GR 85723; (June, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85723. June 19, 1995. BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CLARITO AGBULOS, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Clarito Agbulos filed an action for compulsory recognition and support against petitioner Bienvenido Rodriguez. During trial, the plaintiff presented his mother, Felicitas Agbulos Haber, as a witness. When asked to identify the plaintiff’s father, the defendant’s counsel objected. The trial court sustained the objection, disallowing the testimony. The plaintiff then filed a petition for certiorari, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, allowing the mother’s testimony. Petitioner now seeks a review, arguing the trial court’s order was interlocutory and not reviewable by certiorari, and that the testimony is prohibited by Article 280 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the mother of a natural child can testify to identify the putative father in an action for compulsory recognition, notwithstanding Article 280 of the Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the procedural issue, while certiorari generally does not review interlocutory orders, exceptions exist to prevent irreparable damage or where an appeal is inadequate. Here, disallowing the crucial testimony would deprive the plaintiff of a speedy remedy. On the substantive issue, the Court held Article 280’s prohibition applies only to voluntary recognition, not compulsory recognition proceedings. The article, derived from the Spanish Civil Code, is found in the section governing voluntary acknowledgment. Its purpose is to prevent scandal in voluntary acts, not to bar evidence in judicial compulsion.
The ruling distinguishes the case from Navarro v. Bacalla, which left the question open when a timely objection is made. The Court clarified that in an action for compulsory recognition under Article 283, a child may prove paternity by “any evidence or proof,” which includes the mother’s testimony. This interpretation aligns with the liberalizing intent of the Family Code, which repealed Article 280 and allows illegitimate filiation to be established like legitimate filiation. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case, admitting the mother’s testimony as admissible evidence.