTES:**mayaman si lolo kasiiii( respondent Francisco is the majority stockholder and Chairman of the
Board of Directors of Citadel Commercial, Incorporated, which owns and manages twelve gasoline
stations, substantial real estate, and is engaged in shipping, brokerage and freight forwarding. He is also
the majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citadel Shipping which does business
with Hyundai of Korea. Apart from these, heal so owns the Citadel Corporation which, in turn, owns real
properties in different parts of the country. He is likewise the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Isla
Communication Co. and he owns shares of stocks of Citadel Holdings. In addition, he owns real
properties here and abroad. )
What is SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
SECTION 1. Application.- At the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior
to the judgment or final order, a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by any party
stating the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, and accompanied by
affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support thereof.
4. Ilusorio vs. Bildner
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000; 332 SCRA 169
Facts: Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, is about 86 years of age possessed of extensive property valued at
millions of pesos. For many years, he was Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country
Club. In 1942, he married Erlinda Kalaw. They lived together for a period of thirty (30) years until they
separated from bed and board in 1972 for undisclosed reasons. Potenciano lived at Makati every time he
was in Manila and at Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. Erlinda, on
the other hand, lived in Antipolo City.
In 1997, upon Potencianos arrival from the United States, he stayed with Erlinda for about five (5)
months in Antipolo City. The children, Sylvia and Erlinda Ilusorio Bildner, alleged that during this time,
their mother gave Potenciano an overdose of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an antidepressant drug
prescribed by his doctor. As a consequence, Potencianos health deteriorated.
On May 31, 1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano did not return to
Antipolo City and instead lived in Makati. Erlinda filed with the CA a petition for habeas corpus to have
the custody of Potenciano alleging that respondents Sylvia and Bildner refused her demands to see and
visit Potenciano. The CA allowed visitation rights to Erlinda for humanitarian consideration but denied
the petition for habeas corpus.
Issue: May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in their conjugal
dwelling?
Held: No. a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which
the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. To justify the grant of the
petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The
illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.
The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer consent of her British husband is valid
Potenciano Ilusorios liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that Potenciano Ilusorio 2. Whether or not Benjamin is the actual owner of the property since he provided the funds used in
is about 86 years of age, or under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. purchasing the same
Soundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition but on the capacity of the individual to
discern his actions. Ruling:

With his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may not be the subject
of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise, we will deprive him of his right to privacy. Needless
to say, this will run against his fundamental constitutional right.
The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor
child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In case the husband refuses to see his wife for private
reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty attached to the exercise of his right.
No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture
cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other
mesne process. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and womans free
choice.
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.
Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain. Hence, by virtue of the aforecited constitutional provision, they are also disqualified from
acquiring private lands. The primary purpose of this constitutional provision is the conservation of the
national patrimony. Our fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The right to acquire lands of the public
domain is reserved only to Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which is
owned by Filipinos.

5. MATTHEWS vs. TAYLOR The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the
Philippines, save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is no rule more settled than this
PHILIP MATTHEWS vs. BENJAMIN A. TAYLOR and JOSELYN C. TAYLOR
constitutional prohibition, as more and more aliens attempt to circumvent the provision by trying to own
G.R. No. 164584 June 22, 2009
lands through another.
Facts:
Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease between Joselyn and petitioner. Benjamin,
1. On June 30, 1988, respondent Benjamin, a British subject, married Joselyn, a 17-year old Filipina.
being an alien, is absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and public lands in the Philippines.
2. On June 9, 1989, while their marriage was subsisting, Joselyn bought from Diosa M. Martin a lot
Considering that Joselyn appeared to be the designated "vendee" in the Deed of Sale of said property,
(Boracay property).
she acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true even if we sustain Benjamins claim that he provided
3. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin.
the funds for such acquisition. By entering into such contract knowing that it was illegal, no implied trust
4. Joselyn and Benjamin, also using the latters funds, constructed improvements thereon and eventually
was created in his favor; no reimbursement for his expenses can be allowed; and no declaration can be
converted the property to a vacation and tourist resort known as the Admiral Ben Bow Inn.
made that the subject property was part of the conjugal/community property of the spouses. In any
5. All required permits and licenses for the operation of the resort were obtained in the name of Ginna
event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent lease of the Boracay
Celestino, Joselyns sister.
property by his wife on the theory that in so doing, he was merely exercising the prerogative of a
6. However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen.
husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would countenance indirect
7. On June 8, 1992, Joselyn executed a SPA in favor of Benjamin, authorizing the latter to maintain, sell,
controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would
lease, and sub-lease and otherwise enter into contract with third parties with respect to their Boracay
accord the alien husband a substantial interest and right over the land, as he would then have a decisive
property.
vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit him to have.
8. On July 20, 1992, Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip Matthews as lessee, entered into an
Agreement of Lease involving the Boracay property for a period of 25 years, with an annual rental of
P12,000.00.
9. Petitioner thereafter took possession of the property and renamed the resort as Music Garden Resort.
10. Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered into by Joselyn without
Benjamins consent, Benjamin instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of Lease with
Damages against Joselyn and the petitioner.
11. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in the acquisition and improvement of the Boracay
property, and coupled with the fact that he was Joselyns husband, any transaction involving said
property required his consent.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Agreement of Lease of a parcel of land entered into by a Filipino wife without the