BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO Vs.
ARHBENCEL ANN LOPEZ, represented by her mother
ARACELI LOPEZ, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010
“x x x.
Herrera v. Alba[1] summarizes the laws, rules, and jurisprudence on establishing
filiation, discoursing in relevant part as follows:
Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence
Establishing Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
xxxx
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved
by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections
of Rule 130 provide:
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to
him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these
facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family
history intimately connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to
the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness
testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family
portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as
evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we
stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional
evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative
father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent
shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in
any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the
putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A
notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative
father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a
good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on
various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation.
However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as
authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family
pictures are sufficient to establish filiation. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the handwritten note
executed by petitioner which reads:
Manila, Aug. 7, 1999
I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and provide financial
support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth day of each month for
a total of P3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15, 1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez,
presently in the custody of her mother Araceli Lopez without the necessity of
demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my
income.
The abovequoted note does not contain any statement whatsoever about
Arhbencel’s filiation to petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of Article
172(2) vis-à-vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent evidence
of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument
signed by the parent concerned.
The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial agreement to
support the child referred to in Herrera. For it is not even notarized. And Herrera
instructs that the notarial agreement must be accompanied by the putative father’s
admission of filiation to be an acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however, not
only has petitioner not admitted filiation through contemporaneous actions. He has
consistently denied it.
The only other documentary evidence submitted by Arhbencel, a copy of her
Certificate of Birth,[2] has no probative value to establish filiation to petitioner, the
latter not having signed the same.
At bottom, all that Arhbencel really has is petitioner’s handwritten undertaking to
provide financial support to her which, without more, fails to establish her claim of
filiation. The Court is mindful that the best interests of the child in cases involving
paternity and filiation should be advanced. It is, however, just as mindful of the
disturbance that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the
putative father’s legitimate family.
