THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.124814.October21,2004]

CAMELOCABATANIA,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandCAMELO
REGODOS,respondents.
DECISION
CORONA,J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
[1]
assailingtheMarch15,1996decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.36708whichin
turnaffirmedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCadizCity,Branch60inSpec.Proc.
No.88CwhichcompelledpetitionerCameloCabataniatoacknowledgeprivaterespondent
CameloRegodosashisillegitimatesonandtogivesupporttothelatterintheamountofP
500permonth.
ThiscontroversystemmedfromapetitionforrecognitionandsupportfiledbyFlorencia
Regodosinbehalfofherminorson,privaterespondentCameloRegodos.
During the trial, Florencia testified that she was the mother of private respondent who
was born on September 9, 1982 and that she was the one supporting the child. She
recounted that after her husband left her in the early part of 1981, she went to Escalante,
NegrosOccidentaltolookforworkandwaseventuallyhiredaspetitionershouseholdhelp.It
was while working there as a maid that, on January 2, 1982, petitioner brought her to
Bacolod City where they checked in at the Visayan Motel and had sexual intercourse.
Petitionerpromisedtosupportherifshegotpregnant.
Florenciaclaimedshediscoveredshewascarryingpetitionerschild27daysaftertheir
sexual encounter. The sexual intercourse was repeated in March 1982 in San Carlos City.
Later, on suspicion that Florencia was pregnant, petitioners wife sent her home. But
petitioner instead brought her to Singcang, Bacolod City where he rented a house for her.
OnSeptember9,1982,assistedbyahilotinherauntshouseinTiglawigan,CadizCity,she
gavebirthtoherchild,privaterespondentCameloRegodos.
Petitioner Camelo Cabatanias version was different. He testified that he was a sugar
planterandabusinessman.SometimeinDecember,1981,hehiredFlorenciaasaservant
athome.Duringthecourseofheremployment,shewouldoftengohometoherhusbandin
the afternoon and return to work the following morning. This displeased petitioners wife,
henceshewastoldtolookforanotherjob.
Inthemeantime,FlorenciaaskedpermissionfrompetitionertogohomeandspendNew
Years Eve in Cadiz City. Petitioner met her on board the Ceres bus bound for San Carlos
City and invited her to dinner. While they were eating, she confided that she was hard up
andpetitionerofferedtolendhersavemoney.Later,theyspentthenightinSanCarlosCity
andhadsexualintercourse.Whiledoingit,hefeltsomethingjerkingandwhenheaskedher
aboutit,shetoldhimshewaspregnantwiththechildofherhusband.Theywenthomethe
followingday.
InMarch1982,Florencia,thenalreadyworkinginanotherhousehold,wenttopetitioners
house hoping to be reemployed as a servant there. Since petitioners wife was in need of

one,shewasrehired.Howeverpetitionerswifenoticedthatherstomachwasbulgingand
inquiredaboutthefatheroftheunbornchild.Shetoldpetitionerswifethatthebabywasby
herhusband.Becauseofhercondition,shewasagaintoldtogohomeandtheydidnotsee
eachotheranymore.
Petitioner was therefore surprised when summons was served on him by Florencias
counsel. She was demanding support for private respondent Camelo Regodos. Petitioner
refused,denyingtheallegedpaternity.Heinsistedshewasalreadypregnantwhentheyhad
sex. He denied going to Bacolod City with her and checking in at the Visayan Motel. He
vehemently denied having sex with her on January 2, 1982 and renting a house for her in
Singcang,BacolodCity.
After trial, the court a quo gave more probative weight to the testimony of Florencia
despite its discovery that she misrepresented herself as a widow when, in reality, her
husbandwasalive.Decidinginfavorofprivaterespondent,thetrialcourtdeclared:
ThechildwaspresentedbeforetheCourt,andiftheCourtistodecidethiscase,basedonthepersonal
appearanceofthechildthentherecanneverbeadoubtthattheplaintiffminoristhechildofthe
defendantwithplaintiffminorsmother,FlorenciaRegodos.
xxxxxxxxx
Inviewoftheevidencepresentedbytheplaintiff,theCourtfindstheevidenceoftheplaintiffin
supportoftheclaimtobemeritoriousdefendantadmittedhavingasexualintercoursewiththe
plaintiffsmother,FlorenciaRegodos,butdeniedpaternitytothechild.Thechildwaspresentedbefore
theCourt,andiftheCourtistodecidethiscase,basedonthepersonalappearanceofthechild,then
therecanneverbeadoubtthattheplaintiffminoristhechildofthedefendantwithplaintiffminors
[2]

