Case Summary (G.R. No. 182367)
Facts and Case Background
On February 7, 2008, Dolina petitioned the RTC for a temporary protection order against Vallecera, alleging woman and child abuse. In her complaint, she included a request for financial support based on the child’s Certificate of Live Birth, which identified Vallecera as the father. Vallecera opposed the petition, asserting he was not the child’s father and alleging that Dolina’s petition was merely an attempt to extort financial support rather than a genuine request for protection. The RTC dismissed Dolina's petition on March 13, 2008, ruling that without a prior judicial determination of the child's filiation, her request for support was not legally grounded. Dolina's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
Legal Issue Presented
The primary legal issue is whether the RTC acted correctly in dismissing Dolina's action for a temporary protection order and denying her application for child support.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Dolina had filed the incorrect action for obtaining support for her child. The purpose of R.A. 9262 is to safeguard victims of abuse, and although protection orders can include support provisions, there must be established filiation and eligibility for such orders. The RTC found that Dolina and her child did not live with Vallecera, and therefore, claims of abuse were unsubstantiated.
Requirement for Establishing Filiation
To receive legal support, Dolina must establish her child's filiation through a proper legal action since Vallecera denied paternity. Support obligations arise only when filiation is recognized—thus, Dolina was instructed to file a judicial action for compulsory recognition to establish the link between Vallecera and the child, thereby enabling her to seek support.
Observations on Dismissal of Case
The Court noted that while the RTC should have considered the alleged violence as a separate issue, Dolina's failure to challenge the dismissal on these grounds contributed to affirming the RTC's decision. The true intent of her pe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182367)
Case Overview
- This case revolves around a mother's claim for temporary support for her unacknowledged child, initiated through a petition for a temporary protection order against the alleged father.
- The petitioner, Cherryl B. Dolina, alleges abuse under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262, which addresses violence against women and their children.
Background and Procedural History
- In February 2008, Dolina filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City seeking a temporary protection order against Glenn D. Vallecera, claiming abuse.
- Alongside the protection request, Dolina included a handwritten plea for financial support for their claimed child, citing Vallecera as the father as per the child's Certificate of Live Birth.
- Vallecera contested the petition, asserting:
- The petition was fundamentally about financial support rather than protection from abuse.
- He denied paternity, claiming the signature on the child's birth certificate was not his.
- He stated there was no cohabitation with Dolina, making a protection order unnecessary.
- On March 13, 2008, the RTC dismissed Dolina's petition after hearing, determining that there was no established filiation to justify a support order.
- Dolina's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on April 4, 2008, which instructed h