MARY DE LA PEÑA, IN BEHALF OF THE MINOR TERESITA LIM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PENG HUAN LIM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an action for acknowledgment and support. It was filed in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental by the plaintiff Mary de la Peña, in
behalf of her minor daughter Teresita Lim, against the defendant Peng Huan Lim
to compel the latter to acknowledge said minor as his natural child and to pay
her P6,150.00 as support in arrears, and a monthly support of P50.00, plus
attorney’s fees in the sum of P1,000.00, and the cost of the proceedings.

The complaint alleges as cause of action that from January, 1946 to October,
1947, plaintiff Mary de la Peña and the defendant Peng Huan Lim lived together
as husband and wife without the benefit of clergy in the city of Iloilo; that of
that union the minor Teresita Lim was born on June 24, 1947; that at the time of
Teresita’s conception both plaintiff Mary de la Peña and defendant Peng Huan Lim
were single; that the defendant paid the fees of the midwife who attended to the
birth of Teresita, and from the latter’s birth up to October, 1947, when
plaintiff and defendant agreed to live separately, she has been enjoying the
status of a natural child of defendant, and was supported by the latter who used
to carry her in his arms, exhibiting her to the neighbors, and informing them
that she was his child; that since November, 1947 up to the time the amended
complaint in this case was filed in the court below (May 26, 1958), the
defendant had failed to support the minor Teresita Lim, who is now in the
primary grade of the North Elementary School in Bacolod City; that for this
reason, the defendant owed said minor P6,150.00 as support in arrears for the
period November, 1947 to February 28, 1958, which must be paid to her, plus
P50.00 a month from March, 1958 until she attains the age of majority as monthly
support. Hence , plaintiff asks that the defendant be ordered to pay to the
minor Teresita Lim the sum of P6,150.00 as support in arrears for the period
November, 1947 to February 28, 1958, with legal interest from March, 1958 until
fully paid, and another sum of P50.00 a month from March 1, 1958 until said
minor attains the age of majority, plus P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the
costs of the proceedings.

Defendant’s answer consists of specific denials and affirmative defenses and
a counterclaim. As affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the plaintiff has
no legal capacity to institute the present action, and that the complaint states
no cause of action. In counterclaim, he asks for judgment in the sum of
P2,000.00 as moral damages, P300.00 as compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees
in the sum of P800.00.

After trial, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint as well as defendant’s counterclaim, without pronouncement as to the
costs, on the finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient
to substantiate the allegations of her complaint. From this judgment, the
plaintiff appealed.

The main questions raised in this appeal may be reduced to the following
propositions: (1) whether or not plaintiff had the legal capacity to initiate
the present action; and (2) whether or not the trial court erred in finding that
the evidence of the plaintiff failed to substantiate her complaint, and that the
minor Teresita Lim was the natural child of the defendant and as such entitled
to support from the latter, thus discrediting plaintiff Mary de la Peña and her
witness, and believing the defendant and finding that the facts are as testified
to by the latter.

It is thus seen that while an issue of law is raised in this appeal,
nevertheless the other issue raised is essentially of fact. This case therefore
is one in which issues of law and of fact are raised, and consequently the
review of the judgment therein rendered by the trial court falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (Section 17, par. 3 [5] of the
Judiciary Act; Estrada vs. Noble, 87 Phil., 408; 48 Off. Gaz., 141;
Manuel C. Ramos, et al., vs. People’s Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., G.
R. No. L-7607, August 31, 1960; Rosita Masangcay, et al., vs. Marcelo
Valencia, et al., 109 Phil., 213.)

Wherefore, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to certify this case to the
Court of Appeals for proper action.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and
De Leon, JJ., concur.