LAUREANA VELASQUEZ AND MARIA BIHILDES VELASQUEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, LAUREANA VELASQUEZ, AS GUARDIAN-AD-LITEM, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. FILIDORO ASIGNAR, DEFENDANT-APPE…

In Civil Case No. R-7184 of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu entitled “Laureana
Velasquez et al., Plaintiffs, versus
Filidoro Asignar,
Defendant,” said court rendered judgment as follows:

“IN VIEW THEREOF, Judgment is hereby rendered, condemning the
defendant to pay the plaintiff, Laureana Velasquez, the sum of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00)
PESOS as damages, and to pay the costs of this action.

The action to compel the defendant to recognize the plaintiff Maria
Bihildes Velasquez as his acknowledged natural child
is hereby dismissed.”

Plaintiffs seasonably
perfected an appeal from the above judgment insofar as it
dismissed their action to compel the defendant to acknowledge the plaintiff
Maria Bihildes Velasquez as his natural child, and
did not order said defendant to
support her and pay attorney’s
fees.  Their action against appellee was for
acknowledgment, sup­port and damages. 
The latter filed an
answer in which he denied the material averments made in the complaint and
alleged, by way of affirmative defenses, that the complaint did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him, and that the action was
in­stituted solely to harass, dishonor and embarrass him.

Upon the issues thus joined, the case was tried and subsequently
decided as set forth above.  We quote
here the pertinent portion of the body of the appealed decision:

“After a careful analysis of the con­flicting evidence on
record, the following facts have been established by a clear preponderance of
it:

The plaintiff, Laureana Velasquez, and
the defendant, Filidoro Asignar,
are natives of barrio Po-ok, Mandawe, this
province.  They are both single.  In February, 1959 he courted her.  After pressing his suit, he was accepted by
her.  On February 14, 1960 which was Valen­tine Day, he gave her a Valentine Card. 
(Exh. A.) The
inscription “Awing” on the said card is her nickname.  On the following day, Feb­ruary 15, he gave
her his picture (Exh. 2).  The said picture was taken by him from his
former sweetheart, a certain Milagros. 
This was given to her as proof that he and Milagros were already
separated.

On the evening of February
24, 1960, her parents went to see a movie, leaving her alone in
their home in Po-ok.  He visited her on
the evening while they were absent. 
Taking advan­tage of her being alone, he kissed her; and then, not
satisfied with kissing, he demanded of her proof of her love to him – meaning,
of course, the surrender of her virtue. 
At first, she refused to yield, saying that they were not married yet;
and, if they should become husband and wife, he could have the intercourse at
anytime.  But he pressed her, saying that she had no
fear because, after all, he was going to marry her.  Because of his repeated promises to marry her
and his insistence, she yielded her virtue to him.  Thus, on February 24, 1960, she was deflowered by the defendant for the
first time.  After repeated assurance,
she yielded her body to him for the second time on March 7, 1960.

After the coitus, she became apprehensive because her parents might
discover her rela­tions with, him, and because she would become pregnant and
she was naturally ashamed, not being married. 
So, she decided to go to Manila.  She told her parents and him about her
trip.  The defendant tried to dissuade
her from making her trip; but she disregarded his advice.  She left Cebu
for Manila on March 11, 1960, arriving there on March 13.  She served as a laundry woman there for a
living.  After a week she observed that
she had no Menstrua­tion.  She was apprehensive
and more convinced that she was pregnant. 
So, she wrote him on March 27,
1960, informing him of her incipient pregnancy, and imploring him
to send her P30.00 to pay for her return trip to Cebu.  She wrote him another letter with the same
request.  (Exhs. D, D-1, E, E-1).  He never answered them.  She looked for him, wanting to see him
personally.  She wrote him a letter on May 10, 1960 (Exhs.
F, F-1); then again, on May 22, 1960.  (Exhs,
G, G-1.)  It was only through the
mediation of the common friends, Luis Suico and Sanorio, that she was able to meet the defendant.  She ap­pealed to him to save her from her
difficult situation and marry her; but he refused.  It would appear that he was disgusted with
her because she left Cebu for Manila
in March, against his advice.

On November 27, she gave birth to her daughter, Maria Bihildes Velasquez.  (Exh. H, I.)
She asked him to give support to her child but he refused.  She then sought the help of the Chief of
Police of Mandawe, a certain Pris­ciliano
Lumapas. 
Before the said official the defendant acknowledged the child as his own
but refused to give her support – proposing, how­ever, to have the child placed
in the custody of his mother.  The
plaintiff did not wish to give up the child. 
When pressed to give sup­port, he not only refused to do so, but even
denied his paternity.  Then she sought
the help of a social welfare worker, a certain Mrs. Lydia Yadao,
Mrs. Yadao visited the de­fendant in his office at
the White Light Electrical Supply, Cebu City,
and she persuaded him to appear at the Social Welfare Office.  There he admitted his paternity but refused
to give support because of lack of means, – pro­posing again to have the child
placed under the custody of his mother. 
But the plaintiff did not accept the proposition.  The plaintiff was thus compelled to file this
action.”

