Insufficient

To be entitled to support, an illegitimate child must establish filiation to his/her illegitimate parent. Under Article 172 in relation to Article 175 of the Family Code (FC), such filiation can be established by an admission in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. Will a handwritten undertaking to provide financial support be enough? This is answered in this case of Cely.

Cely was born on June 8, 1999 out of an extra-marital affair between Ana and Benny. In her birth certificate, the name of Benny is written as the father but Benny refused to sign it. Instead he just issued a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999 undertaking “to give and provide financial support in the amount of P1,500 every 15th and 30th day of each month or a total of P3,000 a month starting Aug. 15, 1999 to Cely, presently in the custody of her mother Ana without necessity of demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my income.”

Arguing that her filiation to Benny was established by the handwritten note, Cely, represented by her mother Ana filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for recognition and support against Benny praying that the latter be ordered: (1) to recognize her as his child; (2) to give her support in the increased amount of P8,000 during the pendency of the case ( pendente lite); and (3) to give her adequate monthly financial support until she reaches the age of majority.

While the RTC granted the support pendent lite of P3,000 a month on the basis of the handwritten note which it treated as “contractual support,” it later on dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. The RTC held that, among other things, Cely’s Birth Certificate was not prima facie evidence of her filiation to Benny as it did not bear the latter’s signature; that Benny’s handwritten undertaking to provide support did not contain a categorical acknowledgment that Cely is his child; and that Benny did not perform any overt act of acknowledgment of Cely as his illegitimate child after execution of the note. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. Cely relies mainly on the handwritten note executed by Benny which does not however contain any statement about her filiation to Benny. It is therefore not within the ambit of Article 172 (2) vis a vis Article 175 of the FC providing that the filiation of illegitimate children may be established by a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned admitting such filiation. Here, Benny has not only consistently denied his filiation to Cely, he has also not performed any contemporaneous acts admitting such filiation.

The only other documentary evidence submitted by Cely, a copy of the Birth Certificate, has no probative value to establish filiation to Benny because the latter has not signed it. So the handwritten note without more, fails to establish filiation.

While the best interest of the child in cases involving paternity should be advanced, the disturbances that unfounded paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father’s legitimate family should also be considered ( Nepomuceno vs. Lopez, G. R. 181258, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 145).

At present, and since October 15, 2012, the Rule on DNA evidence has already been promulgated by the SC (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC). DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. They are corroborative evidence of paternity if the value of the probability of paternity is less than 99.9%, or a disputable presumption of paternity if the value of the probability of paternity is 99.9% or higher (Sec. 9[c]). E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net