PEDIGREE

MENDOZA v. CA FACTS: - Respondent Teopista Tuacao alleged that she was the daughter of the deceased Mendoza and that the latter during his lifetime recognized her as his own illegitimate daughter. - She filed a case for compulsory recognition against Mendoza and the latter denied that she was his illegitimate daughter and set up a counter claim against respondent. - She claimed that it was her mother who told her that her father was Mendoza and that during her life, Mendoza thru several individuals would provide for her needs by sending money, and that he gave her husband a jeep to drive and that respondent sold the jeep and gave the proceeds to them, also, petitioner allowed her son to build sa house in his lot, he even opened a joint savings account with her as a codepositor. (in short she declared that she had been openly and continuously enjoying the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child. - Also, the deceased's cousin, Gaudencio Mendoza and the deceased's nephew Isaac Mendoza testified for respondent. - Gaudencio testified that he acted as a go-between between petitioner and respondent's mother which resulted in the latter's becoming pregnant with respondent. - Isaac on the other hand, testified that he was informed by his father (Mendoza's brother) and his grandmother that respondent was the daughter of petitioner. - Trial court: ruled that respondent was not a recognized illegitimate heir of the petitioner. it rejected the petitioner's claim saying that the circumstances did not warrant a finding that respondent enjoyed the open and continuous status as an acknowledged illegitimate child. - CA: Reversed and declared that respondent as the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner. ISSUE: WON respondent was able to prove that she enjoyed the continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child. HELD: NO. RATIO: 1. Respondent did not live with petitioner 2. Respondent did not use the surname of the petitioner

relatives regarding the respondent's lineage could be admissible as evidence. HELD: YES. - declarations testified to by Isaac made by relatives of petitioner is admissible. RATIO:

1.

Such acts or declarations made by Isaac (it was found that it was only he who made declarations regarding pedigree) may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is the best the nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from its admission. The following requirements in order to consider such declarations outside of the hearsay rule were complied with:

2.

a.

the declarant is dead or is unable to testify during Isaac's testimony, the persons from whom he heard the declarations i.e. Hipolito Mendoza - petitioner's brother and Brigidapetitioner's mother were already dead. the declaration must be in issue - the declarations were the very issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition. the declarant must be the relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue the declaration must be made before the controversy arose - the declarations were made before the complaint was filed the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree in question must be shown by evidence other than such declaration - such evidence of relationship between declarants and respondent was proved through the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza, in which the respondent was named as one of his heirs.

b. c. d. e.

3. 4.

The declarations were never refuted. Also, the circumstances point to the fact that respondent was indeed petitioner's illegitimate daughter because the latter enjoyed a continuous status of a recognized illegitimate child. JISON v. CA

- Complaint for Recognition as an Illegitimate Child FACTS: Kids, Persons case to! Remember Maam Beth?

1.
2.

3.

the act of giving money to the respondent by the petitioner was not continuous but was "on" and "off".

However, she was able to prove her lineage through another method: through the declarations made by the brother and mother of respondent. ("any other means allowed by the ROC and special laws" - CC or "evidence or proof made in his favor" - FC) ISSUE: WON the declarations made by the deceased's
1

Monina Jison alleges that Francisco Jison, married to Lilia Lopez Jison, impregnated1 Esperanza Pansay Amolar, the nanny of Franciscos daughter, Lourdes. As a result, she was born. She claims that since childhood, she had enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of Francisco by his acts and that of his family. To prove her claim, she presented the following: a. 11 witnesses, herself included; eto ung material for the court: (i) Lope Amolar younger brother of Pansay; former houseboy of F; when he confronted F abt Pansay, F told him, dont get hurt and dont cause any trouble, because I am willing to support your Inday Pansay and my child.

At about the end of 1945 or the start of 1946

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

Adela Casabuena yaya who replaced Pansay; she claims that about a month after Pansay gave birth to Monina, Pansay returned to Nelly Garden to ask F for support. Fs wife and Pansay quarreled in the living rm w Pansay claiming F to be the father of her baby. Wife replied: I did not tell you to make that baby so it is your fault. During the quarrel, F was supposedly inside the house listening. Arsenio Duatin Fs former houseboy at Fs Bacolod residence; he was informed by the bookkeeper of Nelly Garden that Monina, Fs daughter, would arrive at Bacolod w/ a letter of intro from Lagarto; Monina stayed in the Bacolod house but when F and wife would arrive, he would conceal the presence of Monina because Mrs F did not like to see her face. He hid her once at the house of Fs sister; another time at the house of Fs cousin. He revealed that although F&M only saw each other at the Bacolod haus only once, F and M communicated through long distance; M addressed F as Daddy during the lone mtg & were affectionate to each other. F allegedly bade him to treat M like Fs other daughters. Zafiro Ledesma banker & former mayor of Iloilo; based on the family trees of the Jison & Lopez fams, he said that the former VP Fernando Lopez was the 1st cuzn of Fs wife and then told the court that the VPs fam treated M very well because she is considered a relative xxx by reputation, by actual perception; Showed photographs of M w the VPs fam & other mems of the Lopez fam; he further testified that some other relatives of Fs wife helped M w her school needs Danthea Lopez her husband was the 1st cuz of F; 1st came to know M when Remedios Lopez Franco (1st cuz on Fs wife) recommended M for employment at Merchant Financing Co, w/c she managed at that time; Remedios introduced M as being reputedly the daughter of Mr. Frank Jison; While M worked at Merchant Financing, Danthea knew that M lived with Remedios; however, in the latter part of 1966, as Remedios left for Manila and M was still studying at San Agustin University, Danthea and her husband invited M to live with them. During Ms 6month stay with them, she was not charged for board and lodging and was treated as a relative, not a mere employee. Romeo Bilbao former procurement officer, hacienda overseer and, hacienda administrator at Nelly Garden; Romeo saw and heard M ask her Daddy for the money he promised to give her, but F answered that he did not have the money to give, then told MONINA to go see Mr. Jose Cruz in Bacolod. One time, F told Romeo to pick up Mr. Cruz at the Iloilo pier and bring him to the office of Atty. Benjamin Tirol. At said office, Atty. Tirol, Mr. Cruz and M entered a room while Romeo waited outside. When they came out, Atty. Tirol had papers for M to sign, but she refused. Atty. Tirol said that a

3.

4.

check would be released to M if she signed the papers, so M acceded, although Atty. Tirol intended not to give M a copy of the document she signed. Thereafter, Mr. Cruz gave M a check, then M grabbed a copy of the document she signed and ran outside. (vii) Rudy Tingson former employee of Fs wife; also worked for F at Nelly Garden recording hacienda expenses, typing vouchers & ofc papers; as part of his job, he gave M her allowance from F 4 times, upon instructions of Mr Lagarto, but the money given were not reflected in the bks of the ofc but were kept in a separate bk so Fs wife & children wouldnt know abt it; M would go to Nelly G when Fs wife was not around; M would call F Daddy w/o objection from F and he heard F ask M Kumusta ka hija?; saw F give M money 3x; Fs ofc paid the funeral expenses of Ms mom. (viii) Dominador Savariz declared that sometime in Feb 66, Fs relative, Remedios, pointed to M as the daughter of F (ix) Alfredo Baylosis - Fs former employee at Nelly G as bookkeeper then ofc mgr; knew M because she used to go to Nelly G to claim her monthly allowance upon Fs standing order; said Ms filiation was pretty well-known in the ofc; allowance ceased when M started working w Miller, Cruz & Co, Fs accountant-auditor; when he asked how she came to work there, she answered that her daddy recommended her, a fact confirmed by Mr Atienza, the mgr. b. Documentary Evid (i) Certif by Local Civil Reg concerning her birth F as father (ii) Baptismal Cert F as father (iii) School Records F as guardian (iv) Various Notes & Letters written by Fs relatives allegedly attesting to Ms filiation procured by M when she was preparing to travel abroad. 1. Exhs S & T Letters of Introduction from Mike Alano (son of Fs elder sis) and an uncle Emilio Jison (Fs elder bro), addressed to another cousin, Beth Jison (Emilios daughter) for Beth to assist M; contained therein was a statement expressly recognizing M as Fs daughter 2. Exh U Recommendation Letter from Mrs Mariquit Lopez for possible employment w Mrs Rosario Lopez Cooper, 2nd cousin of F where Mrs Lopez expressly recognized M as Fs daughter 3. Exh V Letter of Introduction from former Vice President Fernando Lopez addressed to then United States Consul She further alleged that Francisco gave her support and spent for her education, such that she obtained a Masters degree, became a CPA and eventually, a Central Bank examiner. Unfortunately, Francisco refuses to EXPRESSLY recognize her. =(

