11/19/2014

Digests et al.: Jison vs CA

Jison vs CA
Jison vs. CA
GR No. 124853, February 24, 1998
FACTS:
Private respondent, Monina Jison, instituted a complaint against petitioner,
Francisco Jison, for recognition as illegitimate child of the latter. The case was
filed 20 years after her mothers death and when she was already 39 years of
age.
Petitioner was married to Lilia Lopez Jison since 1940 and sometime in 1945, he
impregnated Esperanza Amolar, Moninas mother. Monina alleged that since
childhood, she had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as the illegitimate
child of petitioner by his acts and that of his family. It was likewise alleged that
petitioner supported her and spent for her education such that she became a CPA
and eventually a Central Bank Examiner. Monina was able to present total of 11
witnesses.
ISSUE: WON Monina should be declared as illegitimate child of Francisco Jison.
HELD:
Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation may be established in
the same way and on the same evidence as that of legitimate children. Article
172 thereof provides the various forms of evidence by which legitimate filiation is
established.
To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate
child, there must be evidence of the manifestation of the permanent
intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by continuous
and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be
attributed to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal
not only the conviction of paternity, but also the apparent desire to have and
treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not accidentally,
but continuously.

The following facts was established based on the testimonial evidences

offered by Monina:
http://hyperjetsetter.blogspot.com/2011/04/jison-vs-ca.html

1/2

11/19/2014

Digests et al.: Jison vs CA

1. That Francisco was her father and she was conceived at the time
when her mother was employed by the former;
2. That Francisco recognized Monina as his child through his overt acts
and conduct.
SC ruled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative
father is not competence evidence as to the issue of paternity. Franciscos
lack of participation in the preparation of baptismal certificates and school
records render the documents showed as incompetent to prove paternity.
With regard to the affidavit signed by Monina when she was 25 years of age
attesting that Francisco was not her father, SC was in the position that if
Monina were truly not Franciscos illegitimate child, it would be unnecessary
for him to have gone to such great lengths in order that Monina denounce her
filiation. Moninas evidence hurdles the high standard of proof required for
the success of an action to establish ones illegitimate filiation in relying upon
the provision on open and continuous possession. Hence, Monina proved
her filiation by more than mere preponderance of evidence.

Since the instant case involves paternity and filiation, even if illegitimate,
Monina filed her action well within the period granted her by a positive
provision of law. A denial then of her action on ground of laches would
clearly be inequitable and unjust. Petition was denied.

http://hyperjetsetter.blogspot.com/2011/04/jison-vs-ca.html

2/2