G.R. No. 124853 - Jison vs. Court of Appeals

On March 13, 1985, Monina Jison (“plaintiff”) filed with the RTC of Iloilo City Civil Case No. 16373 to be judicially recognized as the illegitimate daughter of Francisco L. Jison (“defendant”).
The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prove paternity, finding (a) no proof of sexual relations; (b) filiation evidence was hearsay, self-serving, or tailor-made; (c) the notarized affidavit denying paternity barred her claim by estoppel; and (d) no malice in filing the suit, hence no damages.

Pre-trial Stipulations – Issues: (a) existence of sexual relations at end-1945/early-1946; (b) implied recognition; (c) estoppel, laches or prescription; (d) damages.
Plaintiff’s Testimony and Witnesses (11):

Lope Amolar (brother of the mother) – testified to a 1945 confrontation where defendant admitted support for the mother and child.
Adela Casabuena – recounted a 1946 quarrel in which defendant’s wife and the mother fought; mother claimed the baby was defendant’s.
Arsenio Duatin; Romeo Bilbao; Rudy Tingson; Alfredo Baylosis; Dominador Savariz – long-time employees who testified defendant (a) provided plaintiff allowances and school support; (b) paid hospitalization and funeral expenses; (c) called plaintiff “daughter,” hid her presence from his wife; (d) recommended her for employment; and (e) allowed her use of his houses and telephone.
Zafiro Ledesma; Danthea Lopez – members of defendant’s wife’s Lopez family who treated plaintiff as a relative; funded her schooling; offered board.
Plaintiff – recounted her birth on August 6, 1946 to Esperanza Amolar in Iloilo, her continuous support and education funded by defendant, her personal encounters with him in Iloilo, Bacolod and Manila, long-distance calls billed to his residence, and her refusal under advice of counsel to sign a 1971 affidavit denying paternity until coerced for P 15,000.

Defendant (deposition) – denied any sexual relations after October 1944, any knowledge of plaintiff’s birth, any recognition or financial support for her; explained dismissals of certain staff.
Nonito Jalandoni; Teodoro Zulla; IAigo Supertisioso – bookkeepers/paymasters who denied any standing order or records of allowances to plaintiff and professed ignorance of her presence at Nelly Garden.
Lourdes Ledesma (legitimate daughter) – saw but did not know plaintiff at a hospital; refused to write a letter for her.
Jose Cruz – partner at Miller, Cruz & Co., said plaintiff was screened for employment and never formally introduced as defendant’s daughter until rumors; facilitated the P 15,000 affidavit scheme.
Dolores Argenal – household helper (1944–1946) who denied any unusual relation between defendant and plaintiff’s mother.

Birth and baptismal certificates (Exhs. E, F, C, D) naming defendant as father.
School records (Exhs. Z, AA) listing defendant as guardian.
PLDT telephone toll cards (Exhs. G–L) signed by Duatin, billing calls to defendant’s residence.
Letters of introduction by defendant’s relatives (Exhs. S–V) referring to plaintiff as defendant’s daughter.
1971 notarized affidavit (Exh. P) in which plaintiff renounced paternity in exchange for P 15,000 (Exh. Q).

Dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with costs.
Held plaintiff failed to prove: sexual intercourse; filiation by clear, convincing evidence; and was estopped by her sworn affidavit.
Rejected birth/baptismal certificates as unreliable; deemed testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses as hearsay, self-serving, or tailor-made.
Found no malice in filing; denied damages.

Reversed RTC: held plaintiff proved illegitimate filiation by overwhelming evidence.
Emphasized (a) testimonies of Amolar, Casabuena, Savariz admitted paternity; (b) Duatin, Bilbao, Tingson, Baylosis showed continuous recognition by defendant; (c) letters from Lopez relatives and toll cards corroborated acts; (d) affidavit denying paternity was coerced and actually evidentiary of defendant’s attempt to conceal paternity.
Declared plaintiff defendant’s illegitimate daughter with rights and privileges; costs against defendant.

Defendant’s petition under Rule 45: assailed physical impossibility, testimonial insufficiency, hearsay documents, binding affidavit, and delay.
Plaintiff’s comment and defendant’s reply; memoranda filed.

Did Francisco Jison father Monina Jison and recognize her as his illegitimate daughter by clear and convincing evidence?
Were the documentary exhibits (birth/baptismal certificates, school records, family letters, toll cards) admissible and probative to establish filiation?
Did Monina’s 1971 notarized affidavit renouncing paternity estop her claim?
Could defendant invoke laches or prescription to bar the action?