a.

Fs lawyer, Atty Tirol, made M sign an affidavit that she wasnt Fs daughter as a condition for

5.

Mr Cruz to turn over the money promised by Fshe initially refused she eventually signed because she was made to understand that the affidavit was only for the consumption of Fs wife and because she was then jobless and needed the money In view of this, Monina brought suit, praying for a. a judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and b. that daddy F support and treat her as such.

those which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of a familys reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.

ISSUE: WON the various notes and letters written by Francisco Jisons relatives Mike Alano, Emilio Jison, Mariquit Lopez & Fernando Lopezallegedly attesting to Ms filiation are admissible. HELD: NO. RATIO: TOPIC!

Conclusion: Plainly then, Exhibits S to V, as private documents not constituting "family possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 40. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common reputation, it having been observed that: The weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in community, that is a material element of evidence going to establish pedigree.

While their due execution and authenticity are not in issue, as M witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless, under Rule 130, Section 39, the CONTENTS of these documents may not be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the declarants and MONINA shown by evidence other than the documents in question.

Thus, matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage, which may be proved by common reputation in the community.

As to the admissibility; Rule 130, Section 40, provides: Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. -- The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (underscoring supplied)

Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, Exhibits S to V, inclusive, may, in like manner as MONINA's school records, properly be admitted as part of her testimony to strengthen her claim that, indeed, relatives of FRANCISCO recognized her as his daughter.

Re the SUBSTANTIVE PART: the applicable law and the guiding principles in paternity suits. Applicable Law: Family Code

It is evident that this provision may be divided into two (2) parts: Part I: the portion containing the first underscored clause which pertains to testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness stand; and Part II: the section containing the second underscored phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether Exhibits S to V, as private documents, fall within the scope of the clause and the like as qualified by the preceding phrase [e]ntries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rights [and] family portraits. We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or

Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate filiation, such as M's, 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, thus:

ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

those articles which represent, in effect, a familys joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the family, or

For the success of an action to establish illegitimate filiation under the second paragraph, which M relies upon given that she has none of the evidence mentioned in the first paragraph, a high standard of proof is required.

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.

preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person.

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.

Simply put, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, e.g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void;

continuous = uninterrupted and consistent, but does not require any particular length of time. standard of proof required; foundation; principle: an order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. Consider the general rules on evidence, in light of the burden of proof in civil cases, i.e., preponderance of evidence, and the shifting of the burden of evidence in such cases.

the mere certificate by the registrar without the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latters part. Baptismal Cert & School Records

In like manner, Fs lack of participation in the preparation of the baptismal certificates and school records renders these documents incompetent to prove paternity, the former being competent merely to prove the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified. However, despite the inadmissibility of the school records per se to prove paternity, they may be admitted as part of Ms testimony to corroborate her claim that FRANCISCO spent for her education.

He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants. preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.

PRESENT CASE: sorry, deleted the part where Crt discussed the circumstances surrounding her conception The totality of the evidence on record, supports Ms claim that she is Fs illegitimate child and was recognized as Fs child through overt acts and conduct of F and that such recognition has been consistently shown and manifested throughout the years publicly, spontaneously, continuously and in an uninterrupted manner. But Crt ruled against the probative value of the ff docu evid saying that they are per se inadmissible in evid as proof of filiation; thus, cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove filiation: Certification issued by Local Civil Registrar It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the