Constantino vs Mendez

GR No. 57227, May 14, 1992

FACTS:

This is a Petition for Review of Certiorari questioning the decision of Court of Appeals which dismissed
Petitioner’s complaint and setting aside resolution of the then Court of First Instance of Davao ordering
private respondent Ivan Mendez: (1 )to acknowledge the minor, Michael Constantino as his illegitimate
child, (2) to give a monthly support of 300 to the minor child, (3) to pay complainant Amelita
Constantino the sum of P8, 200 as actual and moral damages; and (4) to pay attorney’s fees in the sum
of P5,000 plus costs.

Amelita alleged that sometime in the month of August 1974, she met Ivan Mendez at Tony’s restaurant
where she worked as waitress. The day following the first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to dine with him
where he professed his love and courted Amelita. After dining, Ivan brought Amelita to his room and
through promise of marriage succeeded in having a sexual intercourse and that after sexual act, Ivan
confessed that he is a married man. Inspite of that, they repeated their sexual contact, as a result she
became pregnant and had to resign from work.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Respondents should pay for actual and moral damages,
attorney’s fees, and the cost of the suit. Both parties filed their separate motion for reconsideration.
Ivan Mendez filed this motion on the ground that the award of the damages was not supported by
evidence. Amelita Constantino on the other hand, sought the recognition and support of her son,
Michael Constantino as the illegitimate son of Ivan Mendez.

On appeal, the amended decision was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the Petitioner can claim damages under Articles 19 & 21.

RULING:

No damages can be recovered under Articles 19 & 21 where the sexual intercourse is a product of
voluntarism and mutual desire. Article 19 states that: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith. In the case at bar, Petitioner was 28 years old and admitted that she was attracted to the
respondent. This attraction was the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been
induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her sexual
relation with the man when she was informed after their first sexual intercourse that he was a married
man. Her declaration, that in the following months, they repeated their sexual contact only indicate that
passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to
the man.

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.