Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

G.R. No.


November 28, 1933

ANTONIA L. DE JESUS, ET AL., plaintiff-appellant, vs. CESAR SYQUIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS: Antonia Loanco, a likely unmarried girl 20 years of age was a cashier in a barber shop
owned by the defendants brother in law Vicente Mendoza. Cesar Syquia, the defendant, 23
years of age and an unmarried scion of a prominent family in Manila was accustomed to have his
haircut in the said barber shop. He got acquainted with Antonio and had an amorous
relationship. As a consequence, Antonia got pregnant and a baby boy was .
In the early months of Antonias pregnancy, defendant was a constant visitor. On February 1931,
he even wrote a letter to a rev father: Rev. FATHER,The baby due in June is mine and I should like
for my name to be given to it. CESAR SYQUIA

Though he was out of the country, he continuously wrote letters to Antonia reminding her to eat
on time for her and juniors sake. The defendant ask his friend Dr. Talavera to attend at the
birth and made hospital arrangements.
After giving birth, Syquia brought Antonia and his child at a House in Camarines Street Manila
where they lived together for about a year. When Antonia showed signs of second pregnancy,
defendant suddenly departed and he was married with another woman at this time.
It should be noted that during the christening of the child, the defendant who was in charge of
the arrangement of the ceremony caused the name Ismael Loanco to be given instead of Cesar
Syquia Jr. that was first planned.
ISSUE: whether the note to the padre, proves an acknowledgment of paternity
RULING: Yes. Upon this point we are of the opinion that the recognition can be made out by
putting together the admissions of more than one document, supplementing the admission made
in one letter by an admission or admissions made in another.
In the case before us the admission of paternity is contained in the note to the padreand the
other letters suffice to connect that admission with the child then being carried by Antonia L. de
Jesus. There is no requirement in the law that the writing shall be addressed to one, or any
particular individual. It is merely required that the writing shall be indubitable.
The second question that presents itself in this case is whether the trial court erred in holding
that Ismael Loanco had been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child,
justified by the conduct of the father himself, The law fixes no period during which a child must
be in the continuous possession of the status of a natural child; and the period in this case was
long enough to evince the father's resolution to concede the status.
The trial court was right in refusing to give damages to the plaintiff, Antonia Loanco, for
supposed breach of promise to marry as such has no standing in the civil law, apart from the
right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise.
Furthermore, there is no proof upon which a judgment could be based requiring the defendant to
recognize the second baby, Pacita Loanco.