G.R. No. 95386 May 29, 1997
MIGUELA CAMPOS ONG, Surviving Spouse of MANUEL ONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ALFREDO ONG and ROBERT ONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguela Campos Ong, the surviving spouse of Manuel Ong, assails the decisions declaring private respondents Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Ong as the illegitimate children of the deceased Manuel Ong, entitling them to support. The respondents, sons of Saturnina Caballes, filed a complaint for recognition and support. They presented evidence that from 1954 to 1957, Manuel Ong, using the alias “Alfredo Go,” had an illicit relationship with Saturnina, during which Alfredo and Robert were born. Manuel provided financial support, including money and rice. In 1976, the children visited Manuel at his home, where they were entertained by his common-law wife, Dolores Dy. In 1979, Manuel gave Alfredo a graduation gift check. Later, when Alfredo requested educational support, Manuel initially gave money and asked for a list of expenses but subsequently refused further aid and threatened to call the police, leading to the filing of the complaint.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, applying Article 283, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Civil Code, finding continuous possession of status and other evidence of paternity. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally citing paragraph 3 of the same article regarding conception during cohabitation. Petitioner challenges the credibility of Saturnina, noting her prior relationship with another man, and argues the evidence does not sufficiently prove open cohabitation or continuous possession of status to warrant compulsory recognition under the specific paragraphs cited by the lower courts.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration that Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Ong are the illegitimate children of Manuel Ong, entitled to recognition and support.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. While it agreed with the petitioner that the evidence might not conclusively establish “continuous possession of status” (par. 2) or “cohabitation” in the open and public sense required by jurisprudence (par. 3), the case definitively falls under the catch-all provision of Article 283, paragraph 4: “When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father.” The Court, citing Ilano v. Court of Appeals, held this paragraph operates as a blanket provision. The totality of evidence constitutes “any evidence or proof” of paternity. This includes Saturnina’s credible testimony, corroborated by Constancia Lim, of a sustained sexual relationship with Manuel Ong during the period of conception, the provision of financial support, the acknowledgment by Manuel’s common-law wife, and Manuel’s own acts of giving monetary gifts. Saturnina’s prior relationship did not negate paternity, as it ended well before the births. Thus, the combined evidence sufficiently proved Manuel Ong’s paternity, compelling recognition under the law.