G.R. No. 57227 - Constantino vs. Mendez

The petition involves Amelita Constantino and her son, Michael Constantino, seeking recognition of Michael as the illegitimate child of Ivan Mendez, support, damages, and attorney's fees.
Amelita, claiming that she was deceived by Ivan’s promise of marriage and that this led to repeated sexual intercourse resulting in her pregnancy, filed a complaint for acknowledgment, support, and damages in June 1975.
Ivan Mendez, a prosperous businessman from Davao City, denied having any sexual relations with Amelita while admitting their initial meeting in a restaurant.

June 5, 1975 – Amelita filed the original complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao, alleging that an encounter in August 1974 at Tonys Restaurant led to a series of subsequent sexual contacts.

She detailed that after their first meeting at the restaurant, Ivan invited her to dine at Hotel Enrico and eventually brought her into his hotel room under the promise of marriage.
Amelita claimed that their encounters continued in September, October, and November 1974, during which she became pregnant.

August 5, 1975 – Ivan Mendez filed his answer denying any sexual relations and contested the claim that Michael was his child. He also filed a counterclaim seeking exemplary damages and litigation expenses.
September 1975 – Amelita moved to amend her complaint to include her unborn son Michael as a co-plaintiff; the trial court granted this amendment.
June 21, 1976 – The trial court rendered an initial decision in favor of Amelita, awarding her actual and moral damages and attorneys' fees.
October 21, 1976 – On motions for reconsideration by both parties, the trial court modified its decision:

It ordered Ivan to acknowledge Michael as his illegitimate child and mandated monthly support for Michael.
It increased the damages and attorney's fees and included the payment of hospital and medical expenses.

On appeal – The Court of Appeals set aside the amended decision and dismissed the complaint, prompting the current petition for review on certiorari.

Amelita testified that the sexual encounters occurred in September, October, and November 1974, with a crucial reference to contact during the first or second week of November 1974.
Her testimony, however, presented inconsistencies, particularly on the exact date of the last sexual contact, which was not conclusively established during direct examination.
Documentary evidence including a letter dated February 11, 1975, indicated that Amelita was already four months pregnant, suggesting that the conception might have occurred around mid-October 1974 rather than in November 1974.
Evidence also revealed that Amelita had a prior boyfriend, contradicting her assertion that Ivan was her first and only partner.

Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s findings and in misapprehending the factual circumstances regarding the timing of sexual intercourse.
The appeals court relied on its independent evaluation of the evidence, noting that the trial court’s findings are persuasive but not binding on appellate review.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Amelita failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to establish Ivan’s paternity, and further held that mere sexual intercourse, being voluntary, cannot serve as a basis for awarding damages on the theory of inducement or promise.

Setting aside the trial court’s decision that ordered the recognition of Michael Constantino as the illegitimate son of Ivan Mendez and imposed support and damages.
Dismissing the complaint on the basis that Amelita failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ivan Mendez was the father of her son.

Whether the testimony and evidentiary record suffice to establish paternity and warrant the recognition of an illegitimate child along with the corresponding relief (support, damages, and attorney’s fees).