ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
MIGUELA
CAMPOS
ONG,
Surviving Spouse
of MANUEL ONG,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 95386
May
29,
1997
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS,
ALFREDO ONG,
and ROBERT ONG,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
MENDOZA,
J.:cralaw:red
This is a petition for
review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 26, 1990,
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cebu
City,
which declared Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Ong, the illegitimate
children
of Manuel Ong and thus, entitled to support. Also assailed herein is
the
resolution issued on August 16, 1990, denying the motion for
reconsideration
filed by petitioner.
Petitioner Miguela Campos
Ong is the surviving spouse of Manuel Ong. The latter died on May 21,
1990,
while the case was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. On the other
hand, private respondents Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Ong are children
of Saturnina Caballes allegedly by Manuel Ong. They brought this case
to
compel Manuel Ong to recognize them as his illegitimate children and to
give them support.cralaw:red
They presented evidence
showing the following:
On December 20, 1953,
Manuel Ong, representing himself as Alfredo Go, was introduced to
Saturnina
Caballes at the Yarrow Beach Resort, a night club in Talisay, Cebu, by
Constancia Lim and Vicente Sy. In no time, the two had a relationship.
Since October 1954, Manuel started spending the night with Saturnina.
Saturnina
testified that she and Manuel Ong lived together for four months, first
on A. Lopez Street and later in Talamban. In addition, Manuel Ong gave
her money, a sack of rice each month, and other supplies. On June 28,
1955,
Alfredo Ong, Jr. was born in Talamban. He was registered in the Local
Civil
Registry as Alfredo Go, Jr. On August 17, 1956, Robert Ong was born.
Because
the midwife told Saturnina that the child should carry her surname as
she
was not married to Manuel Ong, "alias" Alfredo Go, the child
was,
therefore, registered as Robert Caballes.cralaw:red
Thereafter, the financial
support from Manuel Ong started to dwindle, until seven months later
when
Manuel Ong stopped seeing her. This prompted Saturnina to look for him.
She discovered his identity as Manuel Ong. Saturnina asked Manuel Ong
for
financial support of their children, but he refused her request.cralaw:red
In the latter part of
1961, Saturnina and private respondents again asked Manuel Ong for
monetary
assistance because of financial difficulties. But Ong denied them
assistance.
The records disclose that on December 25, 1976, Alfredo and Robert Ong
visited Manuel Ong in his house on M. J. Cuenco Avenue where they were
entertained and presented to Manuel Ong by Dolores Dy, Manuel's Chinese
common-law wife. Alfredo Ong, Jr. testified that on March 29, 1979, he
was given a China Banking Corp. check for P100.00 by Manuel Ong as his
gift on his graduation from high school. Later, when Alfredo Ong was in
his senior year in college, he saw Manuel in the latter's office and
asked
him for money to defray his educational expenses. Manuel Ong gave him
P100.00
cash and told him to make a list of his school needs. After getting the
list which Alfredo had prepared, Manuel Ong told him to come back.
Alfredo
returned with some friends in September 1982, but Manuel Ong turned
down
his request and ordered him to leave and threatened to call the police
if he did not leave.cralaw:red
On September 30, 1982,
Alfredo filed a complaint for recognition and support against Manuel
Ong.
The complaint was amended on November 25, 1982 to include Robert as
co-plaintiff.
After trial, private respondents were found to be the illegitimate
children
of Manuel Ong in accordance with Art. 283, pars. 2 and 4 of the Civil
Code.
Accordingly, the trial court ordered:
"WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs:
"1. declaring the
plaintiffs
as the illegitimate children of Manuel Ong, begotten by him with
Saturnina
Caballes;
"2. ordering
Manuel
Ong to pay the said plaintiffs the monthly support of P600, effective
from
the date of this decision."
[1]
On appeal, this decision
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
[2] Petitioner
moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied on August 16, 1990
for lack of merit. The appellate court cited Art. 283, par. 3 as an
additional
ground for ordering the recognition of private respondents as
illegitimate
children of Manuel Ong. Hence, this petition.
The pertinent provisions
of Art. 283 of the Civil Code state:
"Art. 283. In any of
the following cases, the father is obliged to recognize the child as
his
natural child:
"xxx
xxx
xxx
"2. When the child
is
in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father by
the direct acts of the latter or his family;
"3. When the child
was
conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed
father;
"4. When the child
has
in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father."