mother,FlorenciaRegodos.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedtheRTC:
ThemisrepresentationmadebyFlorenciainthepetitionthatshewasawidowshouldnotprejudice
therightofpetitionerappellee.AsheldbytheSupremeCourt,evenwhereawitnesshasbeenfound
tohavedeliberatelyfalsifiedthetruthinsomeparticulars,itisnotrequiredthatthewholeofher
testimonyberejected(Peoplevs.Bohol,170SCRA585).Itisperfectlyreasonabletobelievethe
testimonyofawitnesswithrespecttosomefactsanddisbelieveitwithrespecttootherfacts(People
vs.Delas,199SCRA574,575).ThereisthereforenoreasontodisbelieveFlorenciathatherfirst
intercoursewithappellantoccurredonJanuary2,1982andnine(9)monthslateroronSeptember9,
1982,shegavebirthtoappellee(TSN,HearingofJune10,1991andExhibitA).
Intheabsenceofarbitrarinessintheevaluationoftheevidenceadducedbeforethetrialcourtand
therebeingnoevidencethatthelatterhadoverlookedormisappreciated,wefindnocogentreasonto
disturbthetrialcourtsfindings.
[3]

WHEREFORE,theappealeddecisionisAFFIRMED.

Hencethispetitionwhichassignsthefollowingerrors:
A.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINITSAPPLICATIONOFARTICLE283OFTHE
CIVILCODEONTHECOMPULSORYRECOGNITIONANDAWARDOFSUPPORTIN
FAVOROFRESPONDENTAPPELLEECAMELOREGODOS
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE
[4]

ADDUCEDBYRESPONDENTCAMELOREGODOSBEFORETHETRIALCOURT.

Clearly,thispetitioncallsforareviewofthefactualfindingsofthetwolowercourts.Asa
generalrule,factualissuesarenotwithintheprovinceofthisCourt.Factualfindingsofthe

trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, become final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except (1) when the inference made is
manifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible(2)whenthereisagraveabuseofdiscretion(3)
whenthefindingisgroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesorconjectures(4)whenthe
judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts (5) when the
findings of fact are conflicting (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, goes
beyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellant
andappellee(7)whenthefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseofthetrial
court (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooks certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, justifies a different
conclusion,and(10)whenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthe
absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. The Court is
[5]

convincedthatthiscasefallswithinoneoftheexceptions.

The trial courts finding of a paternal relationship between petitioner and private
respondentwasbasedonthetestimonyofthechildsmotherandthepersonalappearance
ofthechild.
Timeandagain,thisCourthasruledthatahighstandardofproofisrequiredtoestablish
[6]
paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome
situationormaybeanirritanttothefamilyorthelivesofthepartiessothatitmustbeissued
[7]

onlyifpaternityorfiliationisestablishedbyclearandconvincingevidence.