As appellee did not appeal, the
findings of fact made by the trial court must be deemed to have become final as
far as he is concerned.  As a matter of
fact, appellants are also bound by them because in their appeal they raise only
questions of law as follows:

“I

THAT THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN DIS­MISSING THE ACTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RECOGNIZE PLAINTIFF CHILD AS HIS NATU­RAL CHILD.

II

THAT THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF SUPPORT AND ATTORNEY’S
FEES.”

It is obvious from the appealed decision that the trial court
dismissed appellants’ action upon the ground that the evidence of record does
not show that appellant minor had been “in continuous possession of the status
of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his
supposed family.” On this question the court said:

“x x x.  However,
the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the enjoyment by the
plaintiff child of the continuous status as natural child of the
defendant.”

x x x

“In the case at bar, there is neither a will nor a court
record, or any public docu­ment or writing expressly recognizing the plaintiff
child as the daughter of the defendant.  Consequently, the basis for recognition must
be possession of continuous status of an acknowledged natural child of the
defendant.  The fact that the defendant
acknowledged his paternity before the Chief of Police and the Social Worker on
different occasions is not sufficient to confer upon the child the re­quired
status.  The acts of recognition are
intermittent – not continuous.  They are
of short duration.  Indeed, he refused to
give her support and denied his paternity later.”

Appellants contend, however, that the trial court erred because
the true basis of their action for acknowl­edgment is not appellant minor’s
continuous possession of the status of natural child of appellee
but the fact that she had evidence to show that appellee
is her father, thus imposing upon the latter the obligation to recognize her as
his natural child in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 283 of the New
Civil Code.

The allegations made
in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the complaint
(Record on Appeal pp. 4-5) fully support appel­lants’ contention.

In line with the theory upon which appellants’ action was based,
they presented evidence to prove that appellee is the
father of Maria Bihildes Velasquez con­sisting of the
testimony of her mother and co-appellant, Laureana
Velasquez; that of the Chief of Police of Mandawe, Cebu, and Mrs. Lydia Yadao, and
of the documents admitted in evidence as Exhs. A to I, inclusive.

Resolving the question of whether or not appellee
is the father of the minor Maria Bihildes, the trial
court said:

“As for the second issue, it is proven that the defendant is
the father of the plain­tiff,
Maria Bihildes Velasquez.  He admits having had sexual intercourse with
her, al­though he claims that he had access to her in December, 1959; and,
considering the fact that the child was born on November 27, 1960, he could not have been her
father.  On the question of the dates of
the coitus between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court is inclined to
give more credit to the plaintiff.  The
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Filipino women are timid and would
not expose themselves to dishonor and shame, un­less it be
true.  In the case at bar, the plaintiff
testified clearly and without hes­itation that it was the defendant who
de­flowered her once in the later part of Feb­ruary, and second in the first week of March, 1960 – not in
December of 1959.  The defen­dant did not even insinuate,
much less prove that the plaintiff had any illicit relation with another
man.  Consequently, her testi­mony on this score is to be
believed.”

It appears, therefore, that upon the evidence of record, the
trial court made a positive finding “that the defendant is the father of
the plaintiff Maria Bihildes Velasquez”; that appellee “admits having had sexual inter­course”
with Laureana Velasquez, although he claimed that
this took place in December 1959 and that this being so the appellant minor,
who was born on November 27, 1960 could not have teen his daughter; that
notwithstanding appellee’s contention regarding the
date when he had sex­ual intercourse with appellant Laureana
Velasquez, the trial court gave “more credit” to the latter who
testified that appellee had deflowered her in the
month of February 1959, and that she had a second sexual intercourse with him
in the first week of March 1960.  The
trial court further ad­ded that “the
defendant did not even insinuate, much less prove, that the plaintiff (Laureana
Velasquez) had any illicit relation with another man.”

In view of its positive finding to the effect that appellee is, in truth and in fact, the father of the
appellant minor, it seems clear that, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 283 of
the New Civil Code, the trial court should have sentenced appellee
to acknowledge said minor as his natural daughter.  The legal provision just men­tioned says very
clearly that when the child suing for acknowledgment as a natural child has in
her favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is her father, the latter is
“obliged to recognize” him or her “as his na­tural child.”
In the instant case the minor child suing for acknowledgment submitted such
evidence or proof to the trial court, on the basis of which it made the posi­tive
finding that appellee is her father.  Appellee’s
obligation to acknowledge her is, therefore, clear.

The issue raised in the second and last assignment of error
submitted in appellants’ brief must also be re­solved in their favor, the same
being the necessary con­sequence of our view that appellee
is obliged to acknowl­edge appellant minor as his natural daughter.

WHEREFORE, the appealed portion of the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu is hereby reversed
and another is hereby rendered declaring that appellant minor Maria Bihildes Velasquez is appellee’s
daughter and compelling the latter to acknowledge her as such.  As a
consequence and on the basis of the evidence of re­cord regarding appellee’s earning capacity at the time of the trial, he is
likewise sentenced to pay said minor appellant the sum of P75.00 as monthly
support, to be paid within the first ten days of each and every month following
the finality of this decision, and to pay appellants the sum of P500.00 by way
of attorney’s fees.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., took no part.