Art. 289 allows the investigation
of paternity of spurious children on the same grounds specified in this
Article and in Art. 284.
The records of the case
bear out the following findings of both the Court of Appeals and the
trial
court:
(1) that Manuel Ong
introduced himself to Saturnina Caballes as Alfredo Go; (2) that
Saturnina
Caballes and Manuel Ong had an illicit relationship from 1954 until
sometime
in March of 1957, during which they had repeated sexual intercourse;
(4)
that during this period, Manuel Ong gave support to Saturnina and
private
respondents; (5) that Dolores Dy, Manuel's common-law wife, treated
private
respondents like close relatives of Manuel Ong by giving them on
November
2, 1979 and January 6, 1977 tokens of affection, such as family
pictures
of Dolores Dy and Manuel Ong,
[3] and by
visiting
them in their house on A. Lopez Street in 1980; (6) that on two
occasions
Manuel Ong gave money to Alfredo, first, as the latter's high school
graduation
gift and second, for the latter's educational support.
The trial court and the
Court of Appeals dismissed Manuel Ong's claim that Alfredo tried to
extort
money from him. They noted that Alfredo had written his name on the
piece
of paper and that if this was a case of extortion, the amount demanded
would have been in round figures and not P4,974.28. On this basis they
concluded that the amount written on the list was the total of the
itemized
expenses which Alfredo Ong, Jr. was asking his father to defray as his
school expenses.
Petitioner questions
the morality and credibility of Saturnina Caballes. She refers to
Saturnina's
admission that before she had relation with Manuel she was cohabiting
with
a paralytic from San Fernando, in order to distinguish this case from
that
of Navarro v. Bacalla
[4] in which
the
compulsory recognition of a natural child was ordered on the basis of
the
testimony of the mother of the child that the putative father had
impregnated
her. Petitioner points out that, in that case, there was also evidence
presented that at no time before and during the child's conception did
the mother have any relation with any other man. Thus:
Specifically, as the
records shows, the paternity of defendant herein was proved by the
testimony
of plaintiff's mother that "he [defendant] impregnated me" and that at
the time, before, and during plaintiff's conception she had no affair
with
any other man aside from the defendant
We agree with appellant
that the foregoing evidence is included in the broad scope of paragraph
4, Article 283, New Civil Code.[5]
To begin with, factual
questions as determined by the trial court, especially rulings on the
credibility
of witnesses, [6]
when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on this Court and are
accorded utmost respect. It is only when it is shown that the trial
court
ignored or overlooked or did not appreciate correctly matters of
substance
which affect the results of the controversy that this Court will depart
from this rule. [7]
In the case at bar, no sufficient reason has been shown for this Court
not to adhere to the general rule.cralaw:red
Inconsistencies there
are in the testimony of Saturnina Caballes, but they are not of such a
nature as to put in doubt the testimony of Saturnina that Manuel Ong
was
the father of private respondents Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Caballes.
The discrepancies concern minor details and, if at all, only show that
Saturnina Caballes was an uncoached witness.
[8] Saturnina
testified that shortly after getting acquainted with each other, she
and
Manuel Ong had relation and in fact lived together at A. Lopez Street
in
Cebu City for four months, and that Manuel Ong gave her support
consisting
of money and the necessities of life, like rice.cralaw:red
Saturnina's testimony
was corroborated by Constancia Lim Monteclaros. Constancia was the
person
who introduced Saturnina to Manuel Ong. Constancia and Vicente Sy,
Manuel
Ong's close friend, lived together in a room in the house of Ong. She
knew
Manuel very well. No reason has been given why she should testify
falsely
against Manuel Ong.cralaw:red
Two circumstances are
mentioned which allegedly make it improbable that Manuel Ong was the
father
of private respondents. The first is that Saturnina Caballes admitted
having
cohabited with another man before meeting Manuel Ong. The records show,
however, that the man, who was a paralytic, was taken by his mother in
1953, before Saturnina started having an affair with Manuel Ong in
1954.
