Perla v. Baring
G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012


Case Doctrines: 

● A high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for x x x support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

●A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.

● To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously.

●While a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child’s paternity. Baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same.


Facts: 

Mirasol Baring and her then minor son, Randy, filed before the RTC a Complaint for support against Antonio Perla, alleging that Mirasol and Antonio lived together as common-law spouses for two years, as a result of which, Randy was born on November 11, 1983. They alleged that when Antonio landed a job as seaman, he abandoned them and failed to give any support to his son. 

To prove their allegations, they presented Randy's birth and baptismal certificates indicating Mirasol and Antonio as parents of Randy. Mirasol testified that she and Antonio supplied the information in the said certificates.

Randy also testified that he knows Antonio to be the husband of her mother and as his father. He recounted having met him for the first time in 1994 in the house of his Aunt Lelita, Antonio’s sister, where he was vacationing. During their encounter, Randy called Antonio "Papa" and kissed his hand while the latter hugged him. When Randy asked him for support, Antonio promised that he would support him. Randy further testified that during his one-week stay in his Aunt Lelita’s place, the latter treated him as member of the family.

For his part, Antonio admitted having sexual intercourse with Mirasol but only once which happened in the month of September or October of 1981. Antonio denied any hand in the preparation of Randy's birth certificate. He alleged that he became to know that he was being imputed as the father of Randy only when Mirasol charged him with abandonment of minor in 1994, which was also the first time he saw Randy.

The RTC rendered a decision ordering Antonio to support Randy.


Issue: 

Whether or not the RTC was correct in its ruling.


Held: 

Mirasol and Randy’s Complaint for support is based on Randy’s alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio. Hence, for Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty. The Decision of the RTC would show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding Randy’s filiation.

The Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for x x x support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

The Certificate of Live Birth of Randy identifying Antonio as the father has no probative value to establish Randy’s filiation to Antonio since the latter had not signed the same. It is settled that "a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.

"Neither does the testimony of Randy establish his illegitimate filiation. That during their first encounter in 1994 Randy called Antonio "Papa" and kissed his hand while Antonio hugged him and promised to support him; or that his Aunt Lelita treated him as a relative and was good to him during his one-week stay in her place, cannot be considered as indications of Randy’s open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172(1). "[T]o prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally, but continuously." Here, the single instance that Antonio allegedly hugged Randy and promised to support him cannot be considered as proof of continuous possession of the status of a child. To emphasize, "[t]he father’s conduct towards his son must be spontaneous and uninterrupted for this ground to exist." Here, except for that singular occasion in which they met, there are no other acts of Antonio treating Randy as his son. Neither can Antonio’s paternity be deduced from how his sister Lelita treated Randy. To this Court, Lelita’s actuations could have been done due to charity or some other reasons."

Anent the baptismal certificate, it has been held that "while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the child’s paternity. Thus, x x x baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same. (Eugenio vs Velez, G.R. No. 85140, May 17, 1990).