Case Summary (G.R. No. 165166)
Key Dates
Complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite filed: September 6, 1995. Birth of child Gliffze: March 9, 1995. RTC decision dismissing complaint: June 25, 2002. Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC and ordering recognition and support: March 5, 2004. CA resolution denying reconsideration: July 27, 2004. Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45 (date of filing appears in the record).
Factual Background
The respondent and petitioner met while employed at the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank in Maasin. Court testimony and exhibits established a courtship beginning December 1992, reciprocal acts of affection, and intimate sexual relations beginning at least by September 1993 according to the respondent. The respondent became pregnant and informed the petitioner in mid-September 1994; the petitioner initially expressed intent to marry and even applied for a marriage license but later withdrew from wedding plans. The respondent gave birth to Gliffze on March 9, 1995. After the petitioner failed to provide support, the respondent sent a demand letter (July 24, 1995) and subsequently filed the complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite.
Procedural History
Pre-trial was terminated and trial on the merits ensued before the RTC. During the pendency of the case, the RTC granted a P2,000 monthly support pendente lite, retroactive to March 1995. The RTC later dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence on June 25, 2002, ordered repayment of the pendente lite support, and awarded attorney’s fees to the petitioner. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC on March 5, 2004, ordered the petitioner to recognize the child and reinstated the P2,000 monthly support. The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 27, 2004. The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in setting aside the RTC’s findings and ordering the petitioner to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son, Gliffze.
Applicable Legal Standards
Filiation may be proved by the civil birth record or final judgment, admissions in public or private documents, open and continuous possession of status, or other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws (Family Code Articles 172, 175). Other acceptable evidence includes baptismal certificates, judicial admissions, common reputation, testimonies of witnesses, and other proof admissible under Rule 130. Jurisprudence recognizes procedural aspects in paternity actions: establishing a prima facie case (declaration of sexual relations supported by corroborative proof), affirmative defenses available to a putative father (incapacity such as absence or impotency, or proof that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception), the presumption of legitimacy where applicable, and consideration of physical resemblance. Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the putative father to rebut or prove affirmative defenses. Support is an obligatory civil duty of parents (Family Code Articles 194–202), with amounts variable according to the necessities of the child and the means of the obligor.
RTC’s Findings and Rationale
The RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence on the question of filiation. The RTC emphasized inconsistencies in the respondent’s testimony concerning the timing of the first sexual contact (respondent’s direct testimony referenced “September 1993,” whereas cross-examination indicated “last week of January 1993”) and questioned the respondent’s stated reasons for continuing sexual relations after refusing an initial marriage proposal. Based on these perceived inconsistencies and the record as a whole, the RTC concluded filiation was not proven and ordered the return of the pendente lite support and an award of P10,000 attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals’ Findings and Rationale
The CA disagreed with the RTC’s appraisal of the respondent’s testimony, characterizing the inconsistencies as honest mistakes arising from the respondent’s miscomprehension of certain questions and errors in the stenographic transcript. The CA found corroborative evidence that the parties had intimate relations before August 1994, highlighted that the respondent had only one boyfriend during the relevant period, and noted the petitioner’s allegations of other relationships were unsubstantiated. Concluding that the respondent established a prima facie case and that the petitioner failed to rebut it with affirmative defenses or credible evidence, the CA set aside the RTC decision, ordered recognition of the child, and reinstated the P2,000 monthly support pendente lite.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA’s decision. It reiterated the governing standards: a prima facie case in paternity actions exists when the mother declares sexual relations with the putative father and provides corroborative proof, thereby shifting the evidentiary burden to the putative father to prove affirmative defenses. The Court observed that the respondent’s testimony, taken in its entirety and when read with corroboration from witness Rodulfo Lopez, satisfactorily established intimate relations with the petitioner during the relevant period. The petitioner admitted sexual encounters but contested the timing and asserted the mother’s alleged infidelity; the petitioner, however, failed to substantiate those allegations. The Court accepted the CA’s view that the apparent contradictions in the respondent’s testimony were
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165166)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by petitioner Charles Gotardo challenging:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) March 5, 2004 decision in CA GR CV No. 76326 ordering petitioner to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Gliffze O. Buling.
- The CA July 27, 2004 resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
- Case docketed as G.R. No. 165166; Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Brion, Second Division, dated August 15, 2012; reported at 692 Phil. 566; 109 OG No. 27, 4729 (July 8, 2013).
- Relief sought by petitioner: reversal of CA decision and resolution and dismissal of respondent’s complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite.
Factual Background — Relationship and Conception Allegations
- Parties met on December 1, 1992 at the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), Maasin, Southern Leyte branch:
- Respondent Divina Buling was a casual employee; petitioner Charles Gotardo was accounting supervisor. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Courtship and romantic relationship timeline:
- Petitioner began courting respondent in the third week of December 1992; they became sweethearts in the last week of January 1993. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Petitioner gave respondent greeting cards on special occasions; respondent reciprocated and took care of petitioner when ill. (TSN, February 16, 1996; Exhibits “Ba” and “C”)
- Residence and sexual relations:
- Intimate sexual relations began sometime in September 1993 in a rented room in a boarding house managed by Rodulfo Lopez (respondent’s uncle) on Tomas Oppus St., Agbao, Maasin, Southern Leyte. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996; TSN, July 18, 1996)
- Petitioner rented that room from March 1, 1993 to August 30, 1994. (TSN, May 15, 1996; TSN, July 18, 1996)
- Sexual encounters occurred approximately twice a month and became more frequent in June 1994. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Discovery of pregnancy and wedding plans:
- Respondent discovered her pregnancy on August 8, 1994. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Upon being informed, petitioner expressed happiness, made plans to marry respondent, and they applied for a marriage license. (TSN, February 16, 1996; Exhibit “E”)
- Petitioner inquired about wedding reception and bridal gown costs. (TSN, February 16, 1996)
- Petitioner later withdrew from the marriage plans; respondent filed a breach of promise to marry complaint in the Municipal Trial Court of Maasin, which was later amicably settled. (TSN, February 16, 1996; Exhibit “3”)
- Birth and demand for recognition/support:
- Respondent gave birth to Gliffze on March 9, 1995. (TSN, February 16, 1996; Exhibit “A”)
- Petitioner failed to provide support and did not recognize the child; respondent sent petitioner a demand letter dated July 24, 1995 demanding recognition and support. (TSN, February 16, 1996; Exhibit “F”)
- When petitioner did not respond to the demand, respondent filed a complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite with the RTC of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25 on September 6, 1995. (Original records; TSN, February 16, 1996)
Pleadings, Evidence and Testimony at Trial
- Complainant/respondent’s evidence:
- Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented Rodulfo Lopez as corroborating witness. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Testimony established continuous intimate relationship with petitioner, single boyfriend status (petitioner) from January 1993 to August 1994, and sexual relations beginning in or around September 1993. (TSN, February 16, 1996; TSN, May 15, 1996)
- Exhibits presented included letters, documents related to marriage license inquiries, and birth certificate. (Exhibits “Ba,” “C,” “E,” “A,” “F”; Folder of Exhibits)
- Defendant/petitioner’s evidence:
- Petitioner denied imputed paternity in his answer and on the witness stand. (Original records; TSN, September 5, 2000)
- He claimed first sexual contact with respondent occurred in the first week of August 1994 and argued respondent could not have been three months pregnant by September 15, 1994. (TSN, September 5, 2000)
- Petitioner alleged respondent had prior sexual relationships with other men (alleging possible infidelity/promiscuity), but failed to substantiate these allegations with evidence. (TSN, September 5, 2000; Supreme Court findings)
Interim Relief — Support Pendente Lite
- During pendency of the case, upon respondent’s motion, the RTC on August 1, 1996 granted a P2,000.00 monthly child support award, retroactive from March 1995. (Original records, August 1, 1996 order)
RTC Ruling (June 25, 2002)
- Ruling: RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to prove Gliffze’s filiation.
- RTC findings and reasoning:
- Found respondent’s testimony inconsistent regarding the date of first sexual contact: stated “sometime in September 1993” in direct testimony but “last week of January 1993” in cross-examination.
- Questioned respondent’s stated reason for engaging in sexual contact after having refused petitioner’s initial marriage proposal.
- Concluded there was insufficiency of evidence to establish paternity.
- Orders by RTC:
- Ordered respondent to return the amount of support pendente lite it had previously awarded (deemed erroneously awarded).
- Ordered respondent to pay P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. (Original records, June 25, 2002 decision)
Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) — CA Ruling (March 5, 2004) and Motion Denial (July 27, 2004)
- CA disposition:
- Departed f