Title
Infante vs. Figueras
Case
G.R. No. 1884
Decision Date
Sep 7, 1905
Presentacion Infante sued Manuel T. Figueras to recognize paternity of Manuela under Civil Code, citing continuous status; Supreme Court reversed, ruling testimonies and letters inadmissible, emphasizing legal prohibition on direct paternity investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137341)

Applicable Law

The primary legal framework applied in this case is Article 135 of the Civil Code, which outlines the circumstances under which a father is obligated to acknowledge a natural child. This includes situations where there is unequivocal written recognition of paternity or continuous possession of the status of being a natural child by the child, justified by direct actions by the father or his family. The Civil Code is referenced alongside the Law of Bases from May 11, 1888, which governs proceedings regarding paternity.

Allegations and Defenses

Presentacion Infante initiated the case by alleging that Manuel T. Figueras is the father of her daughter Manuela and requests that he be compelled to recognize her as such. Figueras refuted all claims made by the plaintiff. During proceedings, testimonies from Presentacion’s mother and other witnesses were brought forth to suggest a relationship between Figueras and Presentacion prior to the child's birth.

Admissibility of Evidence

The core issue in this case was determining the admissibility of the evidence presented during trial. Specifically, the legitimacy of witness testimonies that aimed to substantiate the claim of paternity was challenged by Figueras, who argued that such evidence should not have been permitted under the provisions of Article 135 and the Law of Bases.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

The court's decision hinged on whether evidence indicative of Father’s paternity could be used to substantiate claims regarding the possession of the status of a natural child. The court ruled that the evidence, which included testimonies regarding relationships prior to Manuela's birth and communications sent from Figueras to Presentacion, was improperly admitted. Citing the limitations imposed by the Civil Code, the court clarified that obligations of paternity require explicit acknowledgment or demonstration of continued paternal behavior, rather than circumstantial evidence suggesti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.