Constantino v. Mendez

G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992

FACTS:

Michael Constantino, an illegitimate child, as represented by Amelita, her mother, sought monthly support from Ivan Mendez including Amelia’s complaint on damages. The latter and Amelita met in a restaurant in Manila where she was working as a waitress. Ivan invited him at his hotel and through promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Amelita; afterwards, he admitted being a married man. In spite of that, they repeated their sexual contact. Subsequently, she became pregnant and had to resign from work.

Trial court ruled in favor of Amelita providing actual and moral damages, acknowledging Michael as Ivan’s illegitimate child and giving monthly support to the latter which was set aside by CA.

ISSUE:

WON the alleged illegitimate child is entitled for the monthly support.

RULING:

No. The illegitimate child is not entitled for the monthly support since Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino.

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code are as follows:

Article 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.

Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

Michael Constantino is a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975 so that citing medical science, the conception of the child must have taken place about 267 days before August 3, 1975 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974. While Amelita testified that she had sexual contact with Ivan in November 1974, nevertheless said testimony is contradicted by her letter addressed to Ivan Mendez, informing the latter that the former is four (4) months pregnant so that applying the period of the duration of actual pregnancy, the child was conceived on or about October 11, 1974. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed.

* Case digest by Immanuel Y. Granada, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2017-10-21T05:29:38+00:00October 21st, 2017|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment