ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135628. January 20, 1999]

GIAN BENEDICK VELUZ vs. DEOGRACIAS "GARY" VELUZ

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 20, 1999.

G.R. No. 135628 (Gian Benedick Veluz represented by his mother and natural guardian Mary Jane Roxas vs. Deogracias "Gary" Veluz.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the regional trial court declaring petitioner as the minor child of private respondent, thus dismissing petitioner's complaint for support.

In an action for support, petitioner alleged that private respondent and petitioner's mother occasionally engaged in illicit sexual relations starting September 1989 and it was during one of these "lovers' trysts" that petitioner's mother Mary Jane requested private respondent to look for an apartment where she could stay, with the monthly rentals being paid by private respondent. In support of his allegations, petitioner presented the following evidence: birth certificate, certificate of baptism, certificate of birth issued by the hospital, all to prove his birth and that private respondent is his father. In addition, pictures taken during the baptism and reception was also presented to show that private respondent attended said affairs and represented himself as petitioner's father.

Private respondent denied petitioner's allegations and countered that petitioner's mother had intimate relationship with other men; that it was physically impossible for him to sire petitioner because he did not have physical contact with petitioner's mother anymore since September of 1990 while petitioner was born in August 1991, the gestation period obviously having begun sometime in October or November of 1990.

The regional trial court decided in favor of petitioner but the decision was reversed on appeal.

Hence, the instant petition which must fail.

A perusal of the facts reveals that the entries in the birth certificate show that the date were given by petitioner's mother Mary Jane on September 16, 1991 and it is further observed that the father's name appeared as Gary Rivera Veluz which was petitioner's nickname instead of his true name which was Deogracias Rivera Veluz. This Court has repeatedly ruled that a certificate of live birth of a party identifying some person as his father is not competent evidence on the issue of the paternity (Fernandez vs. CA, 230 SCRA 136 [1994]). Verily, a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father therein indicated is not competent evidence of paternity (Berciles vs. Systems, 128 SCRA 53 [1993]).

As to the baptismal certificate, we have ruled that while said certificate may be considered as a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the date therein specified but not the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child's paternity (Macandang vs. CA, 100 SCRA 73). In a recent decision of this Court, we held that certificates isued by the local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and that they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same (Jison vs. CA, G.R. No. 124853 [1998]).

Lastly, the Court has ruled that an Order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere 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 (Constantino, et al. vs. Mendez, et al., 209 SCRA 18). The burden of proof was on petitioner to establish his affirmative allegations that private respondent is his father. He failed to discharge this task.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE