Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Perla vs. Baring
Perla vs. Baring
ANTONIOPERLA,petitioner,vs. MIRASOLBARINGand
RANDYPERLA,respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Generally, factual
findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
binding on this Court.Generally,factualfindingsoftrialcourts,
whenaffirmedbytheCA,arebindingonthisCourt.However,this
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
102
102
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
103
entries
104
104
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
105
InhisAnswerwithCounterclaim,7Antonio,whoisnow
marriedandhasafamilyofhisown,deniedhavingfathered
Randy.AlthoughheadmittedtohavingknownMirasol,he
averred that she never became his commonlaw wife nor
was she treated as such. And since Mirasol had been
intimidating and pestering him as early as 1992 with
various suits by insisting that Randy is his son, Antonio
sought moral and exemplary damages by way of
counterclaimfromrespondents.
Duringtrial,Mirasoltestifiedthatfrom1981to1983,she
lived in Upper Bicutan, Taguig where Antonio was a
neighbor.8 In the first week of January 1981, Antonio
courted her9 and eventually became her first boyfriend.10
Antonio would then visit her everyday until 1982.11 Upon
clarificatoryquestionbythecourtwhethersheandAntonio
eventually lived together as husband and wife, Mirasol
answeredthattheywerejustsweethearts.12
_______________
6Records,pp.13.
7 Id.,atpp.3538.
8TSN,April7,1999,pp.67.
9Id.,atpp.1011,25.
10Id.,atp.25.
11Id.,atpp.2526.
12Id.,atp.10.
106
106
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
_______________
13Id.,atp.11.
14Id.,atp.26.
15Id.
16Id.,atp.13.
17 Id., at p. 14; See the certified true copy of said birth certificate
whichwasissuedbytheNationalStatisticsOffice,records,
p.122.
18Id.,atpp.1617;id.,atp.123.
19TSN,April21,1999,p.4.
20Id.,atpp.45.
21Id.,atp.5.
22Id.,atpp.45.
23TSN,September8,1999,p.3.
24Id.,atpp.45.
25Id.,atpp.610.
107
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
107
35Id.,atp.15.
36TSN,August1,2001,p.6.
37Id.,atp.7;records,p.168.
108
108
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
109
110
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
deniedbytheCAinitsResolution56ofMay5,2006.
Hence,thisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.
Issue
The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is whether
the lower courts correctly ordered Antonio to support
Randy.
Our Ruling
Thereismeritinthepetition.
_______________
53CARollo,pp.124126.
54Id.,atp.96.
55Id.,atpp.98107.
56Id.,atpp.124126.
111
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
111
Arayata,G.R.No.184193,March29,2010,617SCRA101,113.
112
112
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
lishpaternityandfiliation.Anorderforxxxsupportmay
create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to
thefamilyorthelivesofthepartiessothatitmustbeissued
only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
convincingevidence.59
Respondents failed to establish Randys
illegitimate filiation to Antonio.
The rules for establishing filiation are found in Articles
172and175oftheFamilyCodewhichprovideasfollows:
Article172.Thefiliationoflegitimatechildrenisestablishedby
anyofthefollowing:
(1)Therecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregisterorafinal
judgment;or
(2)Anadmissionoflegitimatefiliationinapublicdocumentor
a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.
Intheabsenceoftheforegoingevidence,thelegitimatefiliation
shallbeprovedby:
(1)The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimatechild;or
(2)AnyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtandspecial
laws.
xxxx
Article 175.Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimatechildren.
xxxx
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
113
114
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring
thechildspaternity.Thus,xxxbaptismalcertificatesare
per seinadmissibleinevidenceasproofoffiliationandthey
cannotbeadmittedindirectlyascircumstantialevidenceto
provethesame.66
This Court cannot likewise agree with the RTCs
conclusionthatAntoniofatheredRandymerelyonthebasis
of his admission that he had sexual encounters with
Mirasol. Neither does it agree with the CA that the
inconsistencies in Antonios testimony with regard to the
numberoftimeshehadsexualintercoursewithMirasolare
good reasons to disregard his denials and uphold the
respondentsclaims.Itiswelltostress
_______________
62 Jison v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 138, 172; 286 SCRA 495, 531
(1998).
63 Ong v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 109, 119; 272 SCRA 725, 735
(1997).
64Id.
65Jison v. Court of Appeals,supraatp.176;p.535.
66Cabatania v. Court of Appeals,supranote1atp.51;p.104.
115
VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012
115
_______________
67 Spouses Angeles v. Spouses Tan, 482 Phil. 635, 646; 439 SCRA
409,420(2004).
68Ek Lee Steel Works Corporation v. Manila Castor Oil Corporation,
G.R.No.119033,July9,2008,557SCRA339,352.
69TSN,April7,1999,p.26.
116
116
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring