G.R. No. 9958 - Concepcion vs. Untaran

Leonarda Concepcion, the plaintiff and alleged mother of a minor child, filed a complaint seeking the court’s intervention to have Julian Untaran, the defendant and alleged father, recognize and support the child.
The trial court found, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was indeed the father of the child, a natural child conceived when both parties were free to contract marriage.

Philippine law distinguishes between a voluntary and an involuntary recognition of a natural child:

Voluntary recognition may be effected by means such as an entry in the record of births, making a will, or any other public instrument (per Art. 131, Civil Code).
Involuntary recognition may occur via an incontrovertible written acknowledgment, a direct act by the father or his family (Art. 135, Civil Code), or through a criminal action (Art. 449, Penal Code).

The evidence presented showed that although the record of births indicated the defendant as the father, he was not present during its preparation and did not give his assent.

The defendant did not voluntarily recognize his paternity either by will or by any public instrument as required under the law.
He refused the plaintiff’s request to provide a written statement expressly acknowledging his paternity.

The defendant’s limited acts of providing small sums of money on several occasions and a payment made to an attendant present at the birth were not considered demonstrative of an intent to recognize or assume the legal obligations of fatherhood.
There was no evidence that the child resided with the defendant or his family, indicating a lack of continuous possession of the status of a natural child as would be required for an involuntary recognition.

The decision extensively discussed the requirements under the Civil Code and the Penal Code for a recognition of parentage, emphasizing that without a voluntary acknowledgment or evidentiary acts showing a clear intent to recognize the child, a court cannot compel the defendant to assume parental responsibilities.
The case referenced previous decisions (e.g., Mendoza vs. Ibanez, Buenaventura vs. Urbano, Benedicto vs. De la Rama, Tengco vs. Sanz, Serrano vs. Serrano Aragon) to illustrate that a mere entry in the record of births without the defendant’s voluntary participation is insufficient.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Malcolm argued that the facts were sufficient to establish recognition; however, the majority opinion maintained that the father had not complied with the legal requisites for recognition.

Whether the defendant’s conduct, particularly the entry in the record of births made without his knowledge or consent and his minimal monetary contributions, constitutes a voluntary or involuntary recognition of the child as required by law.
Whether, in the absence of a formal recognition either voluntarily or through compelled legal action under the applicable provisions of the Civil and Penal Codes, the court can compel the defendant to support and maintain the child based solely on the fact of his paternity.