Yey

Ilano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
104376, February 23, 1994
 Leoncia first met petitioner Artemio G. Ilano while she was working as secretary to Atty. Mariano
C. Virata. Petitioner was one of the clients of Atty. Virata. Sometime in 1957, Leoncia, then
managing a business of her own as Namarco distributor, met petitioner again who was engaged
in the same business and they renewed acquaintances. Since then, he would give her his unsold
allocation of goods. Later, he courted her for more than four years. Their relationship became
intimate and with his promise of marriage, they eloped to Guagua, Pampanga in April, 1962.
 Private respondent Merceditas S. Ilano was born on December 30, 1963 also at the Manila
Sanitarium. Her birth was recorded as Merceditas de los Santos Ilano, child of Leoncia Aguinaldo
de los Santos and Artemio Geluz Ilano. Leoncia submitted receipts issued by the Manila
Sanitarium to show that she was confined there from December 30, 1963 until January 2, 1964
under the name of Mrs. Leoncia Ilano.
 After weighing the contradictory testimonies and evidence of the parties, the trial court was not
fully satisfied that petitioner is the father of Merceditas, on the basis of the following: 1)
petitioner and Leoncia were not in cohabitation during the period of Merceditas’ conception; 2)
testimony of Melencio that he frequented the apartment where Leoncia was living, took care of
all the bills and shared the same bed with her; 3) the birth certificate of Merceditas was not
signed by petitioner; 4) petitioner denied his signature in the monthly report card of Merceditas;
and 5) there is no clear and sufficient showing that support was given by petitioner to
Merceditas. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court.
 ISSUE: May an adulterous child file an action for recognition?
 Yes. It is now commonplace for an abandoned illegitimate offspring to sue his father for
recognition and support. Since petitioner had a subsisting marriage to another at the time
Merceditas was conceived, she is a spurious child. In this regard, Article 287 of the Civil Code
provides that illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with Article 269 and other
than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as are
granted in the Civil Code. The Civil Code has given these rights to them because the
transgressions of social conventions committed by the parents should not be visited upon them.
However, before Article 287 can be availed of, there must first be a recognition of paternity
either voluntarily or by court action.
 This arises from the legal principle that an unrecognized spurious child like a natural child has no
rights from his parents or to their estate because his rights spring not from the filiation or blood
relationship but from his acknowledgment by the parent. In other words, the rights of an
illegitimate child arose not because he was the true or real child of his parents but because under
the law, he had been recognized or acknowledged as such a child. Private respondent’s evidence
to establish her filiation with and the paternity of petitioner is too overwhelming to be ignored or
brushed aside by the highly improbable and fatally flawed testimony of Melencio and the
inherently weak denials of petitioner.
Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

 On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent), represented by his mother
Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and
damages against petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim
where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical
contact with respondent’s mother.
 Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos,
Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where
she taught Cell Biology. She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences
Research Institute (UP-NSRI), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former professor at the
University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she developed the Molecular Biology
Program and taught Molecular Biology. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for
DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing
paternity. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained
acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-
incrimination.
 ISSUE:
 Whether or not DNA Paternity testing violates Herrera’s right against self-incrimination.
 RULING:
 No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA testing is not yet
recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the
prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002 there is already no question as to the
acceptability of DNA test results as admissible object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the
decisive ruling in the case of People vs Vallejo (2002).
 It is also considered that the Vallejo Guidelines be considered by the courts. The Vallejo
Guidelines determines weight and probative value of DNA test results.
 The Vallejo Guidelines:
o 1. how the samples were collected;
o 2. how they were handled;
o 3. the possibility of contamination of the samples;
o 4. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
o 5. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests;
and
o 6. the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998
 A sworn cpmlaint filed by the offended party charging Nixon Malapo of the crim of rape. In
September 1991, the accused entered the house of Nenita. AMalia Trinidad was there alone. She
became oregnant and delivered the baby in Iriga City
 Amalia is an example of a pseudoretardate. She might have been deprived of intellectual
stimulations which explains her lack in cognitive development. She is still categorized within the
normal classification of children.
 Amelia did not tell Nenita No, her aunt as she was threatened not to tell anyone. However she
told one Bernardita when she was about to give birth.
 RTC convicted Nixon. It can be inferred that conception happened within 120 days from the
commission of the offense. Pursuant to Art. 166 of the Family Code, accused can overcome the
presumption that Amalia’s child was begotten as a result of rape only if she could show that it is
physically impossible, impotence or serious illness to prevent him from having sexual
intercourse.
 Issue: won victim was already pregnant when she was raped
 Whether or not the victim was already pregnant when raped by the accused?
 Infants delivered before the 37th week of gestation with a birth weight of less than 2,500 grams
(Am) or 2,275 (Fil) are considered premature. An infant can be considered a full term baby if it
weighs more than2,275 grams even if it is born before the 37th week which is less than 9.3
months. Since according to the medical certificate Amalia’s baby weighed 2.4 kilogrmas or 2,400
kilograms, it was a full-term baby even if it was born before the normal gestation period.
 Article 166 of the Family Code: READ
 In this case, it can be inferred that conception occurred at or about the time the accused is
alleged to have committed the crime. Accused has not overcome the presumption.
 The testimony of Amalia as corroborated by Nenita and Bernardita leaves no doubt the the
accused is the father of the child
 Therefore, the accused should be ordered to pay support
 The impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. Proof that the child was fathered by
another man does not show that the accused is not guilty, considering the posititve testimony of
Amalia that the accused had abused her.

Yey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ilano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

104376, February 23, 1994

Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.