Case Digest (G.R. No. 181258)
Facts:
Ben-Hur Nepomuceno v. Arhbencel Ann Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Arhbencel Ann Lopez, through her mother Araceli Lopez, instituted a complaint for recognition and support against petitioner Ben-Hur Nepomuceno before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, alleging she was born June 8, 1999 as the product of an extramarital relationship between petitioner and Araceli and that petitioner had refused to sign her Certificate of Birth. Araceli attached a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, in which petitioner "undertake[d] to give and provide financial support" of P1,500 on the 15th and 30th of each month (P3,000 total), and Arhbencel prayed for recognition, pendente lite support (increased to P8,000 a month), and continuing support until majority.
At the RTC, Branch 130 granted pendente lite support of P3,000 a month by Order of July 4, 2001 treating the handwritten note as a contractual undertaking while filiation remained undetermined. After the trial on the merits, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted by Order dated June 7, 2006, dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The RTC concluded that Arhbencel’s Certificate of Birth lacked the petitioner’s signature and that the handwritten undertaking did not contain any categorical acknowledgment of paternity nor was there proof of overt acts of acknowledgment after the note.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed by Decision dated July 20, 2007, declaring Arhbencel to be petitioner’s illegitimate daughter and ordering petitioner to pay P4,000 every 15th and 30th day (P8,000 monthly). The appellate court relied on petitioner’s purported payment of hospital bills and his subsequent commitment to provide monthly support as indicia of paternity and found the P8,000 award reasonable. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 3, 2008, and he filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner argued to the Court that the documentary evidence did not contain an explicit admission of paternity, that illegitimate children cannot obtain support absent recognition,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that petitioner’s handwritten undertaking and other acts established petitioner’s filiation to respondent Arhbencel?
- If filiation was established, was the award of P8,000 monthly ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)