Jison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998

Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J.

Facts:

Monina Jison filed a complaint before the RTC for recognition as an illegitimate child of petitioner Francisco Jison. She alleged that at the end of 1945 or the start of 1946, Petitioner Francisco Jison impregnated her mother Esperanza F. Amolar (who was then employed as the nanny of Petitioner's daughter, Lourdes).

She was born on Aug 6 1946, in Dingle, Iloilo, and since childhood, had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of Petitioner Francisco by his acts and that of his family.

•    Francisco gave her support and spent for her education, such that she obtained a Master's degree, became a certified public accountant, and eventually, a Central Bank examiner.

•    Francisco paid for the burial expenses of Amolar

•    Monina was allowed to stay in P's house except if the latter's wife was around. She was also able to live with some of P's relatives.

•    Monina also asked for P's blessing before she got married

At trial on the merits,

•     Monina presented 11 witnesses who testified how they got to know Monina and her mother; and the interactions bet Esperanza and Franciso, and between Monina and Francisco.

•     Monina enumerated the different members of the household staff at Nelly Garden

•    She also narrated the time when she asked P for money to go to Spain, but was later forced to sign  an affidavit denying P as her father, in exchange for the money she was asking.

In his answer, Francisco alleged that he could not have had sexual relations with Esperanza during the period specified in the complaint as she had ceased to be in his employ as early as 1944, and did not know of her whereabouts since then; further, he never recognized Monina,, expressly or implicitly, as his illegitimate child. As affirmative and special defenses, Franciso contended that Monina had no right or cause of action against him and that her action was barred by estoppel, laches and/or prescription.

RTC dismissed the complaint. CA, however, reversed the decision.

Hence this petition.

--------------------------------------------------

Issue:  WON Monina established her filiation as Petitioner Francisco's illegitimate daughter.

Held: Yes.

**Note:  Before the SC answered the main issue, it held that the instant case was governed by Article 175, in relation to Articles 172 and 173, of the Family Code, since, as CA correctly stated, no vested or acquired rights were affected.**

The testimonial evidence offered by Monina, woven by her narration of circumstances and events that occurred through the years, concerning her relationship with Francisco, coupled with the testimonies of her witnesses, overwhelmingly established the following facts:

1) Francisco is Monina' s father and she was conceived at the time when her mother was in the employ of the former;

2) Francisco recognized Monina as his child through his overt acts and conduct

3) Such recognition has been consistently shown and manifested throughout the years publicly

The affidavit she signed does not hold sway in the face of Monina's logical explanation that she at first did agree to sign the affidavit which contained untruthful statements. At any rate, if she were not his illegitimate daughter, it would have been uncalled for, if not absurd, for Petitioner or his lawyer to have secured Monina's sworn statement.

Petitioner's testimony was comprised of mere denials, rife with bare, unsubstantiated responses. The same thing can be said with the testimonies made by the  witnesses he presented.

The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud and injustice.  Since the instant case involves paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate, Monina filed her action well within the period granted her by a positive provision of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would clearly be inequitable and unjust.

Other points (although these did not affect the SC's final decision):

•    In deciding paternity suits, the issue of whether sexual intercourse actually occurred inevitably redounds to the victims or mothers word, as against the accused or putative father's protestations

•    Monina's reliance on the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar concerning her birth is clearly misplaced. It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person.

•   The various notes and letters written by Francisco's relatives allegedly attesting to Monina's filiation, may not be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the declarants and Monina shown by evidence other than the documents in question

DECISION: Petition denied. CA decision, affirmed.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen.