Title
Ong vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 95386
Decision Date
May 29, 1997
Miguela Campos Ong contested Alfredo and Robert Ong's claim as Manuel Ong's illegitimate children. Courts affirmed paternity under Article 283, ordering support.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95386)

Factual Background

The relationship between Manuel Ong and Saturnina Caballes began around December 20, 1953, leading to the birth of Alfredo Ong, Jr. on June 28, 1955, and Robert Ong on August 17, 1956. Manuel initially provided some financial support until he cut ties, prompting Saturnina to seek help for their children. She eventually filed for recognition and support, claiming that Manuel Ong had refused her requests despite acknowledgments in earlier instances.

Legal Proceedings and Trial Court Ruling

In a trial, the Regional Trial Court found that Alfredo Ong and Robert Ong were illegitimate children of Manuel Ong based on the provisions of Article 283 of the Civil Code, which stipulates the obligations of a father to recognize and support his child if the conditions are met. The court ordered Manuel Ong to provide monthly support to the plaintiffs, a decision which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Appellate Court's Findings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings, asserting that evidence supported the respondents' claims of their relationship with Manuel Ong. It referenced several paragraphs of Article 283, particularly focusing on continuous possession of status as children and circumstances of conception.

Arguments Presented by Petitioner

Miguela Campos Ong challenged the decisions on the grounds of Saturnina Caballes's credibility and morality, citing a past relationship with another man before her affair with Manuel Ong. The petitioner argued that the conditions outlined in Article 283 were not satisfied, particularly pointing to the lack of continuous recognition and support from Manuel Ong as evidence against the claims of paternity.

Court's Analysis of Evidence

The Supreme Court acknowledged the factual findings by the lower courts, emphasizing that their determinations on witness credibility carry significant weight. It found that minor inconsistencies in Saturnina Caballes’s testimony did not undermine the established fact of a relationship between her and Manuel Ong, especially given corroborative testimony from others.

Examination of Paternity Claims

The Court addressed the claims of Manuel Ong's alleged sterility, highlighting the absence of medical evidence and the past acknowledgment of another child he had, which contradicted the assertion that he could not father children. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding virility rested with the petitioner.

Conclusion on Recognition and Support Oblig

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.