G.R.No.172471.November12,2012.

ANTONIOPERLA,petitioner,vs. MIRASOLBARINGand
RANDYPERLA,respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Generally, factual
findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
binding on this Court.Generally,factualfindingsoftrialcourts,
whenaffirmedbytheCA,arebindingonthisCourt.However,this
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.

102

102

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

rule admits of certain exceptions such as when the finding is

groundedentirelyonspeculations,surmisesorconjecturesorwhen
the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts. As
thiscasefallsundertheseexceptions,theCourtisconstrainedtore
examinethefactualfindingsofthelowercourts.
Same; Evidence; Paternity; Filiation; Clear and Convincing
Evidence; Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high
standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation.
An order for support may create an unwholesome situation or may
be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must
be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
convincing evidence.Respondents Complaint for support is based
on Randys alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio. Hence, for
Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established
withsufficientcertainty.AreviewoftheDecisionoftheRTCwould
show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding Randys filiation.
Although the appellate court, for its part, cited the applicable
provision on illegitimate filiation, it merely declared the certified
truecopiesofRandysbirthcertificateandbaptismalcertificateboth
identifyingAntonioasthefatherasgoodproofsofhisfiliationwith
Randy and nothing more. This is despite the fact that the said
documents do not bear Antonios signature. Time and again, this
Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to
establish paternity and filiation. An order for x x x support may
createanunwholesomesituationormaybeanirritanttothefamily
orthelivesofthepartiessothatitmustbeissuedonlyifpaternity
orfiliationisestablishedbyclearandconvincingevidence.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Birth Certificates; A certificate of live
birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent
evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative

father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate.It is

settled that [a] certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putativefatherisnotcompetentevidenceofpaternitywhenthereis
noshowingthattheputativefatherhadahandinthepreparation
of said certificate. We also cannot lend credence to Mirasols claim
that Antonio supplied certain information through Erlinda. Aside
fromAntoniosdenialinhavinganyparticipationinthepreparation
of the document as well as the absence of his signature thereon,
respondentsdidnotpresentErlindatoconfirmthatAntonioindeed
sup
103

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

103

Perla vs. Baring

pliedcertainentriesinRandysbirthcertificate.Besides,theseveral
unexplained discrepancies in Antonios personal circumstances as
reflected in the subject birth certificate are manifestations of
Antonios nonparticipation in its preparation. Most important, it
wasMirasolwhosignedasinformantthereonwhichsheconfirmed
onthewitnessstand.
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.[T]o 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
supposedfathertoconsiderthechildashis,bycontinuousandclear
manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be
attributedtopurecharity.Suchactsmustbeofsuchanaturethat
they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the
apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations
insocietyandinlife,notaccidentally,butcontinuously.Here,the
singleinstancethatAntonioallegedlyhuggedRandyandpromised
to support him cannot be considered as proof of continuous
possession of the status of a child. To emphasize, [t]he fathers
conducttowardshissonmustbespontaneousanduninterruptedfor
this ground to exist. Here, except for that singular occasion in
whichtheymet,therearenootheractsofAntoniotreatingRandy
ashisson.NeithercanAntoniospaternitybededucedfromhowhis
sister Lelita treated Randy. To this Court, Lelitas actuations could
havebeendoneduetocharityorsomeotherreasons.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Baptismal Certificates; Just like in a
birth certificate, the lack of participation of the supposed father in
the preparation of a baptismal certificate renders this document
incom
petent to prove paternity.Anent Randys baptismal
certificate, we cannot agree with the CA that the same is a good
proofofAntoniospaternityofRandy.Justlikeinabirthcertificate,
thelackofparticipationofthesupposedfatherinthepreparationof
a baptismal certificate renders this document incompetent to prove
paternity. And while a baptismal certificate may be considered a
publicdocument,itcanonlyserveasevidenceoftheadministration
of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the

entries
104

104

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

with respect to the childs paternity. Thus, x x x baptismal

certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation
andtheycannotbeadmittedindirectlyascircumstantialevidenceto
provethesame.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Ernesto P. Layusa forpetitioner.
DELCASTILLO,J.:
Anorderforxxxsupportxxxmustbeissuedonlyif
paternityorfiliationisestablishedbyclearandconvincing
evidence.1
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari2isthe
March 31, 2005 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CAG.R.CVNo.79312whichdismissedpetitionerAntonio
Perlas (Antonio) appeal from the February 26, 2003
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo
City,Branch71inCivilCaseNo.963952,orderinghimto
give monthly support to respondent Randy Perla (Randy).
Likewise assailed is the CAs May 5, 2006 Resolution5
denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereto.
_______________
1 Cabatania v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 42, 50; 441 SCRA 96, 102
103(2004).
2Rollo,pp.1026.
3CARollo,pp.9197;pennedbyAssociateJusticeRobertoA.Barrios
and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and
VicenteS.E.Veloso.
4Records,pp.188190;pennedbyPresidingJudgeFelixS.Caballes.
5CARollo,pp.124126.
105

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

105

Perla vs. Baring

Factual Antecedents
RespondentMirasolBaring(Mirasol)andherthenminor
son,Randy(collectivelyrespondents),filedbeforetheRTCa
Complaint6forsupportagainstAntonio.
TheyallegedinsaidComplaintthatMirasolandAntonio
lived together as commonlaw spouses for two years. As a
result of said cohabitation, Randy was born on November
11,1983.However,whenAntoniolandedajobasseaman,
he abandoned them and failed to give any support to his
son. Respondents thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to
supportRandy.

InhisAnswerwithCounterclaim,7Antonio,whoisnow
marriedandhasafamilyofhisown,deniedhavingfathered
Randy.AlthoughheadmittedtohavingknownMirasol,he
averred that she never became his commonlaw wife nor
was she treated as such. And since Mirasol had been
intimidating and pestering him as early as 1992 with
various suits by insisting that Randy is his son, Antonio
sought moral and exemplary damages by way of
counterclaimfromrespondents.
Duringtrial,Mirasoltestifiedthatfrom1981to1983,she
lived in Upper Bicutan, Taguig where Antonio was a
neighbor.8 In the first week of January 1981, Antonio
courted her9 and eventually became her first boyfriend.10
Antonio would then visit her everyday until 1982.11 Upon
clarificatoryquestionbythecourtwhethersheandAntonio
eventually lived together as husband and wife, Mirasol
answeredthattheywerejustsweethearts.12
_______________
6Records,pp.13.
7 Id.,atpp.3538.
8TSN,April7,1999,pp.67.
9Id.,atpp.1011,25.
10Id.,atp.25.
11Id.,atpp.2526.
12Id.,atp.10.
106

106

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

When Mirasol became pregnant in 1983, Antonio

assured her that he would support her.13 Eventually,
however, Antonio started to evade her.14 Mirasol last saw
Antonio in 1983 but could not remember the particular
month.15
On November 11, 1983, Mirasol gave birth to Randy.16
She presented Randys Certificate of Live Birth17 and
Baptismal Certificate18 indicating her and Antonio as
parentsofthechild.MirasoltestifiedthatsheandAntonio
supplied the information in the said certificates.19 Antonio
supplied his name and birthplace after Erlinda Balmori
(Erlinda), the hilot who assisted in Mirasols delivery of
Randy, went to his house to solicit the said information.20
Mirasol also claimed that it was Erlinda who supplied the
dateandplaceofmarriageoftheparentssothatthelatter
can file the birth certificate.21 Mirasol likewise confirmed
that she is the same Mirasol Perla who signed as the
informanttherein.22
Next to take the witness stand was Randy who at that
time was just 15 years old.23 Randy claimed that he knew
Antoniotobethehusbandofhermotherandashisfather.24
Herecountedhavingmethimforthefirsttimein1994in
thehouseofhisAuntLelita,Antoniossister,wherehewas
vacationing.25 During their encounter, Randy called
AntonioPapa

_______________
13Id.,atp.11.
14Id.,atp.26.
15Id.
16Id.,atp.13.
17 Id., at p. 14; See the certified true copy of said birth certificate
whichwasissuedbytheNationalStatisticsOffice,records,
p.122.
18Id.,atpp.1617;id.,atp.123.
19TSN,April21,1999,p.4.
20Id.,atpp.45.
21Id.,atp.5.
22Id.,atpp.45.
23TSN,September8,1999,p.3.
24Id.,atpp.45.
25Id.,atpp.610.
107

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

107

Perla vs. Baring

and kissed his hand while the latter hugged him.26 When
Randy asked him for support, Antonio promised that he
wouldsupporthim.27Randyfurthertestifiedthatduringhis
oneweekstayinhisAuntLelitasplace,thelattertreated
himasmemberofthefamily.28
Forherpart,AuroraDucaytestifiedthatsheknewboth
Mirasol and Antonio as they were neighbors in Upper
Bicutan,Taguig.Presently,Antonioisstillherneighborin
thesaidplace.29Accordingtoher,sheknewofMirasolsand
Antonios relationship because aside from seeing Antonio
frequentingthehouseofMirasol,sheaskedAntonioabout
it.30 She further narrated that the two have a son named
Randy31 and that Antonios mother even tried to get the
childfromMirasol.32
Testifying as an adverse witness for the respondents,
AntonioadmittedhavingsexualintercoursewithMirasolin
February and August33 of 1981.34 When shown with
RandysCertificateofLiveBirthandaskedwhetherhehad
ahandinthepreparationofthesame,Antonioansweredin
thenegative.35
Testifying for himself, Antonio denied having courted
Mirasol on January 5, 1981 because during that time, he
was studying in Iloilo City. He graduated from the Iloilo
Maritime Academy in March of 198136 as shown by his
diploma.37Itwas
_______________
26Id.,atp.8.
27Id.,atpp.89.
28Id.,atpp.1011.
29TSN,October7,1999,pp.34.
30Id.,atpp.45.
31Id.,atp.5.
32Id.,atpp.56.
33TSN,February10,2000,p.13.
34Id.,atp.16.

35Id.,atp.15.
36TSN,August1,2001,p.6.
37Id.,atp.7;records,p.168.
108

108

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

only in May 1981 or after his graduation that he came to

Manila. Further, he denied having any relationship with
Mirasol.38 He claimed that he had sexual intercourse with
Mirasol only once which happened in the month of
SeptemberorOctoberof1981.39
Antoniocametoknowthathewasbeingimputedasthe
father of Randy only when Mirasol charged him with
abandonmentofminorin1994,whichwasalsothefirsttime
hesawRandy.40Priortothat,neitherMirasolnorhersister,
Norma,whomhemetafewtimestoldhimaboutthechild.41
AnentRandysCertificateofLiveBirth,Antoniotestified
astoseveralinaccuraciesintheentriesthereon.According
tohim,hismiddleinitialisEandnotAasappearingin
thesaidcertificateoflivebirth.42Also,heisnotaprotestant
and a laborer as indicated in said certificate.43 Antonio
likewiseallegedthatMirasolonlymadeuptheentrieswith
respecttotheirmarriageonOctober28,1981.44
Daisy Balmori Rodriguez (Daisy), for her part, testified
thatshecametoknowMirasolthroughhermotherErlinda
who was the hilot when Mirasol gave birth to Randy.45
She narrated that her mother asked Mirasol the details to
beenteredinthechildsCertificateofLiveBirthsuchasthe
names of the parents, date and place of marriage, and the
intendednameofthechild.46Hermotheralsotoldherthat
_______________
38Id.,atp.5.
39Id.,atp.6.
40Id.,atpp.2627;Thesaidchargeandthecounterchargesfiledby
Antonio against Mirasol were eventually dismissed by the Provincial
ProsecutionOfficeofRizalonJuly28,1994,records,pp.1920.
41Id.
42Id.,atp.19.
43Id.,atp.20.
44Id.
45TSN,August15,2001,pp.1112.
46Id.,atp.14.
109

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

109

Perla vs. Baring

Mirasolssonhasnoacknowledgedfather.47Daisylikewise
claimed that Mirasol later left to her care the then infant
Randy until Mirasol took him away without permission
whenthechildwasalmostfiveyearsold.48
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision49 dated

February26,2003orderingAntoniotosupportRandy.
The RTC ruled that Mirasol and Randy are entitled to
thereliefsoughtsinceAntoniohimselfadmittedthathehad
sex with Mirasol. It also noted that when the 15year old
Randy testified, he categorically declared Antonio as his
father.TheRTCopinedthatMirasolwouldnothavegone
through the trouble of exposing herself to humiliation,
shame and ridicule of public trial if her allegations were
untrue. Antonios counterclaim was denied due to the
absenceofbadfaithorillmotiveonthepartofMirasoland
Randy.
ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiff Randy Perla and against the defendant [Antonio Perla],
ordering the latter to give a reasonable monthly support of
P5,000.00 to Randy Perla for his sustenance and support to be
giventohimfromthetimeofthefilingofthisComplaint.
DefendantscounterclaimisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.50

Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal51 which was given due

coursebytheRTC.52
_______________
47Id.,atp.37.
48Id.,atpp.1720.
49Records,pp.188190.
50Id.,atp.190.
51Id.,atp.191.
52Id.,unpaginated,followingp.194.
110

110

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision53 of March 31, 2005, the CA upheld
Randys illegitimate filiation based on the certified true
copiesofhisbirthcertificateandofhisbaptismalcertificate
identifyingAntonioashisfather.Accordingtotheappellate
court, while these documents do not bear the signature of
Antonio,theyareproofsthatAntonioistheknown,imputed
and identified father of Randy. The CA also affirmed the
trialcourtsfindingsonthecredibilityofthewitnessesand
its appreciation of facts, as there was nothing to suggest
that the RTC erred in such respects. It highlighted
Antoniosvacillationinhistestimonyregardingthenumber
of times he had sex with Mirasol and concluded that the
sameisaclearbadgeofhislackofcandoragoodreasonto
disregardhisdenials.Thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed
DecisionisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.54

Antonio filed a Motion for Reconsideration55 which was

deniedbytheCAinitsResolution56ofMay5,2006.
Hence,thisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.
Issue
The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is whether
the lower courts correctly ordered Antonio to support
Randy.
Our Ruling
Thereismeritinthepetition.
_______________
53CARollo,pp.124126.
54Id.,atp.96.
55Id.,atpp.98107.
56Id.,atpp.124126.
111

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

111

Perla vs. Baring

A reexamination of the factual
findings of the RTC and the CA is
proper in this case.
Generally,factualfindingsoftrialcourts,whenaffirmed
bytheCA,arebindingonthisCourt.57However,thisrule
admits of certain exceptions such as when the finding is
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures
or when the judgment of the CA is based on
misapprehension of facts.58 As this case falls under these
exceptions, the Court is constrained to reexamine the
factualfindingsofthelowercourts.
Since respondents complaint for support is
anchored on Randys alleged illegitimate filia
tion to Antonio, the lower courts should have
first made a determination of the same.
RespondentsComplaintforsupportisbasedonRandys
allegedillegitimatefiliationtoAntonio.Hence,forRandyto
beentitledforsupport,hisfiliationmustbeestablishedwith
sufficient certainty. A review of the Decision of the RTC
would show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding
Randysfiliation.Althoughtheappellatecourt,foritspart,
cited the applicable provision on illegitimate filiation, it
merely declared the certified true copies of Randys birth
certificate and baptismal certificate both identifying
Antonio as the father as good proofs of his filiation with
Randy and nothing more. This is despite the fact that the
saiddocumentsdonotbearAntoniossignature.Timeand
again,thisCourthasruledthatahighstandardofproofis
requiredtoestab
_______________
57 Navales v. Navales, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA
272,285.
58Dimaranan v. Heirs of Spouses Hermogenes Arayata and Flaviana

Arayata,G.R.No.184193,March29,2010,617SCRA101,113.
112

112

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

lishpaternityandfiliation.Anorderforxxxsupportmay
create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to
thefamilyorthelivesofthepartiessothatitmustbeissued
only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
convincingevidence.59
Respondents failed to establish Randys
illegitimate filiation to Antonio.
The rules for establishing filiation are found in Articles
172and175oftheFamilyCodewhichprovideasfollows:
Article172.Thefiliationoflegitimatechildrenisestablishedby
anyofthefollowing:
(1)Therecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregisterorafinal
judgment;or
(2)Anadmissionoflegitimatefiliationinapublicdocumentor
a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.
Intheabsenceoftheforegoingevidence,thelegitimatefiliation
shallbeprovedby:
(1)The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimatechild;or
(2)AnyothermeansallowedbytheRulesofCourtandspecial
laws.
xxxx
Article 175.Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimatechildren.
xxxx

Respondents presented the Certificate of Live Birth of

Randy identifying Antonio as the father. However, said
certificate has no probative value to establish Randys
filiationto
_______________
59Cabatania v. Court of Appeals,supranote1.
113

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

113

Perla vs. Baring

Antonio since the latter had not signed the same.60 It is
settled that [a] certificate of live birth purportedly
identifyingtheputativefatherisnotcompetentevidenceof
paternitywhenthereisnoshowingthattheputativefather
hadahandinthepreparationofsaidcertificate.61Wealso
cannot lend credence to Mirasols claim that Antonio
supplied certain information through Erlinda. Aside from
Antonios denial in having any participation in the

preparation of the document as well as the absence of his

signature thereon, respondents did not present Erlinda to
confirm that Antonio indeed supplied certain entries in
Randys birth certificate. Besides, the several unexplained
discrepancies in Antonios personal circumstances as
reflectedinthesubjectbirthcertificatearemanifestationsof
Antonios nonparticipation in its preparation. Most
important,itwasMirasolwhosignedasinformantthereon
whichsheconfirmedonthewitnessstand.
Neither does the testimony of Randy establish his
illegitimate filiation. That during their first encounter in
1994 Randy called Antonio Papa and kissed his hand
whileAntoniohuggedhimandpromisedtosupporthim;or
thathisAuntLelitatreatedhimasarelativeandwasgood
to him during his oneweek stay in her place, cannot be
considered as indications of Randys open and continuous
possession of the status of an illegitimate child under the
second paragraph of Article 172(1). [T]o prove open and
continuouspossessionofthestatusofanillegitimatechild,
there must be evidence of the manifestation of the
permanentintentionofthesupposedfathertoconsiderthe
child as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of
parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to
purecharity.Suchactsmustbeofsuchanaturethatthey
reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also the
apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all
relationsinsocietyandinlife,notaccidentally,butcontinu
_______________
60 Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010, 616
SCRA145,153.
61Cabatania v. Court of Appeals,supranote1atp.51;p.103.
114

114

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

ously.62 Here, the single instance that Antonio allegedly

hugged Randy and promised to support him cannot be
consideredasproofofcontinuouspossessionofthestatusof
a child. To emphasize, [t]he fathers conduct towards his
sonmustbespontaneousanduninterruptedforthisground
toexist.63Here,exceptforthatsingularoccasioninwhich
theymet,therearenootheractsofAntoniotreatingRandy
as his son.64 Neither can Antonios paternity be deduced
from how his sister Lelita treated Randy. To this Court,
Lelitas actuations could have been done due to charity or
someotherreasons.
Anent Randys baptismal certificate, we cannot agree
with the CA that the same is a good proof of Antonios
paternityofRandy.Justlikeinabirthcertificate,thelack
ofparticipationofthesupposedfatherinthepreparationof
a baptismal certificate renders this document incompetent
toprovepaternity.65Andwhileabaptismalcertificatemay
be considered a public document, it can only serve as
evidenceoftheadministrationofthesacramentonthedate
specifiedbutnottheveracityoftheentrieswithrespectto

