G.R. No. L-9362, December 24, 1915
TOMAS A DALISTAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. EMILIANO ARMAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Tomasa Dalistan filed an action against defendant Emiliano Armas to compel him to recognize and support their two infant daughters, Agustina and Ildefonsa, and to recover damages for breach of a contract of marriage. Dalistan claimed that she maintained illicit relations with Armas based on his repeated promises to marry her. The trial court held that damages for breach of the marriage promise could not be recovered because the contract was based on an illicit consideration. However, the court condemned Armas to recognize and support the two children. Armas appealed, contesting the admission of evidence regarding his prior relations with Dalistan, the admission of the children’s baptismal certificates (Exhibits A and B), the finding that he had recognized the children as his natural children, and the amount of the monthly allowance for maintenance.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant is obliged to recognize and support the two infant children as his natural children.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The baptismal certificates (Exhibits A and B), which identified the children as the legitimate offspring of Armas and Dalistan, were admissible as corroborative evidence. It was established that Armas himself presented the children for baptism and declared them to be his legitimate children. His conductpublicly treating the children as his own, maintaining them, and being recognized by the community and his own family as their fatherdemonstrated that the children enjoyed the uninterrupted status of natural children. This entitled them to recognition under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Civil Code. The Court also found the monthly pension of P15 per child to be reasonable. The claim for damages for breach of the marriage promise was properly dismissed due to the illicit consideration.

Note: A separate concurring opinion by Justice Moreland agreed with the result but disagreed with the reasoning that damages for breach of a marriage promise are always unrecoverable when based on illicit consideration, arguing that such relations may be admissible as an element aggravating damages in such actions.