Gotardo vs.

Buling
G.R. no. 165166 August 15, 2012
Brion, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner is Charles Gotardo who challenging the CA decision to uphold a ruling that
states that he must provide legal support to his son Gliffze Buling. His motion for
reconsideration was also denied by the CA. In 1995 the respondent Divina Buling
filed with the RTC for compulsory recognition and support from Gotardo their son
Gliffze. Gotardo denied that he is the father. Buling presented a witness and
evidence that they had met in 1992 at work and started dating weeks later. In 1993
they had sexual relations in a place he had rented from Bulings uncle, who also
stood as a witness to their relationship. In 1994 Buling got pregnant and the two
were happy and on their way to secure a marriage license. However their marriage
did not happen and Buling filed with the Municipal Trial Court for damages for
breach of promise to marry which they were able to settle. However when she gave
birth, Gotardo did not show up and failed to give support to their son. Gotardo
ignored her letters demanding support and so Buling filed her complaint. The RTC
granted Bulings motion of 2,000 monthly child support. In 2002 the RTC dismissed
the complaint and asked Buling to return the amount of support given and to pay
10,000 attorneys fees due to her inconsistent testimonies. Buling appealed to the
CA. The CA upheld that Buling made an honest mistake and reversed the RTCs
ruling, and reinstated the 2,000 monthly support. Gotardo argued that the CA made
a mistake and that there is no sufficient evidence that he is the father. Buling states
that she did in fact have an honest mistake when asked about her testimonies and
that there is enough evidence that she and Gotardo had sexual encounters.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC committed error in ordering Gotardo to recognize and provide legal support
to his son.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CA and denied the petition for certioriari for lack of
merit.
In Herrera vs. Alba
-A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations with the father, at
that point, the burden of proof is on the father
-Father can only defend himself against this is if there is proof that 1)he is incapable of sexual
relations due to absence or impotence 2) mother had sexual relations with other men
-In the case at hand, Buling declared that he is the father of her child, and that she had only
sex with one man. Her uncle and landlord of Gotardo testified to their relationship
Petitioner did not deny sexual relations and failed to prove Bulings infidelity. His allegations
lack evidentiary support.
Bulings different testimonies were caused by a misunderstanding but was later corrected
Filiation is then beyond question, parent must be obliged to give support to his son whether
legitimate or illegitimate
-amount must be proportional to his resources and may be adjusted based on the needs of
the child and the capacity of the parent
2000 monthly child support is sustained