FACTS: Michael Constantino, an illegitimate child, as represented by Amelita, her

mother, sought monthly support from Ivan Mendez including Amelia’s complaint on
damages. The latter and Amelita met in a restaurant in Manila where she was
working as a waitress. Ivan invited him at his hotel and through promise of
marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Amelita; afterwards, he
admitted being a married man. In spite of that, they repeated their sexual contact.
Subsequently, she became pregnant and had to resign from work.

Trial court ruled in favor of Amelita providing actual and moral damages,
acknowledging Michael as Ivan’s illegitimate child and giving monthly support to the
latter which was set aside by CA.

ISSUE: WON the alleged illegitimate child is entitled for the monthly support.

RULING: No. The illegitimate child is not entitled for the monthly support since
Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that
Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino.

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code are as follows:

Article 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are
illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.

Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in

the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

Michael Constantino is a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975 so that citing

medical science, the conception of the child must have taken place about 267 days
before August 3, 1975 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974. While
Amelita testified that she had sexual contact with Ivan in November 1974,
nevertheless said testimony is contradicted by her letter addressed to Ivan
Mendez, informing the latter that the former is four (4) months pregnant so that
applying the period of the duration of actual pregnancy, the child was conceived on
or about October 11, 1974. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing
evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed.
The foregoing standard of proof required to establish one’s filiation is founded on
the principle that an order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome
atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it
must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing
evidence.