Case Digest Gotardo v. Buling 165166 15 aug 2012

Support

 Case Digest Gotardo v. Buling 165166 15 aug 2012

Facts:  On September 6, 1995, respondent Divina Buling filed a complaint  for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite, claiming that the petitioner is the father of her child Gliffze.

The petitioner started courting the respondent in the third week of December 1992 and they became sweethearts in the last week of January 1993. Sometime in September 1993, the petitioner started intimate sexual relations with the respondent in the former’s rented room in the boarding house managed by Rodulfo, the respondent’s uncle, on Tomas Oppus St., Agbao, Maasin, Southern Leyte.When told of the pregnancy, the petitioner was happy and made plans to marry the respondent.They in fact applied for a marriage license.The petitioner even inquired about the costs of a wedding reception and the bridal gown.Subsequently, however, the petitioner backed out of the wedding plans.

The respondent responded by filing a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte for damages against the petitioner for breach of promise to marry. Later, however, the petitioner and the respondent amicably settled the case.The respondent gave birth to their son Gliffze on March 9, 1995. When the petitioner did not show up and failed to provide support to Gliffze, the respondent sent him a letter on July 24, 1995 demanding recognition of and support for their child.During the pendency of the case, the RTC, on the respondent’s motion granted a ₱2,000.00 monthly child support, retroactive from March 1995.

THE RTC RULING

In its June 25, 2002 decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence proving Gliffze’s filiation. It found the respondent’s testimony inconsistent on the question of when she had her first sexual contact with the petitioner, i.e., "September 1993" in her direct testimony while "last week of January 1993" 

THE CA RULING

In its March 5, 2004 decision, the CA departed from the RTC's appreciation of the respondent’s testimony, concluding that the latter merely made an honest mistake in her understanding of the questions of the petitioner’s counsel. It noted that the petitioner and the respondent had sexual relationship even before August 1994; that the respondent had only one boyfriend, the petitioner, from January 1993 to August 1994; and that the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent had previous relationships with other men remained unsubstantiated. The CA consequently set aside the RTC decision and ordered the petitioner to recognize his minor son Gliffze. It also reinstated the RTC order granting a ₱ 2,000.00 monthly child support.²⁸

THE ISSUE

Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error when it set aside the RTC’s findings and ordered the petitioner to recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Gliffze.

OUR RULING

We do not find any reversible error in the CA’s ruling.

One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.³² We have held that such other proof of one's filiation may be a "baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting [his] pedigree, admission by silence, the [testimonies] of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court."³³

In Herrera v. Alba,³⁴ we stressed that there are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action that parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.³⁵ We explained that a prima facie case exists if a woman declares — supported by corroborative proof — that she had sexual relations with the putative father; at this point, the burden of evidence shifts to the putative father.³⁶ We explained further that the two affirmative defenses available to the putative father are: (1) incapability of sexual relations with the mother due to either physical absence or impotency, or (2) that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception.³⁷

In this case, the respondent established a prima facie case that the petitioner is the putative father of Gliffze through testimony that she had been sexually involved only with one man, the petitioner, at the time of her conception.³⁸Rodulfo corroborated her testimony that the petitioner and the respondent had intimate relationship.³⁹

On the other hand, the petitioner did not deny that he had sexual encounters with the respondent, only that it occurred on a much later date than the respondent asserted, such that it was physically impossible for the respondent to have been three (3) months pregnant already in September 1994 when he was informed of the pregnancy.⁴⁰ However, the petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations of infidelity and insinuations of promiscuity. His allegations, therefore, cannot be given credence for lack of evidentiary support. The petitioner’s denial cannot overcome the respondent’s clear and categorical assertions.

The petitioner, as the RTC did, made much of the variance between the respondent’s direct testimony regarding their first sexual contact as "sometime in September 1993" and her cross-testimony when she stated that their first sexual contact was "last week of January 1993," as follows:

We find that the contradictions are for the most part more apparent than real, having resulted from the failure of the respondent to comprehend the question posed, but this misunderstanding was later corrected and satisfactorily explained. Indeed, when confronted for her contradictory statements, the respondent explained that that portion of the transcript of stenographic notes was incorrect and she had brought it to the attention of Atty. Josefino Go Cinco (her former counsel) but the latter took no action on the matter.⁴²

Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and to anchor a conclusion based on these parts. "In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered." Evidently, the totality of the respondent's testimony positively and convincingly shows that no real inconsistency exists. The respondent has consistently asserted that she started intimate sexual relations with the petitioner sometime in September 1993

Since filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation; a parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.Support consists of everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. Thus, the amount of support is variable and, for this reason, no final judgment on the amount of support is made as the amount shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient It may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support.

In this case, we sustain the award of ₱ 2,000.00 monthly child support, without prejudice to the filing of the proper motion in the RTC for the determination of any support in arrears, considering the needs of the child, Gliffze, during the pendency of this case.

WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. The March 5, 2004 decision and the July 27, 2004 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 76326 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.