TheapplicableprovisionsofthelawareArticles172and175oftheCivilCode:
Art.172.Thefiliationoflegitimatechildrenisestablishedbyanyofthefollowing:
(1)Therecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregisterorafinaljudgmentor
(2)Anadmissionoflegitimatefiliationinapublicdocumentoraprivatehandwritten
instrumentandsignedbytheparentconcerned.
Intheabsenceoftheforegoingevidence,thelegitimatefiliationshallbeprovedby:
(1)Theopenandcontinuouspossessionofthestatusofalegitimatechildor
(2)AnyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtandspeciallaws.
Art.175.Illegitimatechildrenmayestablishtheirillegitimatefiliationinthesamewayandonthe
sameevidenceaslegitimatechildren.
xxxxxxxxx
Private respondent presented a copy of his birth and baptismal certificates, the
preparationofwhichwaswithouttheknowledgeorconsentofpetitioner.Acertificateoflive
birthpurportedlyidentifyingtheputativefatherisnotcompetentevidenceofpaternitywhen
thereisnoshowingthattheputativefatherhadahandinthepreparationofsaidcertificate.
Thelocalcivilregistrarhasnoauthoritytorecordthepaternityofanillegitimatechildonthe
[8]
informationofathirdperson.
Inthesamevein,wehaveruledthat,whileabaptismalcertificatemaybeconsidereda
publicdocument,itcanonlyserveasevidenceoftheadministrationofthesacramentonthe
[9]

datespecifiedbutnottheveracityoftheentrieswithrespecttothechildspaternity. Thus,
certificates issued by the local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se

inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as

[10]
circumstantialevidencetoprovethesame.
Aside from Florencias selfserving testimony that petitioner rented a house for her in
Singcang, Bacolod City, private respondent failed to present sufficient proof of voluntary
recognition.
We now proceed to the credibility of Florencias testimony. Both the trial court and the
appellate court brushed aside the misrepresentation of Florencia in the petition for
recognitionthatshewasawidow.Bothcourtsdismissedthelieasminorwhichdidnotaffect
therestofhertestimony.Wedisagree.ThefactthatFlorenciashusbandislivingandthere
isavalidsubsistingmarriagebetweenthemgivesrisetothepresumptionthatachildborn
within that marriage is legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its
[11]
legitimacyormayhavebeensentencedasanadulteress. Thepresumptionoflegitimacy
doesnotonlyflowoutofadeclarationinthestatutebutisbasedonthebroadprinciplesof
naturaljusticeandthesupposedvirtueofthemother.Thepresumptionisgroundedonthe
[12]

policytoprotectinnocentoffspringfromtheodiumofillegitimacy.

Inthisageofgeneticprofilinganddeoxyribonucleicacid(DNA)analysis,theextremely
subjectivetestofphysicalresemblanceorsimilarityoffeatureswillnotsufficeasevidenceto
provepaternityandfiliationbeforethecourtsoflaw.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheassaileddecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsinCAG.R.36708datedMarch15,1996,affirmingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60, in Spec. Proc. No. 88C is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Privaterespondentspetitionforrecognitionandsupportisdismissed.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,(Chairman),SandovalGutierrez,CarpioMoralesandGarcia,JJ.,concur.
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

Penned by Associate Justice Alicia AustriaMartinez (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesPedroA.RamirezandBernardoLL.SalasoftheFifthDivision.
Rollo,pp.1719.
Rollo,pp.2223.
Rollo,p.10.
Martinezvs.CA,G.R.No.123547,21May2001,358SCRA38Baricuatro,Jr.vs.CA,etal, 382 Phil. 15
(2000)Sarmientovs.CA,353Phil.834(1998)Acebedo Optical Co. Inc., vs. CA et al, 320 Phil. 506
(1995).
Baluyutvs.Baluyut,G.R.No.33659,14June1990,186SCRA506.
Constantino,etal.vs.Mendez,etal.,G.R.No.57227,14May1992,209SCRA18.
Fernandezvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.108366,16February1994,230SCRA130citingRocesvs.LocalCivil
Registrar,102Phil.1050(1958).
Macandangvs.CourtofAppeals,No.L49542,12September1980,100SCRA73.

[10]
[11]
[12]

Jisonvs.CourtofAppeals,350Phil.138(1998).
Article256oftheCivilCode,nowArticle167oftheFamilyCode.
WilliamLiyaoJr.vs.JuanitaTanhotiLiyaoetal.,428Phil.628(2002).