Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > December 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 9362 December 24, 1915 - TOMASA DALISTAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO ARMAS

032 Phil 648:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9362. December 24, 1915. ]

TOMASA DALISTAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EMILIANO ARMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Perez for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. BREACH OF MARRIAGE PROMISE; ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION. — Damages for breach of marriage promise based upon the consideration of illicit sexual intercourse cannot be recovered for the reason that the consideration is illegal.

2. NATURAL CHILDREN; RECOGNITION OF BY FATHER. — The father of natural children took them to the church himself and had them baptized, stating to the church authorities that they were his legitimate children. It was established that at all times before abandoning them he treated the children as his own and maintained them. Held: That these facts show that the children enjoyed the uninterrupted status of natural children and entitled them to a decree of recognition in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


This appeal brings up a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan condemning the defendant and appellant to recognize and support the two infant daughters of the plaintiff.

It is urged that the trial court erred (1) in admitting evidence for the purpose of showing the relations which existed between the plaintiff, Tomasa Dalistan, and the defendant prior to the birth of the two children; (2) in ad- mitting Exhibits A and B; (3) in finding that the defendant had recognized Agustina and Ildefonsa as his natural children; and (4) in fixing the monthly allowance to be paid for the maintenance of the two children.

This action was not only instituted for the purpose of compelling the defendant to recognize and maintain the two children, but also for damages for the alleged breach of a contract of marriage. It was claimed by the plaintiff that she maintained for a number of years illicit relations with the defendant because the latter had on numerous occasions promised to marry her. The trial court properly held that the plaintiff could not recover damages for the breach of this contract for the reason that it was based upon an illicit consideration; and all the testimony upon that point may be properly excluded in the consideration of the questions presented to us by this appeal.

Exhibits A and B are the baptismal certificates of the two children taken from the church records. According to these certificates, the two little girls are the legitimate children of the plaintiff and defendant. When each of these children was baptised, they were taken to the church by the defendant himself and it was he who stated to the church authorities that they were his legitimate children by the plaintiff. The two certificates were presented as corroborative evidence to show the conduct of the defendant toward the two little girls. It was conclusively established that the defendant, upon various occasions and at all times before he abandoned the plaintiffs, treated the two girls as his children and maintained them, took them with him about the town, led people to believe that they were his children, and they were so considered not only by the people who knew them, but also by his own family. These facts are amply sufficient to show that the children enjoyed the uninterrupted status of natural children and entitles them to recognition in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 135 of the Civil Code. Under all the circumstances of this case, we agree with the trial court that a pension of P15 per month for each of the children is not excessive.

The judgment appealed from being correct, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I agree to the result in this case but not with the statement in the opinion that "the trial court properly held that the plaintiff could not recover damages for the breach of the contract for the reason that it was based upon an illicit consideration," or with the headnote which states that "damages for breach of marriage promise based upon the consideration of illicit sexual intercourse cannot be recovered for the reason that the consideration is illegal," as applicable to the present action.

The action is one for damages for breach of a contract to marry as well as for the recognition of natural children, and evidence of sexual relations between the parties always admissible as one of the elements aggravating the damage where it appears that such relations were induced by the promise to marry. The holding of the court on that question destroyed one of the well recognized elements of damages in actions for breach of contract to marry.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9911 December 2, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. GAUDENCIO SAÑIEL

    033 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 10211 December 3, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 10550 December 3, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JUANA DE LOS SANTOS

    032 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10860 December 3, 1915 - CONSOLACION ZAIDE, ET AL. v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    032 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 10819 December 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CLARO

    032 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 8791 December 6, 1915 - GABRIEL JUSON, ET AL. v. ANA PONCE IGNACIO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 10031 December 6, 1915 - LA CORPORACION DE PADRES AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. PEDRO CRISOSTOMO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 10587 December 6, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO BUISER, ET AL.

    032 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 10639 December 6, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA DES PABILADERAS, ET AL.

    032 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9278 December 7, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BARREDO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 10956 December 7, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO REODIQUE

    032 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 11137 December 7, 1915 - B. MONTAGUE v. P. B. ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY

    032 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 8418 December 9, 1915 - L. O. HIBBERD v. WM. J. ROHDE, ET AL.

    032 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 11077 December 9, 1915 - YAP TIAN UN (SUN) v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 11122 December 9, 1917

    DU ENG HOA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 10154 December 10, 1915 - MANUEL GUAZO v. ANA M. RAMIREZ

    032 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 8745 December 11, 1915 - ANTONIO MESTRES v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO.

    032 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 10710 December 11, 1915 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 11138 December 15, 1915 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    032 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 10781 December 17, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    032 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 8154 December 20, 1915 - JOAQUIN DE VILLATA v. J. S. STANLEY

    032 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 8171 December 20, 1915 - L. O. HIBBERD v. HEADWATERS MINING CO.

    032 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 10883 December 20, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. INOCENTE BILLEDO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10572 December 21, 1915 - FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL, ET AL. v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    032 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 10630 December 21, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    032 Phil 619

  • G.R. Nos. 9986 & 9891 December 22, 1915 - UY TIOCO v. YANG SHU WEN, ET AL.

    032 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 9336 December 23, 1915 - TRANQUILINA ALCALA, ET AL. v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 10418 December 23, 1915 - VICENTE LOPEZ v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    032 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 8243 December 24, 1915 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF BINALONAN

    032 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 9113 December 24, 1915 - BENITO LOPEZ v. TOMAS VALDEZ

    032 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 9362 December 24, 1915 - TOMASA DALISTAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO ARMAS

    032 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 9851 December 24, 1915 - JOSE RUIZ v. FELIPA LACSAMANA

    032 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 9865 December 24, 1915 - VERGO D. TUFEXIS v. FRANCISCO OLAGUERA,

    032 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 10050 December 24, 1915 - CIRILO B. SANTOS v. CECILIO RIVERA

    033 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10056 December 24, 1915 - SONG FO & CO. v. MANUEL ORIA

    033 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 10073 December 24, 1915 - BUTARO YAMADA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    033 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 10329 December 24, 1915 - ARISTON ESTRADA v. CIRILA T. REYES

    033 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 10351 December 24, 1915 - FRANK CERF v. LUCAS MEDEL

    033 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 10372 December 24, 1915 - DOMINGO LAO v. HEIRS OF LORENZA ALBURO

    033 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 10498 December 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SY LIONGCO

    033 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 10599 December 24, 1915 - VICENTA JALBUENA v. SALVADOR LIZARRAGA

    033 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 10629 December 24, 1915 - JOSE M. DE AMUZATEGUI v. JOHN T. MACLEOD

    033 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10809 December 24, 1915 - MARIANO VALMILERO v. KONG CHANG SENG

    033 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 10824 December 24, 1915 - E. MICHAEL & CO. v. ADRIANO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 10968 December 24, 1915 - YU CHIN PIAO v. ADELINA LIM TUACO

    033 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 11092 December 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE GASPAY

    033 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 11092 December 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE GASPAY

    033 Phil 96