thechildspaternity.Thus,xxxbaptismalcertificatesare
per seinadmissibleinevidenceasproofoffiliationandthey
cannotbeadmittedindirectlyascircumstantialevidenceto
provethesame.66
This Court cannot likewise agree with the RTCs
conclusionthatAntoniofatheredRandymerelyonthebasis
of his admission that he had sexual encounters with
Mirasol. Neither does it agree with the CA that the
inconsistencies in Antonios testimony with regard to the
numberoftimeshehadsexualintercoursewithMirasolare
good reasons to disregard his denials and uphold the
respondentsclaims.Itiswelltostress
_______________
62 Jison v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 138, 172; 286 SCRA 495, 531
(1998).
63 Ong v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 109, 119; 272 SCRA 725, 735
(1997).
64Id.
65Jison v. Court of Appeals,supraatp.176;p.535.
66Cabatania v. Court of Appeals,supranote1atp.51;p.104.
115

VOL.685,NOVEMBER12,2012

115

Perla vs. Baring

that as plaintiff, Mirasol has the burden of proving her
affirmativeallegationthatAntonioisthefatherofherson
Randy.67Shemustrelyonthestrengthofherevidenceand
notontheweaknessofthedefense.68AsRandywasbornon
November11,1983,itwasincumbentuponMirasoltoprove
that she had sexual intercourse with Antonio prior to the
usualperiodofpregnancyorninemonthsbeforethebirthof
Randy.Thiscrucialperiodthereforeisduringtheearlypart
ofthefirstquarterof1983.However,nothingfromMirasols
testimony indicates that she had sexual intercourse with
Antonioduringthattime.Shemerelytestifiedthatshelast
met with Antonio in 1983 but could not remember the
particularmonth.69Plainly,thishardlymeansanythingnot
only because it was not established that the said meeting
took place during that crucial period but also because
Mirasol never mentioned that they had sexual contact
duringtheirmeeting.
Antonios admission of sexual intercourse with Mirasol
does not likewise by any means strengthen respondents
theory that he fathered Randy. When Antonio testified as
an adverse witness for the respondents, he stated that he
had sexual intercourse with Mirasol in February and
August of 1981. Later testifying as witness for his own
behalf, he mentioned that he had a one night affair with
Mirasol which happened in the month of September or
October of 1981. Assuming that he indeed had sexual
contact with Mirasol on the dates mentioned, still, none of
thesesexualcongressescouldhaveledtotheconceptionof
Randywhowasborntwoyearslaterin1983.

_______________
67 Spouses Angeles v. Spouses Tan, 482 Phil. 635, 646; 439 SCRA
409,420(2004).
68Ek Lee Steel Works Corporation v. Manila Castor Oil Corporation,
G.R.No.119033,July9,2008,557SCRA339,352.
69TSN,April7,1999,p.26.
116

116

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Perla vs. Baring

All told, it is clear that respondents failed to establish

Randys illegitimate filiation to Antonio. Hence, the order
forAntoniotosupportRandyhasnobasis.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 31, 2005
andResolutiondatedMay5,2006oftheCourtofAppealsin
CAG.R. CV No. 79312 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and the Decision dated February 26, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71, in Civil Case No.
963952isVACATED.AnewoneisenteredDISMISSING
the Complaint for Support filed by Mirasol Baring and
RandyPerlaagainstAntonioPerla.
SOORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez andPerlasBernabe,
JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and
set aside.
Notes.Afatherwhoacknowledgespater
nityofachild
through a written instrument must affix his signature
thereonisclearlyimpliedinArticle176oftheFamilyCode.
(Dela Cruz vs. Gracia,594SCRA648[2009])
A birth certificate, being a public document, serves as
prima facie evidence of filiation, and the making of a false
statementthereinconstitutesdishonestyandfalsificationof
a public document. (Anonymous vs. Curamen, 621 SCRA
212[2010])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.