Case Digest (G.R. No. 63680)
Facts:
Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990, First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Jacoba T. Paterno, Tomas T. Paterno, and Maria Lucia Paterno sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision declaring respondents Beatriz Paterno and Bernardo Paterno to be illegitimate (spurious) children of the late Dr. Jose P. Paterno; the children had instituted the action through their guardian ad litem, Feliza Orihuela. The complaint, originally filed by Feliza, prayed for recognition of filiation so that the children could participate in Jose P. Paterno’s estate, plus support and damages; defendants interposed laches and other defenses.
The action began in the Manila Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 33467) but was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and refiled in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC). After some reception of evidence, the JDRC judge required the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Court of First Instance’s dismissal was reversed by this Court in G.R. No. L-23060 (June 30, 1967), which held that the JDRC had jurisdiction to determine paternity and returned the case to the JDRC for that purpose.
The JDRC later dismissed the complaint on April 14, 1970, ruling the action was prescribed and that the plaintiffs had not proven filiation by clear, strong and convincing evidence; it also dismissed the counterclaim. The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 48067-R). The Court of Appeals, after an extensive review of testimony and documents, reversed on August 16, 1982, finding sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that Beatriz and Bernardo were spurious children of Dr. Paterno and that the action had been timely filed while they were minors. The CA declined to pass on other reliefs (support, damages) in light of this Court’s earlier remand order.
The widow and legitimate children then filed a petition for certiorari/ review with this Court, alleging primarily that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) finding the evidence clear and convinci...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review and reweigh the Court of Appeals’ findings on the probative value and weight of evidence in a paternity/recognition case?
- Was the action for recognition (filiation) prescribed, i.e., was it timely filed under the Civil Code provisions governing actions for recognition by illegitimate children?
- Did the evidence adduced establish, by clear and convincing proof, that Beatriz and Bernardo were illegitimate children of Dr. Jose P. Paterno and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)