Case Digest (G.R. No. 172471)
Facts:
Perla v. Baring, G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Antonio Perla; respondents are Mirasol Baring and her son Randy Perla. The case is a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ March 31, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79312 (and its May 5, 2006 resolution denying reconsideration) which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71’s February 26, 2003 Decision ordering Antonio to pay monthly support to Randy.
Respondents filed a Complaint for support in the RTC alleging that Mirasol and Antonio lived together as common‑law spouses and that Randy, born November 11, 1983, was the fruit of that relationship; they claimed Antonio abandoned them and failed to provide support. Antonio denied paternity, disputed any common‑law marriage, and counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages for alleged harassment. After trial the RTC found for respondents and ordered Antonio to pay P5,000 monthly to Randy from the time the complaint was filed; the RTC denied Antonio’s counterclaim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying heavily on certified true copies of Randy’s birth certificate and baptismal certificate which identified Antonio as the father, and on its acceptance of the RTC’s credibility findings. The CA dismissed Antonio’s appeal on March 31, 2005 and denied his motion for reconsideration on May 5, 2006. Antonio then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Trial evidence showed conflicting testimony: Mirasol testified to a courting period with Antonio in the early 1980s, pregnancy in 1983 and that she and Antonio supplied information for Randy’s birth certificate; Randy testified to calling Antonio “Papa” at their first meeting in 1994; neighbors testified about seeing Antonio frequent Mirasol’s house and about family dealings. Antonio admitted sexual intercourse with Mirasol on certain occasions but disputed participating in preparation of the birth certificate, noting discrepancies in the personal data recorded and offering dates inconsistent with Randy’s conception period. The RTC relied on admissions of sexual relations and witness credibility; th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is re‑examination of the RTC’s and Court of Appeals’ factual findings proper in this case?
- Did respondents establish Randy’s illegitimate filiation to Antonio by clear and convincing evidence to justify an order...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)