GR 104376; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104376 February 23, 1994
ARTEMIO G. ILANO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MERCEDITAS S. ILANO, represented by her mother, LEONCIA DE LOS SANTOS, respondent.
FACTS
Leoncia de los Santos met petitioner Artemio G. Ilano while she was a secretary. They renewed acquaintances in 1957. After a courtship of more than four years and with his promise of marriage, they eloped to Guagua, Pampanga in April 1962, cohabiting in an apartment procured and paid for by Melencio Reyes, an employee of petitioner. Leoncia conceived and delivered a still-born female child in October 1962, with petitioner signing the death certificate. Private respondent Merceditas S. Ilano was born on December 30, 1963, and her birth certificate recorded her as the child of Leoncia and Artemio Geluz Ilano. Petitioner provided support in cash and checks, signed Merceditas’s school report card as “parent,” and treated her as his child. He stopped living with them in June 1971. Petitioner denied any relationship with Leoncia and Merceditas, claiming he was sick and hospitalized around the time of Merceditas’s birth and that he never slept away from his family home. The trial court dismissed the complaint for recognition and support, finding insufficient proof of paternity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declaring Merceditas as the duly acknowledged illegitimate child of petitioner and ordering him to pay support in arrears and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding back support in the absence of prior recognition or a final judgment declaring paternity.
2. Whether an adulterous child can file an action for recognition.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals decided matters of substance against established jurisprudence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. The award of back support was proper. Under Article 291 of the Civil Code, support in arrears may be claimed from the date of judicial demand. The filing of the complaint in 1972 constituted judicial demand. The eventual final judgment declaring paternity establishes the obligation to support from that date.
2. Merceditas is a natural child, not an adulterous one. At the time of her conception, her parents (petitioner and Leoncia) were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, as petitioner’s marriage was only proven to be subsisting from 1968 onwards, after Merceditas’s birth in 1963. Therefore, she could file an action for compulsory recognition.
3. The Court of Appeals did not err. Its findings, based on the evidence, established petitioner’s paternity through his continuous and unequivocal acts of recognition, such as providing support, signing the child’s report card, and treating her as his own. These acts constitute an implied admission of paternity. The defense of denial and alibi was properly rejected. The award of attorney’s fees was also deemed just and equitable.