Facts:

The case involves Belen Jove Lagrimas, a seven-year-old girl represented by her mother, Ponciana Jove, as guardian ad litem, who filed a lawsuit against Tito Lagrimas for support in the Court of First Instance of Samar in June 1947. The complaint alleged that Tito Lagrimas had lived with Ponciana Jove as her common-law husband from September 1926 until 1940, during which time Belen was born in November 1939. Initially, Tito provided financial support of thirty pesos monthly for one year but ceased this support in 1940 after entering into a relationship with another woman. Ponciana, being poor and sickly, was unable to provide for Belen, who required at least one hundred pesos monthly for her sustenance and education. Tito Lagrimas, who was the mayor of Iriga and had a stable income from a pension and real estate, refused to provide further support despite repeated demands. In his answer filed on July 28, 1947, Tito admitted to the first allegation regarding his relationship w...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff: Belen Jove Lagrimas, a seven-year-old child, represented by her mother, Ponciana Jove, as guardian ad litem.
   • Defendant: Tito Lagrimas, the alleged father of Belen.

2. Background of the Case:

   • Belen was born in November 1939 as the result of a common-law relationship between Ponciana Jove and Tito Lagrimas, which lasted from September 1926 to 1940.
   • Tito Lagrimas initially provided support of ₱30 monthly for one year but stopped in 1940 when he began a relationship with another woman.

3. Plaintiff’s Allegations:

   • Belen’s mother, Ponciana, was poor and sickly, unable to support her daughter.
   • Tito Lagrimas, as mayor of Iriga, received a pension from the U.S. Navy and owned real property, making him financially capable of providing support.
   • Belen required at least ₱100 monthly for sustenance and education.

4. Defendant’s Response:

   • Tito Lagrimas admitted the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint (regarding his relationship with Ponciana) but denied all other allegations, including paternity and the need for support.

5. Procedural History:

   • Plaintiff’s attorney moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the defendant’s general denial amounted to an admission of the complaint’s factual allegations.
   • The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing Article 140 of the Civil Code, which requires paternity to be established by a final judgment before support can be claimed.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Admission of Paternity:

   • The defendant’s general denial of the allegations in the complaint was deemed an admission of the factual averments, including paternity, under Rule 9, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.

2. Right to Support for Illegitimate Children:

   • Under Article 139 of the Civil Code, illegitimate children are entitled to support. The Court held that the admitted facts constituted a sufficient cause of action for support.

3. Article 140 of the Civil Code:

   • The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint based on Article 140, which requires paternity to be established by a final judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that a declaration of paternity can be made in the same action for support if the defendant admits paternity or fails to object.

4. Natural Child Status:

   • The Court noted that the plaintiff might qualify as a natural child if it were proven that her parents were legally free to marry at the time of her conception. However, since the complaint did not explicitly allege this, the Court treated her as an illegitimate child for the purposes of this case.

5. Reservation of Rights:

   • The decision does not preclude the plaintiff from asserting her rights as a recognized natural child in future proceedings, should she provide sufficient evidence to justify such a status.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Pablo concurred but argued that Belen Jove Lagrimas should be presumed a natural child unless proven otherwise, citing Spanish jurisprudence and the principle that illegitimacy should be presumed natural in the absence of evidence to the contrary.