G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954
Belen Jove Lagrimas, represented by her mother, Ponciana Jove as Guardian Ad-Litem, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Tito Lagrimas, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Belen Jove Lagrimas, a minor represented by her mother Ponciana Jove as guardian ad litem, filed a complaint for support against Tito Lagrimas in June 1947. The complaint alleged that from 1926 to 1940, defendant lived with Ponciana Jove as common-law husband, and as a fruit of such cohabitation, plaintiff was born in November 1939; that defendant supported plaintiff for one year by delivering thirty pesos monthly but stopped in 1940 when he found another woman; that Ponciana was poor and sickly; and that defendant, being financially able as mayor of Iriga, a pensioner from the U.S. Navy, and a property owner, refused to provide support despite demands. Defendant’s answer admitted the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint but denied all other allegations in paragraphs 2 to 10 generally, not specifically. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing defendant’s general denial amounted to an admission of the factual averments under the Rules. Defendant agreed but contended the complaint failed to allege plaintiff was an acknowledged natural child. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that paternity was not established in accordance with Article 140 of the Civil Code, and the mere allegation of paternity, though deemed admitted, was insufficient to entitle plaintiff to support.

ISSUE

Whether the admitted factual allegations in the complaint, including plaintiff’s filiation as an illegitimate child of defendant, constitute a sufficient cause of action for support under the Civil Code, notwithstanding the lack of a prior separate judicial declaration of paternity.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. Under Rule 9, section 7 of the Rules of Court, defendant’s general denial amounted to an admission of the complaint’s factual averments, including: (a) plaintiff was the illegitimate daughter of defendant; (b) plaintiff’s mother was unable to maintain her; (c) defendant refused support though able; and (d) plaintiff needed P100 monthly. These admitted facts constituted a sufficient cause of action because, under the Civil Code (Article 139), an illegitimate child—not natural—is entitled to support. The trial court erred in applying Article 140 to require a prior final judgment establishing paternity in a separate action. Article 141 prohibits investigating paternity in a support action only when the defendant denies it. Here, defendant admitted filiation through his general denial, so no investigation was needed, and the prohibition did not apply. There is no legal impediment to declaring paternity in the same action for support when defendant admits it, and such judgment suffices under Article 140(1). The Court declared plaintiff the illegitimate daughter of defendant and ordered him to provide support of P100 monthly until she reaches majority, subject to the reservation that this decision does not prevent plaintiff from hereafter asserting rights as a recognized natural child in appropriate proceedings if she can justify such status. The majority declined to classify plaintiff as a natural child because the complaint contained no assertion that at conception, defendant and her mother were legally free to marry each other. Justice Pablo, in a separate opinion, concurred in the result but argued that an acknowledged illegitimate child should be presumed natural in the absence of proof to the contrary.