Private respondent Alfredo Ong, Jr. was born on June 28, 1955, more
than
a year after the paralytic had left Saturnina. The other private
respondent,
Robert Caballes, was born on August 17, 1956. Hence, private
respondents
could not have been conceived during the period of cohabitation of
their
mother with the unidentified paralytic.cralaw:red
The other circumstance
mentioned is that Manuel Ong was allegedly sterile. Ong claimed that,
in
addition to petitioner Miguela Campos Ong, he lived with a common-law
wife,
Dolores Dy, and with another woman named Anatolia Veloria but he had no
child with anyone of them. He said that during World war II he got sick
and was treated by a certain Dr. Deiparine who allegedly told him that
as a result of his illness he would not be able to beget any child. Ong
further claimed that he cohabited with Dolores Dy before and during his
marriage with petitioner Miguela Campos Ong. His inability to procreate
is said to be the reason why petitioner and Manuel Ong raised six
children
not related to them by blood.cralaw:red
We think both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed claims that Manuel
Ong
was sterile and, therefore, could not have been the father of private
respondents.
No competent medical testimony was presented to prove this claim. His
testimony
that he had been told by a certain Dr. Deiparine that because of an
illness
he contracted during the war he would no longer be able to procreate is
plain hearsay.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
claim that although he lived with three women [including petitioner] no
one bore him a child is belied by the fact that he acknowledged a
certain
Lourdes Balili as his natural child. The record shows that on May 24,
1948,
the Court of Instance of Cebu rendered a decision which in part stated:
[9]
"This is a case of
acknowledgment of a natural child and support. When this case was
called
for trial today, the parties entered into the following agreement:
"That the
defendant
is agreeable to acknowledge Lourdes Ong as his natural child and the
mother,
Victoria Balili, acknowledges the right of the said defendant to the
custody
of the child.
"Plaintiff Lourdes
Ong,
therefore, is hereby declared acknowledged natural child of Manuel Ong,
with the right to bear the name of natural father, who shall have the
custody
upon her, without prejudice for the mother to see and visit her from
time
to time."
In the complaint for
support filed in that case, it was alleged:
"4. That in the month
of January, 1938, to the day when the last war broke out, the guardian
ad litem, Victoria Balili, and the herein defendant Manuel Ong with
repeated promises by the latter to marry the former, they lived
together
as husband and wife;
"5. That while they
lived as such, the plaintiff Lourdes Ong was begotten or born on March
31, 1939, at the City of Cebu;"
[10]
These allegations contradict
the claim of Manuel Ong
[11] that
during
the war he lived with Victoria Balili [not Victoria Veloria, which is
apparently
a typographical error] but because of his sterility they did not beget
any child.cralaw:red
Petitioner contends
that the decision in that case cannot be presented as evidence of his
virility
because it was based on a compromise agreement relating to the civil
status
of persons, which is prohibited under Art. 2035, par. 1 of the Civil
Code.
This contention is untenable. The evidence was not presented to
establish
in chief a fact but to impeach the credibility of Manuel Ong as a
witness.
Moreover, as is clear from the quoted portion of the judgment, the
parties
did not really enter into a compromise in the sense in which the term
is
used in Art. 2028 as "a contract whereby the parties, by making
reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commenced."
Rather what Manuel Ong did was actually to make a voluntary recognition
of the child pursuant to Art. 278, which provides that recognition
shall
be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before the court of
record, or in any authentic writing. What he agreed to do was to
acknowledge
the child as his, rather than to agree to consider the child to be his
natural child.cralaw:red
Indeed, the evidence
for petitioner does not show that Manuel Ong was sterile and could not
have begotten private respondents or that even if he was so during the
war that he could not have been cured ten years later of that condition
when Alfredo Ong, Jr. was conceived. On the other hand, as this Court
has
ruled [12]
an adult male is presumed to have normal powers of virility and the
burden
of evidence to prove the contrary rests upon him who claims otherwise.
Petitioner has not overcome this presumption.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals
declared private respondents the illegitimate children of Manuel Ong
pursuant
to Article 283, pars. 2, 3 and 4. In regard to the finding that private
respondents had been in the continuous possession of status as children
of Manuel Ong, petitioner cites the ruling in De Jesus v. Syquia,
[13] wherein
it was stated:
The word "continuous"
in subsection 2 of Article 135 of the Civil Code does not mean that the
concession of status shall continue forever, but only that it shall not
be of an intermittent character while it continues.cralaw:red
Petitioner contends
that Manuel Ong's acts of recognition were intermittent and isolated
and
not continuous, as Alfredo Ong, Jr. claims to have encountered his
putative
father only four times, in 1961, on December 25, 1976, March 29, 1979
and
sometime in September 1982, whereas Robert had only two such
encounters,
which were in 1961 and on December 25, 1976.cralaw:red
Petitioner also contends
that the refusal of Manuel Ong to recognize and give support to private
respondents is proof that he never recognized them as his children
because,
as held in Mendoza v. Ibañez:
[14]
"xxx the enjoyment
of the status of a natural child referred to in the said article must
necessarily
be proven by acts showing an express desire on the part of the father,
or of his family, as the case may be, to recognize the claimant as his
natural child, such as the keeping of the child, or by other analogous
acts, of equal weight and efficacy, showing that such relationship
exists
between the child and the alleged father or his family."
With regard to the Court
of Appeals' finding that there was cohabitation between Manuel Ong and
Saturnina, thus justifying the application of par. 3 of Art. 283,
petitioner
points out that the Court of Appeals simply referred to its main
decision
and that of the trial court in holding that there was cohabitation when
the fact is that neither in the appellate court's decision nor in that
of the trial court was it found that there was cohabitation. On the
contrary,
the trial court held that there was no cohabitation because Manuel Ong
and Saturnina Caballes did not openly live together as husband and
wife,
for a period of time, under the same roof, but did so
clandestinely.
[15]
We agree that this case
does not fall under pars. 2 and 3 of Art. 283 of the Civil Code. As
petitioner
well states, the four times during which Manuel Ong met Alfredo and
gave
the latter money cannot be considered proof of continuous possession of
the status of a child. The father's conduct toward his son must be
spontaneous
and uninterrupted for this ground to exist. Here there are no acts
shown
of Manuel Ong treating Alfredo Ong, Jr. as his son except on the four
occasions
during which they met. In the case of Robert Caballes, there is no
proof
at all that Manuel Ong treated him as his son.cralaw:red
Nor can it be said that
there was proof of cohabitation in this case. While Saturnina Caballes
testified that she and Manuel Ong lived together for four months as
husband
and wife in order to justify a finding of cohabitation, the
relationship
was not open and public so as to constitute cohabitation.
[16] While
the
parties are not required to hold themselves out as husband and wife,
neither
must they act clandestinely or secretly, otherwise they will be
considered
to have merely engaged in illicit sexual intercourse.
[17]
Nonetheless, We hold
that the evidence in this case sufficiently makes this case fall under
the last paragraph of Art. 283, i.e., any other evidence showing that
Manuel
Ong was the father of private respondents. In Ilano v. Court of Appeals,
[18] this
Court
held that the phrase "any evidence or proof" in the last paragraph of
Art.
283 operates as a blanket provision covering all cases in the preceding
ones, so that evidence, even though insufficient to constitute proof
under
the other paragraphs, may nonetheless be enough to qualify the case
under
par. 4. In this case, the testimony of Saturnina Caballes that she had
illicit sexual relation with Manuel Ong over a long period (1954-1957)
which, had it been openly done, would have constituted cohabitation
under
par. 3 is proof that private respondents were conceived and born during
such relationship and constitutes evidence of Ong's paternity. This
relationship
was further established through the testimony of Constancia Lim. The
evidence
for private respondents is not negated by the admission of Saturnina
Caballes
that she had relation with another man before, because the relationship
terminated at least a year before the birth of Alfredo Ong, Jr. and two
years before the birth of the second child Robert Caballes.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals, dated January 26 1990, and its resolution,
dated
August 16, 1990, are AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Romero, Puno
and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 43.
[2]
Per Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Oscar M.
Herrera
and Fernando A. Santiago.
[3]
Exhibits L and M.
[4]
15 SCRA 114 [1965].
[5]
Id. at 116.
[6]
People v. Valencia, 214 SCRA 88, 96-97 [1992].
[7]
Ayco v. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328, 333 [1991].
[8]
People v. Puloc, 202 SCRA 179, 190 [1991].
[9]
Exhibits B and B-l, Pre-trial records.
[10]
Exhs. A-1 and A-2.
[11]
TSN, pp. 197-199, September 26, 1985.
[12]
People v. Fontanilla, 23 SCRA 1227, 1245 [1968]; Menciano v. Neri San
Jose,
89 Phil. 63 [1951].
[13]
58 Phil. 866, 870 [1933].
[14]
4 Phil. 666, 668-669 [1905].
[15]
Citing People v. Pitoc, 43 Phil. 758 [1922].
[16]
See People v. Pitoc, 43 Phil. 758 [1922]; Ocampo v. People, 72 Phil.
268
[1941].
[17]
CfMontenegro v. Montenegro, L-8343, June 29, 1957 [unreported].
[18]
230 SCRA 242, 258 [1994]. |