G.R. No. 124814; October 21, 2004
CAMELO CABATANIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CAMELO REGODOS, respondents.

FACTS

Florencia Regodos filed a petition for recognition and support on behalf of her minor son, Camelo Regodos, against Camelo Cabatania. She testified that she was employed as Cabatania’s housemaid in 1981. She claimed that on January 2, 1982, Cabatania brought her to a motel in Bacolod City where they had sexual intercourse, with a promise of support if she became pregnant. She alleged she discovered her pregnancy 27 days later, had another sexual encounter with him in March 1982, and was later sent away by his wife. Cabatania allegedly rented a house for her in Singcang, Bacolod, where she later gave birth to Camelo Regodos on September 9, 1982.
Cabatania admitted to a single sexual encounter with Florencia in March 1982 but denied paternity. He testified that during this encounter, Florencia informed him she was already pregnant by her husband. He denied the January 2, 1982 incident, renting a house for her, and ever promising support. He insisted Florencia was already pregnant when they had sex. The trial court found Florencia’s testimony credible, noting the child’s physical resemblance to Cabatania, and ordered recognition and support. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order compelling Cabatania to recognize Camelo Regodos as his illegitimate son and provide support.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The petition was granted because the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the legal presumption of the child’s legitimacy and to prove filiation. Florencia’s testimony was deemed unreliable due to a material misrepresentation in her petition, where she falsely claimed to be a widow when her husband was alive. This falsehood cast doubt on her overall credibility.
Critically, the child was born during Florencia’s valid subsisting marriage, giving rise to the strong presumption under Article 167 of the Family Code that a child born within a marriage is legitimate. This presumption can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court held that Florencia’s self-serving testimony, uncorroborated by any other competent evidence like an authentic document or continuous possession of status, was inadequate to prove Cabatania’s paternity. The lower courts’ reliance on the child’s alleged physical resemblance was deemed an extremely subjective and insufficient basis for establishing filiation. Consequently, the action for compulsory recognition and support failed.