G.R. No. 124853 - Jison vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124853)

Petitioner’s Position and Defenses

Francisco denied having had sexual relations with Esperanza during the period alleged and denied any recognition, expressly or impliedly, of Monina as his illegitimate child. He asserted affirmative defenses including lack of cause of action, estoppel, laches and prescription, and counterclaimed for damages for malicious prosecution. Petitioner relied principally on his testimony and depositions of several employees denying the alleged facts and maintained that some witnesses had been dismissed and thus were biased.

Respondent’s Claims and Evidence

Monina alleged conception while her mother was in petitioner’s employ, and presented testimony and documentary evidence to show that petitioner (or his agents/office) provided financial support for her education, allowances, funeral expenses for her mother, long‑distance telephone charges from petitioner’s residence, placement or recommendations for employment, free lodging at petitioner’s houses, and social treatment by petitioner’s relatives. She also recounted the 1971 incident where she signed an affidavit denying paternity in exchange for P15,000, which she later explained was induced by necessity and pressure and inconsistent with her long history of paternal recognition.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Complaint for recognition filed: 13 March 1985.
Trial proceedings: testimony taken in 1986 and thereafter.
Regional Trial Court (Branch 24, Iloilo City) decision: 12 November 1990 — dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, relying on estoppel by the 1971 affidavit among other findings.
Court of Appeals decision (CA‑G.R. CV No. 32860): 27 April 1995 — reversed the RTC and declared Monina the illegitimate daughter of petitioner. Motion for reconsideration denied: 29 March 1996.
Supreme Court review by petition under Rule 45: petition filed and given due course November 1996; Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision (petition resolved under the 1987 Constitution and Family Code).

Applicable Law and Evidentiary Standards

Governing law: Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), applied retroactively insofar as it does not impair vested rights. Relevant provisions: Article 172 (modes of proving filiation), Article 175 (application to illegitimate filiation), and Article 256 (retroactivity principle referenced). Rules of evidence and Rules of Court criteria were applied, including Rule 130, Sections 39–41, concerning acts/declarations about pedigree and family reputation. Legal standards: where birth records and admissions required by Article 172 are absent, illegitimate filiation may be proved by “open and continuous possession of the status” or other means, but such proof must meet a high standard—clear and convincing evidence—because of the significant social and familial consequences of recognizing paternity.

Issues Presented

Did petitioner have sexual relations with Esperanza around the time of conception?
Did Monina enjoy the open and continuous possession of the status of petitioner’s illegitimate daughter by petitioner’s acts or those of his family?
Were Monina’s claims barred by estoppel (the 1971 affidavit), laches, or prescription?
Were documentary exhibits and testimonies properly admitted and accorded appropriate weight?

Trial Evidence and Witness Testimony

Monina produced eleven witnesses including household and office staff and relatives who testified to petitioner’s admissions, payments for Monina’s schooling and allowances (P15 monthly from the early 1960s), payment of funeral expenses for her mother, instructions to hide Monina when petitioner’s lawful wife was present, telephone toll cards indicating long‑distance calls from petitioner’s residence, photographs showing Monina with members of the Lopez family, and testimony that Monina addressed petitioner as “Daddy” in some encounters. Petitioner presented depositions and witnesses denying sexual relations with Esperanza, denying knowledge of payments or recognition, and suggesting that some payments or interactions were due to employment or other motives; several of petitioner’s witnesses gave negative testimony or stated lack of recollection.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC dismissed the complaint, emphasizing the delay in filing (complaint filed when Monina was 39 and twenty years after her mother’s death), finding the proof of copulation improbable on the particular dates alleged, and classifying key testimony for plaintiff as hearsay, incredulous, or self‑serving. The court rejected some documentary evidence (birth and baptismal certificates) because of misspellings and lack of proof petitioner’s involvement in their preparation, and it held that the 1971 affidavit (in which Monina denied paternity) estopped her from claiming filiation. The RTC did not sustain petitioner’s damages claim.

Court of Appeals Findings and Rationale

The Court of Appeals reversed, applying Article 175 and related Family Code provisions and finding overwhelming evidence that Monina was petitioner’s illegitimate daughter. The CA gave probative weight to direct testimony of witnesses (including Lope Amolar, Adela Casabuena and Dominador Savariz), corroborative testimony of household and office staff demonstrating continuous recognition and support, and to the circumstances surrounding the 1971 affidavit and the payment of P15,000 (viewed as an attempt to suppress or conceal paternity). The CA discounted petitioner’s denials as vague and insufficient to overcome the cumulative testimonial and circumstantial evidence showing continuous, public manifestations of paternal conduct.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Evidence and Law

The Supreme Court applied the Family Code standard that illegitimate filiation may be proved by the same means as legitimate filiation and emphasized that, where the first‑paragraph evidence is absent, the second‑paragraph modes (open and continuous possession or other evidence permitted by rules and special laws) require a “high standard of proof” — clear and convincing evidence. The Court examined the timing argument and rejected the RTC’s narrow fixation on specific months: given Monina’s birthdate, conception late in 1945 was plausible and not impossible. The Court evaluated the totality of testimony and found the pattern of acts (financial support, allowances, schooling expenses, funeral expenses, long‑distance calls, permitting use of petitioner’s houses, and social treatment by petitioner’s relatives) coherent, continuous, and more consistent with recognition than with mere charity or employment relationship.

Documentary Evidence and Rules on Admissibility

The Supreme Court clarified that birth certificates, baptismal records and school records are not competent proof of paternity when the alleged father did not participate in their preparation; they may, however, be used to corroborate testimonial claims about schooling or other facts. Letters and notes from petitioner’s relatives (Exhibits S–V) were inadmissible under Rule 130 Section 39 as statements about pedigree because the declarants did not testify; they likewise did not qualify as “family possessions” under Section 40 (entries in family bibles, portraits, inscriptions, etc.). Nevertheless, the Court allowed that such documents and school records could be considered as part of the overall narrative supporting Monina’s testimony to the extent they corroborated treatment and recognition by petitioner’s relatives or by petitioner’s agents.

The 1971 Affidavit (Estoppel by Deed) and Its Weight

The Supreme Court analyzed Exhibit P (the 1971 sworn statement denying paternity signed by Monina) against the circumstances of its execution. The Court found that Monina’s explanation — that she signed under p

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 124853)

Case Caption, Dates and Courts

Supreme Court G.R. No. 124853, decision promulgated February 24, 1998; reported 350 Phil. 138; 95 OG No. 25, 4211 (June 21, 1999), First Division, Davide, Jr., J., delivering the decision.
Petition for review under Rule 45 from the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 32860 dated April 27, 1995, and denial of reconsideration by the CA on March 29, 1996.
Trial court: Branch 24, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Civil Case No. 16373; trial court judgment dated November 12, 1990 (Judge Norberto E. Devera, Jr. rendered the decision; Judge Catalino Castañeda, Jr. presided over part of the trial).
Complaint filed with the RTC on March 13, 1985.

Nature of the Action and Relief Sought

An action for judicial recognition of illegitimate filiation: private respondent Monina Jison (plaintiff/appellant in CA) sought a judicial declaration that she is the illegitimate daughter of petitioner Francisco L. Jison and asked that he support and treat her as such.
Petitioner Francisco (defendant/appellee in CA) sought dismissal, asserted defenses of lack of cause of action, estoppel, laches, prescription, and counterclaimed for damages for malicious filing.

Facts as Alleged by Private Respondent (Monina)

Birth and parentage:
- Monina alleged birth on August 6, 1946, in Dingle, Iloilo, to Esperanza F. Amolar (nicknamed “Pansay”) and Francisco Jison.
- Complaint alleged sexual relations between Francisco and Esperanza at the end of 1945 or the start of 1946.
Upbringing, education and support:
- Since childhood Monina claimed continuous, implied recognition by Francisco and his family; she alleged Francisco provided support and spent for her education.
- She obtained a bachelor’s degree in Commerce (April 1967), became a certified public accountant (CPA in 1974), and later a Central Bank examiner; she also obtained an M.B.A.
- Monina asserted Francisco or his agents paid school tuition, boarding, monthly allowances, hospitalization expenses, funeral expenses for her mother, recommended employment and allowed use of his residences and surname in records.
Attempts to obtain express recognition:
- Monina alleged Francisco refused to expressly recognize her, prompting the judicial action.

Facts as Alleged by Petitioner (Francisco)

Denial of sexual relations and paternity:
- Francisco alleged Esperanza had ceased to be in his employ as early as October/November 1944 and that he could not have had sexual relations with her in late 1945/early 1946.
- He denied ever recognizing Monina, expressly or impliedly.
Denials as to support:
- Francisco denied paying for Monina’s tuition or otherwise supporting her, denied knowledge of payments by his employees (e.g., Mr. Lagarto), and denied authorizing use of his name in records.
Affirmative/special defenses:
- Asserts lack of right or cause of action; pleads estoppel by deed (the affidavit Monina executed in 1971), laches, prescription; prays dismissal and damages for malicious litigation.

Pre-trial Stipulated Issues

The parties stipulated at pre-trial to the following issues to be resolved by the court:
- 1. Did Francisco Jison have any sexual relations with Esperanza Amolar about the end of 1945 or the start of 1946?
- 1. Is Monina Jison the recognized illegitimate daughter of Francisco Jison by the latter’s own acts and those of his family?
- 1. Is Monina Jison barred from instituting or prosecuting the present action by estoppel, laches and/or prescription?
- 1. Damages.

Witnesses and Documentary Evidence for Private Respondent (Monina)

Eleven witnesses for Monina: Monina herself, Ruben Castellanes, Sr., Adela Casabuena, Arsenio Duatin, Zafiro Ledesma, Danthea Lopez, Romeo Bilbao, Rudy Tingson, Alfredo Baylosis, Dominador Savariz, and Lope Amolar.
Key factual testimonies and supporting documentary exhibits:
- Lope Amolar (brother of Esperanza) testified to an admission/confrontation where Francisco allegedly acknowledged support for Esperanza and “my child.”
- Adela Casabuena testified Pansay returned after childbirth and quarrel with Lilia Jison in which Pansay claimed Francisco as father and Lilia’s reply; asserted Francisco was allegedly inside listening.
- Dominador Savariz recounted conversations in 1954 where Francisco allegedly touched Monina’s head and asked “How are you Hija?” and gave money to Pansay for the child; also observed Monina claim allowance from Mr. Lagarto in 1954 and 1961.
- Arsenio Duatin testified Monina introduced herself as Francisco’s daughter in Bacolod; that Francisco instructed that Monina be hidden when he and his wife visited; that Francisco bade Arsenio to treat Monina like his other daughters; identified long-distance telephone cards (Exhs. G–L) and photographs (Exhs. X-5 to X-11).
- Zafiro Ledesma testified of Lopez family treating Monina as a relative and identified photographs of Monina with Vice-President Fernando Lopez family (Exhs. X-13 to X-18); introduced Social Security record (Exh. W) showing employer Danthea.
- Danthea Lopez testified Monina was introduced as reputedly the daughter of “Mr. Frank Jison”; Monina stayed free of board and was treated as family owing to reputation.
- Romeo Bilbao recounted events in 1971 where Monina sought money from “Daddy”, events leading to meeting with Atty. Tirol and Mr. Jose Cruz, and delivery of a check (Exh. Q).
- Rudy Tingson testified from 1965 he was instructed to give Monina a P15 monthly allowance by Mr. Lagarto; saw Francisco give Monina money; funeral expenses for Monina’s mother paid (P250; Funeraria Bernal); observed affectionate greeting between Francisco and Monina.
- Alfredo Baylosis testified Monina received a P15 monthly allowance starting in 1961 and that these disbursements were recorded in a separate cash book; verified certain links to Miller, Cruz & Co.; observed physical familiarity between Francisco and Monina.
- Monina’s own testimony: school records showing Francisco listed as parent/guardian (Exh. Z-1; Exhs. AA-1 and AA-2), accounts of schooling, living arrangements with relatives and employers, long-distance calls with annotations “charged and paid under the name of Frank L. Jison” (Exhs. G–L with back annotations Exhs. G-1 to L-1 and PLDT certification Exh. BB), letter of introduction (Exh. N), executed affidavit in 1971 (Exh. P/Exh. 2) which she later repudiated, check for P15,000 (Exh. Q) received in connection with the affidavit, letters of introduction and acknowledgments by relatives (Exhs. S–V), photographs of family gatherings (Exhs. X-12 to X-18).
Exhibits of note:
- Birth and baptismal certificates (Exhs. E, F, C, D) bearing variants of names (e.g., “Franque Jison”, “Frank Heson”, “Esperanza Amador/Amadora”).
- Affidavit dated September 20/21, 1971 (Exh. P/Exh. 2) wherein Monina attested Francisco was not her father; check (Exh. Q) for P15,000; PLDT toll cards (Exhs. G–L); family letters/introductions (Exhs. S–V); school transcripts (Exhs. Z, AA); Social Security record (Exh. W); photographs (Exhs. X-series).

Witnesses and Evidence for Petitioner (Francisco)

Petitioner offered deposition testimony of Francisco taken before Judge Romeo Callejo (RTC Manila, Branch 48) and six (6) additional witnesses: Nonito Jalandoni, Teodoro Zulla, Iaigo Supertisioso, Lourdes Ledesma (daughter), Jose Cruz (Miller, Cruz & Co. partner), and Dolores Argenal (househelper).
Key defenses and testimony themes:
- Francisco’s denials: that Esperanza ceased employment as early as October 1944; denial of sexual relations with Esperanza during the period relevant to conception; denial of having recognized Monina; denial of paying for Monina’s schooling or authorizing payments.
- Francisco’s explanation for employees’ behavior: he stated he fired some employees (Alfredo Baylosis, Rudy Tingson, Romeo Bilbao) for reasons such as “taking advantage” or loss of confidence when he discovered irregularities upon return from the United States; he asserted employees could have acted without his knowledge.
- Nonito Jalandoni testified he did not know Monina and only learned of her existence in June 1988; he denied seeing instructions to give Monina money.
- Teodoro Zulla denied seeing Monina receive funds from Lagarto or Baylosis and explained he prepared only certain vouchers not pertaining to Francisco’s personal expenses.
- Iaigo Supertisioso initially denied knowledge of any standing order to pay Monina; later, when confronted with a telephone toll ticket (Exh. H), admitted that a nickname on the ticket corresponded with a person in Francisco’s office, undermining categorical denials.
- Lourdes Ledesma (daughter of Francisco) recalled a casual introduction to Monina at a hospital and denied being asked to provide a letter of introduction.
- Jose Cruz confirmed Monina worked at Miller, Cruz & Co. (1968–1971); related the chain of events where Monina allegedly agreed to sign an affidavit in exchange for funds, and Jose Cruz’s testimony about delivering a P15,000 check (which he claimed he drew from personal funds subject to reimbursement from Francisco).
- Dolores Argenal testified Pansay was Lourdes’ nanny until October