November 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > November 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-16308 November 29, 1961 - FELICISIMA ORIA, ET AL v. BASILIO MARAVILLA, JR. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-16308. November 29, 1961.]
FELICISIMA ORIA, In her behalf and in behalf of her Minor son, GIL MARAVILLA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BASILIO MARAVILLA, JR., Defendant-Appellee.
Epifanio R. Tupas, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
I. Y. Montalbo, Jr., for Defendant-Appellee.
D E C I S I O N
BARRERA, J.:
This is a direct appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in Civil Case No. 5041), dismissing the complaint filed therein, with costs against the plaintiffs.
The records show that Felicisima Oria, for herself and on behalf of her minor Son, Gil Oria, filed a complaint for damages, acknowledgment and support against Basilio Maravilla, Jr., charging the latter of having had carnal knowledge of her for several months starting October, 1957, as a result of which the plaintiff minor was born on September 3, 1958 at Talisay, Negros Occidental; that upon the birth of said child, defendant caused plaintiff Felicisima humiliation, mention shock and shame. Thus, under the first cause of action, she demanded moral damages in the sum P10,000.00. Under the second and third causes of action, the plaintiffs asked for (1) compulsory recognition of the child, who was allegedly conceived while defendant was cohabiting with Felicisima, and in continuous possession of the status of a natural child, and (2) for a monthly support of P50.00, from October, 1958 until he reaches the age of majority.
Such allegations were denied by the defendant in his answer.
After the hearing, during the parties presented documentary as well as testimonial evidence, the court rendered a decision finding the testimonies of plaintiff Felicisima Oria and her witnesses to be intrinsically unbelievable, weak and self-contradictory, while those for the defense convincing, free from any material contradiction and even supported by documentary evidence. The letter, Exhibit "A", for the plaintiffs, purportedly sent by the acknowledgment, on the basis of the testimony of the expert witness, Capt. Jose G. Fernandez. The claim for moral damages was also denied for lack of sufficient evidence that defendant had caused her (Felicisima) any loss or damages contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, the former having convincingly established that he was in Manila during the period when, according to Felicisima, defendant first has sexual relations with her. The lower court then concluded that with such falsity, it would be unsafe to rely further on her testimonies as to the alleged carnal relations between her and defendant on other occasions.
From this decision, plaintiffs instituted the present appeal, claiming that the lower court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I. In not holding that the two sexual intercourse made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria in November, 1957, not being denied by the defendant-appellee, is deemed impliedly admitted by him.
II. In not holding that the witness Luis Montero, for the defendant-appellee, being a close friend of the latter, is biased, therefore, his testimony should not be given any credence, therefore, the sexual intercourse made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant on December 24, 1957, stands proven.
III. In not holding that Exh. "A", the letter sent by the defendant-appellee to plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria, on October 14, 1958, being a part of the res gestae and being an answer to the letter sent by the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria to the defendant-appellee is obliged to recognize the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla as his acknowledged natural child, based on Art. 283, par. 4 of the new Civil Code.
IV. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla, was conceived as a result of the two sexual intercourse in November, 1957, and another an December 24, 1957, made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria.
V. In not holding that, because of the two, sexual intercourse on December 24, 1957, made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff- appellant Felicisima Oria, the latter is entitled to moral damages, based on Art. 21 of the new Civil Code, and as interpreted in the case of Balani v. Change, 54 Off. Gaz., No. 3, p. 687.
VI. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla is entitled to support from the defendant-appellee as a result of the latter’s compulsory recognition of plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla as his acknowledged natural child, based on Art. 291, par. 3 of the new Civil Code.
VII. In not holding that the testimony of the expert witness Jose G. Fernandez for the defendant-appellee should not be believed; because the variations in the handwriting found in the questioned document Exh. "A" on the one hand and the standard handwriting found in Exh. "D", "E" and "X" on the other hand are normal variations in a handwriting; and that there are similarities in the questioned document Exh. "A" on the one hand and the standard document Exhs. "D", "E" and "X" on the other hand.
VIII. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla, is entitled to attorney’s fees from the defendant-appellee for prosecuting this case, because it was proven that he is the acknowledged natural child of the defendant-appellee, and that he is entitled to support from the latter.
It is evident from the foregoing that appellants are actually raising issues of fact. In view of the nature of the case and the amount involved, the determination of these questions properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREAS, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
The records show that Felicisima Oria, for herself and on behalf of her minor Son, Gil Oria, filed a complaint for damages, acknowledgment and support against Basilio Maravilla, Jr., charging the latter of having had carnal knowledge of her for several months starting October, 1957, as a result of which the plaintiff minor was born on September 3, 1958 at Talisay, Negros Occidental; that upon the birth of said child, defendant caused plaintiff Felicisima humiliation, mention shock and shame. Thus, under the first cause of action, she demanded moral damages in the sum P10,000.00. Under the second and third causes of action, the plaintiffs asked for (1) compulsory recognition of the child, who was allegedly conceived while defendant was cohabiting with Felicisima, and in continuous possession of the status of a natural child, and (2) for a monthly support of P50.00, from October, 1958 until he reaches the age of majority.
Such allegations were denied by the defendant in his answer.
After the hearing, during the parties presented documentary as well as testimonial evidence, the court rendered a decision finding the testimonies of plaintiff Felicisima Oria and her witnesses to be intrinsically unbelievable, weak and self-contradictory, while those for the defense convincing, free from any material contradiction and even supported by documentary evidence. The letter, Exhibit "A", for the plaintiffs, purportedly sent by the acknowledgment, on the basis of the testimony of the expert witness, Capt. Jose G. Fernandez. The claim for moral damages was also denied for lack of sufficient evidence that defendant had caused her (Felicisima) any loss or damages contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, the former having convincingly established that he was in Manila during the period when, according to Felicisima, defendant first has sexual relations with her. The lower court then concluded that with such falsity, it would be unsafe to rely further on her testimonies as to the alleged carnal relations between her and defendant on other occasions.
From this decision, plaintiffs instituted the present appeal, claiming that the lower court erred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I. In not holding that the two sexual intercourse made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria in November, 1957, not being denied by the defendant-appellee, is deemed impliedly admitted by him.
II. In not holding that the witness Luis Montero, for the defendant-appellee, being a close friend of the latter, is biased, therefore, his testimony should not be given any credence, therefore, the sexual intercourse made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant on December 24, 1957, stands proven.
III. In not holding that Exh. "A", the letter sent by the defendant-appellee to plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria, on October 14, 1958, being a part of the res gestae and being an answer to the letter sent by the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria to the defendant-appellee is obliged to recognize the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla as his acknowledged natural child, based on Art. 283, par. 4 of the new Civil Code.
IV. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla, was conceived as a result of the two sexual intercourse in November, 1957, and another an December 24, 1957, made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff-appellant Felicisima Oria.
V. In not holding that, because of the two, sexual intercourse on December 24, 1957, made by the defendant-appellee with the plaintiff- appellant Felicisima Oria, the latter is entitled to moral damages, based on Art. 21 of the new Civil Code, and as interpreted in the case of Balani v. Change, 54 Off. Gaz., No. 3, p. 687.
VI. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla is entitled to support from the defendant-appellee as a result of the latter’s compulsory recognition of plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla as his acknowledged natural child, based on Art. 291, par. 3 of the new Civil Code.
VII. In not holding that the testimony of the expert witness Jose G. Fernandez for the defendant-appellee should not be believed; because the variations in the handwriting found in the questioned document Exh. "A" on the one hand and the standard handwriting found in Exh. "D", "E" and "X" on the other hand are normal variations in a handwriting; and that there are similarities in the questioned document Exh. "A" on the one hand and the standard document Exhs. "D", "E" and "X" on the other hand.
VIII. In not holding that the plaintiff-appellant Gil Maravilla, is entitled to attorney’s fees from the defendant-appellee for prosecuting this case, because it was proven that he is the acknowledged natural child of the defendant-appellee, and that he is entitled to support from the latter.
It is evident from the foregoing that appellants are actually raising issues of fact. In view of the nature of the case and the amount involved, the determination of these questions properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREAS, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
